Enbridge Inc T.ENB

NASA and climate change

[Quintessential1]

Here argue with NASA.  Maybe you can explain basic science to them.  https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

[NPCexe]

so in total NASA has 3 measly references, one of which is the IPCC (which is clearly biased). Where are all the studies that are supposed to be cited with each claim? "Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by 47% since the Industrial Revolution began." Where did they get that from? Wheres the study? If you weren't so lazy you would actually try to think for yourself and

[Quintessential1]

Thousands of studies and you, (not being lazy) decided to post none of them?   Anyone like the IPCC that you disagree with is clearly biased? Apparently you are lazy and biased.  I'll stick with NASA and the rest of the scientific world.

[masfortuna]

Sorry mate but you just changed the discussion. I didn't give you any studies. I gave you a basic science fact.  If you actually read my post I SAID that Co2 in the atmosphere acts as a green house gas.  I also said that Co2 caused by the WATER CYCLE accounts for 85% of Co2 in the atmosphere.  This is basic science that you learn at a highschool (or used to anyways) science

[Quintessential1]

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet. The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon

[masfortuna]

Quinty you are confusing climate change deniers ( which I am not) with basic science simply because you don't understand the jist of what I said.  Not a big deal but REREAD my points... Mas

[Quintessential1]

What I read is that you don't believe humans are causing climate change and they are and CO2 emmitted by human activity is the largest contributing factor.

[masfortuna]

What you should have read is that the highest contributor to Co2 in the atmospere is water evaporation which accounts for 85% of the "ambient" CO2. Combined with the remaining Natural factors, green house gases account for about 97%.  These are the facts. The remaining 3% MAY be caused by environmental issues of which a portion is directly linked to man.  Those are the facts

[Quintessential1]

You have a reading comprehension problem.  These are the facts:  In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our

[masfortuna]

Well if you are going to insult me then let me point out to you taht I didn't say that global warming wasn't due to Co2 levels.  It's people like you who can't understand concepts that create confusion. They are right. Co2 causes green house effects.  Except that the vast amount of Co2 (85%) in the atmospere is there NATURALLY and caused by water evaporation...They think

[Quintessential1]

All I said was that you have a problem reading things and then comprehending them.  It's the added CO2 levels contributed to by man that are the problem as stated here: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 414 parts per million in the last 150

[masfortuna]

LOL And so now you change your position? Really? That's NOT what you said.  You disputed with me the fact that CO2 in our atmospere is mainly caused by water evaporation. It takes a man to actually admit when they are wrong.  On ignore you go. Mas

[Quintessential1]

Thank God.  Idiot!

[leo101]

and just how does evaporating water produce C02?  evaporating water can be considered a greenhouse gas but it's H20 not C02.

[HarleyM1]

This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy

[masfortuna]

H2O is not CO2.  Correct.  Read my post.  It's not the water (H20), it's what it does.

[DuaneParnham]

This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy

[masfortuna]

And the "rest of the scientific world" also known as "MY PEERS" also agrees with the fact that 85% of Co2 in the atmosphere originates from the water cycle.  Learn how to read. Mas

[Quintessential1]

I didn't reply to you.   Learn how to read THAT.

[masfortuna]

Everybody makes mistakes Quinty.  It's ok. If you scroll downward, you would see that you replied that NASA explains that the rise in CO2 is directly caused by humans (in a nutshell).  I didn't dispute that. We are causing an increases in the Co2 gas present in the atmpshere  BUT the vast majority of the green house gases that exist in the atmosphere are ambient. AND THAT

[Quintessential1]

NASA states that not just Co2 rise but climate change itself is being caused by humans.

[ol_griz]

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.  From your own article: While water vapor may be the most dominant greenhouse gas by mass and volume, it certainly is not the primary culprit responsible for global warming. Rather it is part of an amplifying effect. As other greenhouse gases such as CO2, warm the atmosphere, the air is able to hold more water vapor. The water vapor

[masfortuna]

Correct Grizz. You will always have co2 in the atmospere. That "balance" of 85% has changed over the natural history of the planet causing global warming or cooling.  And that's my point.  The planet will cool and warm regardless of what we do. Our actions seem to accelerate the process (which I don't dispute) but at what level is debatable.  The biggest threat to

[Quintessential1]

Does it?  this exaclty what I said:   Human activities have increased CO2 output, and responsible human activities can reduce its production. Unlike water vapor that returns to Earth as precipitation within one week of entering the atmosphere, CO2 stays in the atmosphere between 50-200 years. Therefore, the best way to control global warming is to reduce CO2 emissions.

[NPCexe]

when they pass this carbon tax, just know it's people like you that contributed to the downfall of enbridge and all fossil fuel industries. Do a little more research buddy, our future depends on it

[shasta]

"Unlike water vapor that returns to Earth as precipitation within one week of entering the atmosphere, CO2 stays in the atmosphere between 50-200 years." Not true. If you are going to compare with the water cycle you should know that "individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere." Estimates put the amount of water in the

[masfortuna]

Ok thx Shasta. The point was that water vapour DOES affect climate change.  Except some poster retorted that water isn't H2O and so he said it didn't and then accused me of not being able to read and then called me an idiot. I posted from his OWN source (Nasa) that actually states that water vapour DOES affect climate change in a big way. Anyhow it's all good. I don't mind

[ol_griz]

The question is not whether we need to move away from carbon-based energy but rather how fast and by what measures.  Debating policy is not the same thing as debating the science.

[masfortuna]

The problem Griz is that people are not aware of the science and then they want to debate policy.  If you contradict what they believe they will accuse you of being an idiot. The science is clear.  I stated facts. The policy should be debated by the science behind it and not from opinions of opinions.  The same environmentalists claim that 97% of scientists believe in global warming

[Quintessential1]

These scientific facts from this NASA site? https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed

[mlcb2525]

Al Gore ? Isn't he the guy that invented the internet ?

[Tupulak]

The bottom line is there are too many people on Earth.  More people = more resources required  I read that if we stop using oil and gas for fertilizers and pesticides used in farming the Earth can only support 4.5 billion people.  But I still think it mostly a cash grab by the Progressives.   

[NPCexe]

That you even asked what the IPCC said that is biased shows how you haven't even looked at the survey. Did you see what questions they asked? I'm not here to spoon feed you information, just pointing out that you're satisfied with 3 references. Have you seen what an actual scientific study looks like? Tell you what, it doesnt have 3 references

[Quintessential1]

I didn't ask what the IPCC said.  You can't read any better than your buddy Mas.  I atleast posted references.  You don't trust NASA or the IPCC?  Enough said.

[NPCexe]

thank you for admitting that you didn't even bother to read the IPCC study. I'm not here to prove my points, we are here to show how you're wrong (I didn't pompously share any links with 3 measely citations). Keep watching Al Gore's inconvenient truth, who prophecized using "real science models", that we will be underwater by 2013 because all ice caps would melt. And

[masfortuna]

NP are you talking about me?  Confused...

[NPCexe]

no no, hahah. The other fine gentleman.

[Quintessential1]

Don't put words in my mouth.  I didn't say I hadn't read the study.  I'm not wrong CO2 emmissions by burning fossil fuels is what is driving climate change.  I also never said Enbridge is the big problem here.  Neither you or your buddy MAS can read and you have both said that I have said things that I haven't.  Back up your accusations by posting my

[NPCexe]

In case you're wondering what a real study looks like (peer reviewed with more than 3 lame references), here you go: I can't post the PDF but you can google it and download: CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate Dana L. Royer, Department of Geosciences and Institutes of the Environment, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA This is just to get you

[Quintessential1]

The only thing lame around here is you.  Can't post a link?  The science is settled.  If you don't believe NASA. move on.

[NPCexe]

I literally gave you the title of the study. If you can't google, that's fine, I'll do all the work for you. Here you go https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236004375_CO2_as_a_primary_driver_of_Phanerozoic_climate

[Quintessential1]

The studty you linked to was published in 2003 has been refuted numerous times and is not accepted by the greater scientific community 17 years later. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/#:~:text=LONDON%20%E2%80%93%20Changes%20in%20solar%20activity,according%20to%20two%20British%20scientists.

[NPCexe]

Where was it refuted? Did you read the article? Your link doesn't relate to nor refute my cited study. My study just shows how high levels of CO2 relate to global temperatures. What the hell does your NON-scholarly article relate to what I'm talking about? Next time, make sure you link an actual study, not an article about what someone tells you to think about a study. If you can't

[Quintessential1]

LOL    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001/meta

[NPCexe]

What do cosmic ray studies have to do with what I just showed you? It is clear you don't read the articles because you either can't read or won't read. Either way, check mate

[Quintessential1]

Checkmate?  Dude you're playing checkers.