Welcome, Guest

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. •  
     CommentAuthorbenevolentspaceman
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2008

    

   Posted By: DeanKproblem is we dont know how accurate it is and yet it is one of the drivers for changes. ( ie Kyoto).

   
   
   It's not the driver of changes. Kyoto was implemented because of the higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is more of an exact science.
   
   If you are trying to reduce what you are putting in, even if the actual measuring is not that accurate, as long as you utilize the same methodolgy you can track changes...

   Thankful People: StBPegger
2. • CommentAuthorDeanK
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2008

    
   Kyoto is based exactly on the reduction of Greenhouse gas production to level X.... if we are not measuring properly.. then.. or now.... how does it work? AND things change in the way fuel is being burned yet the changes are not taken into account to calculate the actual amount of greenhouse gas produced.
3. •  
     CommentAuthorbenevolentspaceman
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2008

    

   Posted By: DeanKKyoto is based exactly on the reduction of Greenhouse gas production to level X.... if we are not measuring properly.. then.. or now.... how does it work? AND things change in the way fuel is being burned yet the changes are not taken into account to calculate the actual amount of greenhouse gas produced.

   
   
   The changes would very much be taken into account.
   
   It works this way. There is a volume of 10 in the sky 10 years ago. There is a volume of 11 the next. There is a volume of 12 after that. They get all these points.
   
   Now we want reductions. They take industrial emmissions which they would know within probably 0.1 % accuracy. They use household energy use which they would know within 0.1% accuracy. For automobiles, they know the number of cars on the road (registered in the province), they know the age, they know the model. Using these numbers they calculate a value based on efficiency. Yes this does not take into account tourist traffic etc....but that would barely budge the number compared to actual daily traffic. I suspect they have an error in this measurement of 2-3%. Now as long as they do the same thing everytime they do a calculation they will probably have a measurement with an accuracy of +-5% which would be more than good enough.

   Thankful People: zander
4. •  
     CommentAuthorJimmytufish
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2008

    
   Naw. This is really how it works.
   
   They go up to (address kept confidential) and knock on the door. They ask "What's the number?"
   
   A voice replies "Who's ask'n?"
   
   They reply "A cucumber".
   
   The voice then gives them the number.
   
   The voice is the Wizard.
   
   Then the Wizard says" If anyone ask where you get the numbers, tell them the following:
   "It works this way. There is a volume of 10 in the sky 10 years ago. There is a volume of 11 the next. There is a volume of 12 after that. They get all these points.
   
   Now we want reductions. They take industrial emmissions which they would know within probably 0.1 % accuracy. They use household energy use which they would know within 0.1% accuracy. For automobiles, they know the number of cars on the road (registered in the province), they know the age, they know the model. Using these numbers they calculate a value based on efficiency. Yes this does not take into account tourist traffic etc....but that would barely budge the number compared to actual daily traffic. I suspect they have an error in this measurement of 2-3%. Now as long as they do the same thing everytime they do a calculation they will probably have a measurement with an accuracy of +-5% which would be more than good enough. "
5. • CommentAuthorrosencrentz
   • CommentTimeJul 20th 2008 edited

    
   This just in- Liberal Adscamers are now running environmental awareness companies!
   
   The world is saved! "Premiers seize climate-change initiative-Globe and Mail headline page A4, July 19/08- we can breathe a sigh of relief, everything is under control!
   
   This just in, if all of Canada do not use any carbon next year the change in the world will amount to ZERO!
   Globe and mail, July 2/08, page B2, report by Neil Reynolds- Yale University economist , William Nordhaus reports- slow down , we have time. Dr. Nordhaus takes global warming seriously! "In his highly sophisticated computer analysis of global warming strategies, he includes the option of doing nothing at all for 250 years- and found that delivered the same result (measured in global emissions of carbon dioxide one century hence).
   
   There we have a concensus of one , who has done a sophisticated computer analysis! Whew, I feel better already.
   
   This is great stuff- "the complexity of global warming rules out absolute certainty of any kind, whether academic or ideological. WHATEVER GOAL WE SET WILL PROBABLY BE INCORECT'
   
   That is the perfect reason for all governments to get behing whatever dribble they can "concensus to", as it is bound to fail, but cost a friggin fortune!
   Divert billions, which are being spent on concensus finding fact finding reports, that are bound to fail.
   
   Don't you just love it??