View Poll Results: What is your opinion on global warming?

Voters
171. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's happening and we're to blame

    86 50.29%
  • It's happening but it's not man made

    20 11.70%
  • It's not even happening, except according to the cycles of nature

    48 28.07%
  • Undecided / No opinion

    17 9.94%
Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 81415161718
Results 1,701 to 1,761 of 1761

Thread: Still Believe in Global Warming?

  1. #1701
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,874

    Default

    ^ The Kyoto protocol was a farce because it targeted Canada as one of the main players in the Global warming issue, rather then China, India etc whom were left untouched.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  2. #1702
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    Canada's per capita (per person) GHG emissions are still over two times higher than those of China, and the per capita gap with India several times larger than that.

    There is no point in debating the pros and cons of the Kyoto Protocol. It has been superseded by the Paris Climate Agreement to which China and India are parties.

  3. #1703
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,594

    Default

    You also have to take in to account cumulative emissions, not just current emissions, when discussing who should be responsible for what in terms of future emissions cuts. China still ends up near the top of the chart, but that makes perfect sense considering they've had over a billion people for most of the 20th century. Their per capita cumulative emissions are tiny compared to most developed countries. The fact is that the developed world got rich largely by emitting huge amounts of emissions, and it would not be fair to cut that path off from developing nations without some sort of assistance to account for the developed world's historical emissions.

    See here: https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graph...op-10-emitters

    The graph below expands the time period from 1850 to 2011, during which data only on CO2 emissions are continuously available. In this case, the five major emitters—the United States, European Union, China, Russian Federation, and Japan— together contributed two-thirds of the world’s historic CO2 emissions - using up around 37 percent of our global carbon budget.


    And that's just in absolute terms, not per capita.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 20-11-2017 at 10:05 AM.

  4. #1704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    It's tough to take it seriously when you know a single city in China spews out more pollution than all of Canada and there are hundreds of such cities in China, India, and elsewhere. Even if we in Canada were to reduce our pollution to zero we would still be barking up a dead dogs arse.

    And we are all great at the talk but what we seem to be doing is just slowing, and never actually reducing or reversing our emissions.

    Anecdotally, the house of the past had one lightbulb in the ceiling of most rooms and today it’s a multi light fixture or multiple pot lights, etc. So switching to LEDs probably only takes us part way back to the household emissions of the 1950s, 60s. More square footage, more appliances etc, even with efficiency improvements may only slow the trend towards ever higher household emissions. (Same across the whole waste and pollution, resource depletion front.)

    Now if I think of how most of our grandparents and parents (older ones anyways) lived and at Edmonton’s or Alberta’s total emissions, I would guess that today we are many multiples higher than say in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. Yet since the 80s we’ve had a broad and growing concern that we could be making a huge mistake in staying on the same path.

    Therefore, even today it’s all just “talk”. Moreover, the rest of the world wants to live like we do and as can be seen in China, is working hard to consume like we do. Then there’s the desire by many people to leave the low consumption / low emission lifestyles behind and come to North America, etc to adopt the high emission lifestyle.

    I think the bottom line is that here, we might just forget about pandering to the cause because we simply aren’t going to significantly achieve anything at all for the effort and cost. It is just simply one step forward with two steps backward in actually, as they say: “saving the planet”. So maybe it’s best for us to move on and make differences were we have any form of meaningful control (say local environmental improvement, preservation of local habitat, parks expansion, wildlife corridors, etc)
    Last edited by KC; 20-11-2017 at 10:08 AM.

  5. #1705
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    It's tough to take it seriously when you know a single city in China spews out more pollution than all of Canada and there are hundreds of such cities in China, India, and elsewhere. Even if we in Canada were to reduce our pollution to zero we would still be barking up a dead dogs arse.
    Of course we don't have a big impact in the overall picture. We're 0.5% of the world's population. Yet we put out something like 2% of the total emissions. On a per capita basis, we're putting out 2-3 times the world average. Why are we entitled to pollute far and above what most other people do?

  6. #1706
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Well... our cold northern climate and sparsely populated land plays a role.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  7. #1707

    Default

    Ahh, the guilt trip argument. It makes sense but... have fairness and entitlement issues ever really mattered in the world before? I don’t think so. So for the fun of it let me try another spin:

    Over many centuries, while North America remained in a sense ‘environmentally pristine’, many of the world’s other societies, regions and nation states have been far more populous and have been using far more resources, causing far more environmental damage, more habitat loss, likely more extinctions, etc. than did the North American indigenous population. So the now westernized nations have been playing a degree of catchup to the rest of the world. (Roads, agriculture, mining, forestry, etc) that all caused and cause higher emissions and other environmental degradation had first to be duplicated in North America. China, Europe etc had long had their roads, their wood and stone cities, their vast cleared agricultural lands, and they had long and continuously burned large qualities of resources, likely far exceeding the infrastructure base requirement in North America. A centuries lead over North America.

    Moreover North America has been taking population in from the rest of the world. Thus...????(some impact, less consumption there or higher her, or speeding wealth and tech transfer and subsequent climb in emissions there...)

    Yours truly - not,

    Devils advocate
    Last edited by KC; 20-11-2017 at 12:29 PM.

  8. #1708
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    You also have to take in to account cumulative emissions, not just current emissions, when discussing who should be responsible for what in terms of future emissions cuts. China still ends up near the top of the chart, but that makes perfect sense considering they've had over a billion people for most of the 20th century. Their per capita cumulative emissions are tiny compared to most developed countries. The fact is that the developed world got rich largely by emitting huge amounts of emissions, and it would not be fair to cut that path off from developing nations without some sort of assistance to account for the developed world's historical emissions.
    I think that is a reasonable argument to justify technology transfer to poorer countries (sharing the wealth generated by past emissions) to make it easier them to bypass more polluting phases of industrial development, but I don't think there is any reasonable argument for setting looser limits for some countries just because of lower historical emissions.

  9. #1709

    Default Joe Oliver: Ranting about climate isn’t good government policy, and isn’t convincing anyone

    Bang on... you can only cry wolf for so long, before people realize it simply isn't worth the sacrifice:

    In the face of apocalyptic messages from government, media and the self-declared cognoscenti, a September Ontario Science Centre poll found that 47 per cent of Canadians think the science of global warming is unclear, up from 40 per cent last year. In America, while people feel climate change is a problem, most believe they will not be personally affected and, in any event, they are not prepared to pay to mitigate it. Nor would 61 per cent of Germans voluntarily fork over one euro cent to fund renewables. In the U.K., the Ipsos MORI poll shows a steadily declining concern about climate change since 2005, from 82 to 60 per cent. Meanwhile, global emissions are projected to increase two per cent this year. While governments may be talking the talk, they are not walking the walk. That may partially explain a contradiction at the heart of the warmist community,

    ...

    It’s also mostly unmentionable but true that greenhouse gas emission increases are very positive for agriculture and plant life. The bottom line is we simply do not know everything about climatology. Therefore, we should be modest about projections and highly cautious about inflicting multi-trillion-dollar costs on the global economy, which would harm billions of people, especially the poorest.

    And even if the extravagant climate claims were true, we should still evaluate the specific policies designed to deal with the crisis. After all, with the stakes so high, there is a compelling need to get it right. But decision-makers are often determined to push ahead with costly initiatives, even if their impact on global temperature is predictably minuscule (see: the carbon tax and cap and trade). According to the International Energy Agency, Canada may forego up to $600 billion in capital investments by 2040, a terrible loss to employment and growth. Pain without gain is indefensible, even for a great cause.

    The global-warming faith community needs to stop shouting from its echo chamber and absorb some uncomfortable facts. Maybe then more people will listen and buy into the need for sacrifice. Or, against all odds, the believers might adopt an approach that better reflects the needs of Canadians and the economic and scientific knowns and unknowns. Unfortunately, we are probably condemned to a dialogue of the deaf, until we definitively confront environmental tragedy. Or don’t.
    http://business.financialpost.com/op...vincing-anyone

  10. #1710
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,874

    Default

    Ice cor data tells a different story:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...iny-to-matter/
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  11. #1711

    Default

    CANADA
    Was starving polar bear 'face of climate change' - or clever PR?

    Polar bear video: Is it really the 'face of climate change'? - BBC News

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42322346

  12. #1712
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,874

    Default

    The starving polar bear was a PR stunt, that's already well known.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  13. #1713

    Default

    ^there is no real science behind the global warming alarmists, the only way they can try to influence is through lies or comparing anyone who disagrees with them to a holocaust denier.

  14. #1714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    The starving polar bear was a PR stunt, that's already well known.
    Yeah that’s what the article says

  15. #1715
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,874

    Default

    ^ But it was common knowledge before this article.

    ^^ Global warming is real. We don't need science to tell us that the planet is warming. Global warming is tied into the amount of people on this planet imo, which is not sustainable.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  16. #1716
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    evaneo - Life expectancy way up. Poverty way down. Food per capita and protein per capita way up. Education way up. Starvation way down. Child mortality way down. Even pollution (real pollution - not CO2) way,way,way down in the USA. sources UNESCO, World Food Bank, EPA. https://ourworldindata.org/

  17. #1717
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,874

    Default

    ^ Thanks for the link. In the meantime the world population is growing. We have finite resources. Too many people competing for the same piece of the pie. Its a recipe for disaster= Global Warming.

    With all due respect, this isn't rocket science.
    Last edited by envaneo; 15-12-2017 at 12:59 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  18. #1718
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    I'm not sure what resources you're talking about but pretty well anything can be recycled and various nuclear technologies can supply virtually unlimited power in the future. Canada alone keeps millions of acres in fallow and could swamp export markets with grain production.
    I just showed you that the pie is getting larger - not smaller as predicted from Malthuus in 1803, Ehrlich, Toffler etc. None of this has come true on the catastrophe side. I was told (unanimously supported by various climate scientists and activists alike) there would be 1 million climate refugees by 2000.
    Carbon dioxide is the basic building block of all life and 95% of your dry weight came from that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And contrary to what that article in Science on ice cores states, plants do not transpire CO2, they take in CO2 spit out the oxygen and reserve the carbon for their own body which is where about 98% of dry plant mass comes from..

  19. #1719
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,874

    Default

    I'm not suggesting that we're all going to do die by the end of the year. How many people can planet earth support? So that's where I'm coming from as far as Global Warming goes. I'm not disputing anything your saying. I'm not suggesting that we're at a Malthus point just yet but by 2100 planet earth will be at ~ 10 Billion people. The average global co2 emissions per person/year is ~ 5 metric tons/year. The average North American emits ~ 15 metric tons. Or world wide humanity gives off ~ 32 Billion tons of co2/year, never mind animals. Yes we all know about carbon sinks but by the way we're growing population wise, the planets temperature will be increasing exponentially. By 2100 the planet's temperature will have increased by over 2 degrees. The peak population rate for our planet is ~10 Billion people. So what's the answer? Do we manufacture a disease like aids or something worse with the antidote when we get down to about 5 Billion people? Or how about we all become vegetarians (uggh)? Imo, education is the key. Why does every woman feel the need to have a baby? And I'm not saying this in the context of being sexist. Yet the birth rate depending on who you talk to is 19 births/1000 people. The death rate is 8/1000 people. That's not sustainable but i think you get the idea. So since you gave me a link, I'll give one for you:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGcE3ZWBjfo

    We could trade links all day but I do have a life outside of c2e. I'm sure much of what we've said has been recycled elsewhere at c2e. I'll give the last word, over to you.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  20. #1720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krokwalk View Post
    I'm not sure what resources you're talking about but pretty well anything can be recycled and various nuclear technologies can supply virtually unlimited power in the future. Canada alone keeps millions of acres in fallow and could swamp export markets with grain production.
    I just showed you that the pie is getting larger - not smaller as predicted from Malthuus in 1803, Ehrlich, Toffler etc. None of this has come true on the catastrophe side. I was told (unanimously supported by various climate scientists and activists alike) there would be 1 million climate refugees by 2000.
    Carbon dioxide is the basic building block of all life and 95% of your dry weight came from that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And contrary to what that article in Science on ice cores states, plants do not transpire CO2, they take in CO2 spit out the oxygen and reserve the carbon for their own body which is where about 98% of dry plant mass comes from..
    Then why is CO2 rising. Not enough plants or because we harvest too many plants? Other cause?

    Also rising populations don’t demand greater protection of natural habitat but instead demand reductions to areas protected. (Need for jobs, need for timber, need for grazing space, need for resource development, need for roads, need for urban expansion...)

  21. #1721
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    KC - The oceans out gas CO2 as the world warms so CO2 levels go up and the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age. Relying on ice cores for some kind of wisdom on previous CO2 levels is complete rot as much higher resolution data from stomata show present levels of CO2 were essentially the norm in past Ice cores show that CO2 follows warming - not the other way.

    If you believe that adding an IR radiant gas to the air will cause global warming when the only way the earth can cool is through IR radiation then you're welcome to your beliefs.

    I tend to believe that Nitrogen(N2) and Oxygen(O2) (which make up 97% of the atmosphere) tend to hold on to energy because of their weak ability to radiate it away.

  22. #1722

    Default

    How does the ocean absorb carbon dioxide? | Socratic

    https://socratic.org/questions/how-d...carbon-dioxide



    Ocean Absorption of Carbon Dioxide More than Makes Up for Methane Emissions from Seafloor Methane Seeps

    https://www.usgs.gov/news/ocean-abso...-methane-seeps




    Scientists study ocean absorption of human carbon pollution | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian
    Excerpt:
    “...But for many years scientists have known that not all of the carbon dioxide we emit ends up in the atmosphere. About 40% actually gets absorbed in the ocean waters.

    I like to use an analogy from everyday experience: the ocean is a little like a soda. When we shake soda, it fizzes. That fizz is the carbon dioxide coming out of the liquid (that is why sodas are called “carbonated beverages”). We’re doing the reverse process in the climate. Our carbon dioxide is actually going into the oceans. ...”



    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...rbon-pollution
    Last edited by KC; 28-12-2017 at 06:13 PM.

  23. #1723
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Henry's law indicates that CO2 will increase in the atmosphere by about 18 parts per million for each degree increase in the temperature. The increasing partial pressure of CO2 (beyond the 18 parts) starts reversing the process until this equilibrium is achieved with both outgassing and partial pressure intake. The problem is that there are many sources of CO2 with anthropogenic being one of the larger ones. Forest fires (Which have actually dropped dramatically), volcanoes of certain types. They are just starting to see some very large seeps in ocean floors. Methane also is a large source as it eventually breaks down into energy and CO2 through atmospheric and radiation interaction. Ocean oil seeps also work this way and we don't know how much of this is happening.The reason I mentioned outgassing is that we have seen an almost linear rise in CO2 since the Little Ice Age while anthropogenic contributions have risen logarithmically and contributions at the start of this cycle were negligible from anthropogenic sources ie outgassing or some other source started it and we continued it.

  24. #1724
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Not sure about the insects produce more CO2 than all human activity but it gives an idea of how I view the greenhouse theory - Science not dogma created by yes men and people who don't know diddly. https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/05...-reductionism/

  25. #1725

    Default

    Is this thread dead? Does everybody know climate change is a hoax now? Skeptics unite! We need to educate Albertans on the science of global warming.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 17-01-2018 at 04:54 PM. Reason: Breaks forum rules

  26. #1726
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,594

    Default

    Continue to shove your head deeper and deeper in to the sand?

  27. #1727
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Is this thread dead? Does everybody know climate change is a hoax now? The IPCC is coming to town in February with their lies. What can we do?
    Not read anymore BS. Especially from Marcel LOL.

  28. #1728
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Continue to shove your head deeper and deeper in to the sand?
    Marcel, I'm kind of a fence sitter on this issue but on a day like today is our local weather just the jet stream below us or is this another aspect of global warming? Your chart above is also telling but how much is Canada's export of oil to the US contributing to those numbers?

    To answer your question about the IPCC coming to Edmonton, for one thing: Don't contribute to Greenpeace Canada. You won't get a tax receipt, thanks to Jean Chrétien About the only thing he did right.

    Of course Mike Hudema doesn't like that kind of talk. He might give you a receipt for your donation but you can't claim it on your taxes.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/gr...tatus-1.170262
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  29. #1729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Continue to shove your head deeper and deeper in to the sand?
    CO2 physics.
    ""Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed."

    1 degree per doubling of CO2. Undisputed. Why is everybody lying?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

  30. #1730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Continue to shove your head deeper and deeper in to the sand?
    Marcel, I'm kind of a fence sitter on this issue but on a day like today is our local weather just the jet stream below us or is this another aspect of global warming? Your chart above is also telling but how much is Canada's export of oil to the US contributing to those numbers?

    To answer your question about the IPCC coming to Edmonton, for one thing: Don't contribute to Greenpeace Canada. You won't get a tax receipt, thanks to Jean Chrétien About the only thing he did right.

    Of course Mike Hudema doesn't like that kind of talk. He might give you a receipt for your donation but you can't claim it on your taxes.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/gr...tatus-1.170262
    Interested in the truth enveneo? Global warming is wildly exaggerated. CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas that accounts for<5% of the heat budget. Climate models multiply it's effectiveness by quadruple. Since when is a software simulation any kind of "scientific proof"?

  31. #1731
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,594

    Default

    Again, weather is not climate: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/n...e_weather.html

    I'm no fan of Hudema and his shenanigans, trust me. Nor Greenpeace really, which to me isn't far off from being an extremist organization.

  32. #1732

    Default

    Guys, we need a thread going to educate Edmontonians/Albertans on the farce of "climate change". I'm new here so I just want to have some discussions before focusing on the educational aspect. I'd also like to meet up over coffee with people who know the truth. It's clear to me climate change is a farce, and the tide is turning. I think there needs to be more representation in Edmonton. I don't see much.

  33. #1733
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,874

    Default

    Thanks for the link but most of us get that.

    As for Hudema as our local Greenpeace poster boy, people need to be made aware of the charitable tax status of Greenpeace Canada. Sure some donors are not motivated to make a donation just to get a tax receipt. Nothing wrong with that. And there are others that will only donate IF they get a tax receipt. Prior to 2012 I've been involved in fundraising since the early 1990's. I know what I'm talking about. But if people think "Oh, I'll get a tax receipt for income tax purposes if I donate $ to Greenpeace Canada," no you wont. Its an old link but I'm an old guy.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  34. #1734
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    99% of These Sea Turtles Are Turning Female—Here’s Why

    Since the sex of a sea turtle is determined by the heat of sand incubating their eggs, scientists had suspected they might see slightly more females. Climate change, after all, has driven air and sea temperatures higher, which, in these creatures, favors female offspring. But instead, they found female sea turtles from the Pacific Ocean's largest and most important green sea turtle rookery now outnumber males by at least 116 to 1.

  35. #1735
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year on record, closely behind the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016.

    Since detailed temperature records began to be collected in 1880, the land and ocean temperature record show the ten warmest years of the past 137 years to be as follows: 2016, 2015, 2017, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005, 2009, 1998, and 2012.

    Details here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...trendyear=2017

  36. #1736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year on record, closely behind the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016.

    Since detailed temperature records began to be collected in 1880, the land and ocean temperature record show the ten warmest years of the past 137 years to be as follows: 2016, 2015, 2017, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005, 2009, 1998, and 2012.

    Details here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...trendyear=2017
    Gotta love the old fake science "warmest/rainiest/hurricanist/droughtest on record" argument.

    It's the "HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD", the "GLACIERS ARE MELTING".

    And when the glaciers melt, they uncover forests that used to grow there.

    How much more deceptive than that can you get?

    Does the NOAA link you supplied explain why there are forests under glaciers when THIS IS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD??
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  37. #1737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    99% of These Sea Turtles Are Turning Female—Here’s Why

    Since the sex of a sea turtle is determined by the heat of sand incubating their eggs, scientists had suspected they might see slightly more females. Climate change, after all, has driven air and sea temperatures higher, which, in these creatures, favors female offspring. But instead, they found female sea turtles from the Pacific Ocean's largest and most important green sea turtle rookery now outnumber males by at least 116 to 1.
    Comic book climate science. Sea turtles been around for 200 million years. Now they're all gonna die because the ocean temperature went up 0.1 degree.
    ALBERTA, DON'T LET CRAP LIKE THIS GO WITHOUT A CHALLENGE ANYMORE. IT'S NONSENSE.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  38. #1738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year on record, closely behind the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016.

    Since detailed temperature records began to be collected in 1880, the land and ocean temperature record show the ten warmest years of the past 137 years to be as follows: 2016, 2015, 2017, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005, 2009, 1998, and 2012.

    Details here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...trendyear=2017
    Gotta love the old fake science "warmest/rainiest/hurricanist/droughtest on record" argument.

    It's the "HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD", the "GLACIERS ARE MELTING".

    And when the glaciers melt, they uncover forests that used to grow there.

    How much more deceptive than that can you get?

    Does the NOAA link you supplied explain why there are forests under glaciers when THIS IS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD??
    When plates move, forests move.

  39. #1739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year on record, closely behind the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016.

    Since detailed temperature records began to be collected in 1880, the land and ocean temperature record show the ten warmest years of the past 137 years to be as follows: 2016, 2015, 2017, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005, 2009, 1998, and 2012.

    Details here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...trendyear=2017
    Gotta love the old fake science "warmest/rainiest/hurricanist/droughtest on record" argument.

    It's the "HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD", the "GLACIERS ARE MELTING".

    And when the glaciers melt, they uncover forests that used to grow there.

    How much more deceptive than that can you get?

    Does the NOAA link you supplied explain why there are forests under glaciers when THIS IS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD??
    When plates move, forests move.
    Forests dated 8,000 years ago? 5,000 years ago? 1,000 years ago?
    That's gotta be the world speed record for a tectonic plate.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  40. #1740
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year on record, closely behind the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016.

    Since detailed temperature records began to be collected in 1880, the land and ocean temperature record show the ten warmest years of the past 137 years to be as follows: 2016, 2015, 2017, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005, 2009, 1998, and 2012.

    Details here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...trendyear=2017
    Gotta love the old fake science "warmest/rainiest/hurricanist/droughtest on record" argument.

    It's the "HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD", the "GLACIERS ARE MELTING".

    And when the glaciers melt, they uncover forests that used to grow there.

    How much more deceptive than that can you get?

    Does the NOAA link you supplied explain why there are forests under glaciers when THIS IS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD??
    Take off your tin foil hat for a moment and read what was actually posted. 2017 was the third warmest year of the 137 years since 1880. 2016 was the warmest and 2015 the second warmest. 17 of the 18 warmest years on record have been in the twentieth first century with the other year being 1998 when there was a particularly strong El Nino. You may choose to disregard these facts or or wish them away, but the evidence of a warming world is unassailable.

  41. #1741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year on record, closely behind the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016.

    Since detailed temperature records began to be collected in 1880, the land and ocean temperature record show the ten warmest years of the past 137 years to be as follows: 2016, 2015, 2017, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005, 2009, 1998, and 2012.

    Details here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...trendyear=2017
    Gotta love the old fake science "warmest/rainiest/hurricanist/droughtest on record" argument.

    It's the "HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD", the "GLACIERS ARE MELTING".

    And when the glaciers melt, they uncover forests that used to grow there.

    How much more deceptive than that can you get?

    Does the NOAA link you supplied explain why there are forests under glaciers when THIS IS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD??
    Take off your tin foil hat for a moment and read what was actually posted. 2017 was the third warmest year of the 137 years since 1880. 2016 was the warmest and 2015 the second warmest. 17 of the 18 warmest years on record have been in the twentieth first century with the other year being 1998 when there was a particularly strong El Nino. You may choose to disregard these facts or or wish them away, but the evidence of a warming world is unassailable.
    Just so I'm not misunderstanding you............
    You're acknowledging it's been as warm in the past for hundreds of years (forests don't grow overnight) without elevated CO2?
    You're saying the "record" is only about 130 years, so they're excluding past warm periods when discussing global warming?
    And lastly, how did you know about my tinfoil hat?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  42. #1742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year on record, closely behind the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016.

    Since detailed temperature records began to be collected in 1880, the land and ocean temperature record show the ten warmest years of the past 137 years to be as follows: 2016, 2015, 2017, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005, 2009, 1998, and 2012.

    Details here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...trendyear=2017
    Gotta love the old fake science "warmest/rainiest/hurricanist/droughtest on record" argument.

    It's the "HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD", the "GLACIERS ARE MELTING".

    And when the glaciers melt, they uncover forests that used to grow there.

    How much more deceptive than that can you get?

    Does the NOAA link you supplied explain why there are forests under glaciers when THIS IS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD??
    When plates move, forests move.
    Forests dated 8,000 years ago? 5,000 years ago? 1,000 years ago?
    That's gotta be the world speed record for a tectonic plate.
    The lush fossilized forests disappeared long ago. The North still has a lot of forest but it also has vast expanses of minimal vegetation. Ever drive the top of the world highway? Retreating cold will allow forests to move northward but it can’t happen fast.

    And what’s below the glaciers? Of any retreating glaciers I’ve seen there isn’t much left behind but moraine.
    Last edited by KC; 20-01-2018 at 08:00 AM.

  43. #1743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    99% of These Sea Turtles Are Turning Female—Here’s Why

    Since the sex of a sea turtle is determined by the heat of sand incubating their eggs, scientists had suspected they might see slightly more females. Climate change, after all, has driven air and sea temperatures higher, which, in these creatures, favors female offspring. But instead, they found female sea turtles from the Pacific Ocean's largest and most important green sea turtle rookery now outnumber males by at least 116 to 1.
    Comic book climate science. Sea turtles been around for 200 million years. Now they're all gonna die because the ocean temperature went up 0.1 degree.
    ALBERTA, DON'T LET CRAP LIKE THIS GO WITHOUT A CHALLENGE ANYMORE. IT'S NONSENSE.
    For millions of years diversity was spread far and wide. Today a lot of it has been pushed into much smaller and so much more vulnerable ecosystems.

    Seen any vast herds of bison migrating to more hospitable lands lately?
    Last edited by KC; 20-01-2018 at 08:07 AM.

  44. #1744
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    ^^^Read what I actually wrote in my previous posts, which focused on the actual global temperature record since 1880, instead of posing questions about things I didn't write about and about which there is less scientific certainty.

    BTW, why are you selectively quoting the climate sensitivity statement in your signature line, thereby misleading people? The entire paragraph reads as follows:

    CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback";[14] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat...to_doubled_CO2

  45. #1745

    Default

    [QUOTE=East McCauley;868033]^^^Read what I actually wrote in my previous posts, which focused on the actual global temperature record since 1880, instead of posing questions about things I didn't write about and about which there is less scientific certainty.

    Your claim is that the global temperature rose? So what? The earth's temperature rises and falls. It's been doing that since the earth formed. You didn't even mention CO2. Or feedbacks. You think if the earth warms it's automatically proven that CO2 did it? My, my, you have a lot to learn.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  46. #1746

    Default

    Methane is another that’s concerning:


    Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
    In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are:

    Water vapor (H2O)
    Carbon dioxide (CO2)
    Methane (CH4)
    Nitrous oxide (N2O)
    Ozone (O3)
    Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
    Hydrofluorocarbons (incl. HCFCs and HFCs)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


  47. #1747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^^Read what I actually wrote in my previous posts, which focused on the actual global temperature record since 1880, instead of posing questions about things I didn't write about and about which there is less scientific certainty.

    BTW, why are you selectively quoting the climate sensitivity statement in your signature line, thereby misleading people? The entire paragraph reads as follows:

    CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback";[14] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat...to_doubled_CO2
    Feedbacks are unknown values. This Wiki page speaks of the feedbacks as if their values are a known entity. They are not. That is why some people, including me, often refer to "climate change" as a hoax. It is a hoax when you claim to know something you don't.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  48. #1748
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,874

    Default

    Lots of things can cause the earth to rise in temperature, ocean floor volcanic activity to heat the oceans etc. Even the orbit of our planet, which is not a steady circle around the Sun. Our planet wobbles in a orbit to various degrees.

    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161...es-and-wobbles

    Even solar winds have an impact on our planets climate, just to name a few.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  49. #1749
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    ^^There is a big difference between saying feedbacks are subject to more uncertainty (which the Wiki page acknowledges), and claiming they are unknown (which is false).

    For instance, the ice-albedo feedback. Sea ice reflects solar radiation whereas sea not covered by ice absorbs solar radiation. A reduction in the extent and thickness of sea ice (as is currently taking place) will cause warming.

  50. #1750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^There is a big difference between saying feedbacks are subject to more uncertainty (which the Wiki page acknowledges), and claiming they are unknown (which is false).

    For instance, the ice-albedo feedback. Sea ice reflects solar radiation whereas sea not covered by ice absorbs solar radiation. A reduction in the extent and thickness of sea ice (as is currently taking place) will cause warming.


    "Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds."
    "Uncertainty in the sign" means the feedback value of clouds is so uncertain, they don't even know if it's positive or negative. Not sure you can get any more "uncertain" than that.
    Cloud Feedback in IPCC Report
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_feedback
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  51. #1751
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    99% of These Sea Turtles Are Turning Female—Here’s Why

    Since the sex of a sea turtle is determined by the heat of sand incubating their eggs, scientists had suspected they might see slightly more females. Climate change, after all, has driven air and sea temperatures higher, which, in these creatures, favors female offspring. But instead, they found female sea turtles from the Pacific Ocean's largest and most important green sea turtle rookery now outnumber males by at least 116 to 1.
    Comic book climate science. Sea turtles been around for 200 million years. Now they're all gonna die because the ocean temperature went up 0.1 degree.
    ALBERTA, DON'T LET CRAP LIKE THIS GO WITHOUT A CHALLENGE ANYMORE. IT'S NONSENSE.
    Except species are going extinct because of it. You can choose to keep burying your head in the sand though. I mean, even the article you responded shows how dangerous temperature fluctuations are.

    7 Species Hit Hard by Climate Change—Including One That's
    Already Extinct



    This isn't just random speculation
    Extinction risk from climate change

  52. #1752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    99% of These Sea Turtles Are Turning Female—Here’s Why

    Since the sex of a sea turtle is determined by the heat of sand incubating their eggs, scientists had suspected they might see slightly more females. Climate change, after all, has driven air and sea temperatures higher, which, in these creatures, favors female offspring. But instead, they found female sea turtles from the Pacific Ocean's largest and most important green sea turtle rookery now outnumber males by at least 116 to 1.
    Comic book climate science. Sea turtles been around for 200 million years. Now they're all gonna die because the ocean temperature went up 0.1 degree.
    ALBERTA, DON'T LET CRAP LIKE THIS GO WITHOUT A CHALLENGE ANYMORE. IT'S NONSENSE.
    Except species are going extinct because of it. You can choose to keep burying your head in the sand though. I mean, even the article you responded shows how dangerous temperature fluctuations are.

    7 Species Hit Hard by Climate Change—Including One That's
    Already Extinct



    This isn't just random speculation
    Extinction risk from climate change
    FELLOW ALBERTANS, DON'T FALL FOR THE FAKE SCIENCE AND FAKE CLAIMS OF THE FAKE MEDIA

    Let's check what it says in your link..............
    "Coral, polar bears, and frogs are among the species hit hardest."

    Want to know how badly polar bears are hit by "global warming"?

    POPULATION OF POLAR BEARS IS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH

    So high Nunavut is increasing it's quota for hunting them..........

    Nunavut raises polar bear quota

    The Government of Nunavut will raise the polar bear quota in the Western Hudson Bay area to 21 from eight, Minister of Environment Dan Shewchuk announced Friday.
    Minister of Environment says increase due to more bears sighted in communities

    "The bears are not in decline," said Lois Suluk-Locke, a resident of Arviat. "There’s been so many and it's been so scary. I am so happy that the quota was raised and they will be put to good use."

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/...uota-1.1091655
    Last edited by MrCombust; 21-01-2018 at 04:08 PM. Reason: added link
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  53. #1753

    Default

    Mr Compost, not more bears, starving bears who cannot find ice and hunt seals in the hinterland are forced to eat villagers...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  54. #1754

    Default

    Reality bites

    MONTREAL — A brand new U.S. navy warship that has been stuck in Montreal for weeks will spend the winter in Canada after its journey to Florida was thwarted by cold and ice.

    The USS Little Rock was commissioned in Buffalo on Dec. 16 in a grand ceremony attended by more than 8,000 people that featured a brass band, speeches by military leaders and a chaplain who prayed for "fair winds and following seas."


    But it hasn't gotten very far since then, after its maiden journey was complicated by unusually heavy ice conditions that have kept it in Montreal since Christmas Eve.
    https://www.therecord.com/news-story...cy-conditions/
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  55. #1755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Mr Compost, not more bears, starving bears who cannot find ice and hunt seals in the hinterland are forced to eat villagers...
    Fellow Albertans, this video explains why the IPCC, Al Gore, and other global warming advocates, no longer mention polar bears. They're not in decline. They're healthy, and some are quite fat, as seen in the video.

    "Fat, healthy polar bears, not in decline, no longer a good example for global warming."
    "Polar Bear Scare Unmasked: The Saga of a Toppled Global Warming Icon"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bcCTFnGZ0
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  56. #1756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Mr Compost, not more bears, starving bears who cannot find ice and hunt seals in the hinterland are forced to eat villagers...
    Fellow Albertans, this video explains why the IPCC, Al Gore, and other global warming advocates, no longer mention polar bears. They're not in decline. They're healthy, and some are quite fat, as seen in the video.

    "Fat, healthy polar bears, not in decline, no longer a good example for global warming."
    "Polar Bear Scare Unmasked: The Saga of a Toppled Global Warming Icon"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bcCTFnGZ0
    No one fully believes any of the alarmist or non-alarmist propaganda of the non-scientists jumping on either the global warming or the anti-warming bandwagons. Those denying any human influence are just as bad at ignoring the risks as those promoting the man-made warming hypothesis hype some of the risks.

  57. #1757
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,594

    Default

    This "FELLOW ALBERTANS" schtick cracks me up. Is he wearing a top hat and monocle while furiously typing away in ALL CAPS?

  58. #1758
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,874

    Default

    ^ Didn't he also have a can at one point and wore a Tux?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  59. #1759

    Default

    An interesting read:


    Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability

    “...
    The climate models have now been shown conclusively to be continuing to overheat the earth as 17 years of real world data now show no increase in the globally averaged surface temperature, the original talisman of global warming. The comment that many of the warmest years in the directly recorded history have been in the last decade is not inconsistent with the observed hiatus. If that hiatus in temperature should continue until the next IPCC assessment in 2021, any scientist respecting the canons of Newton, Rutherford or Einstein would expect to see a further significant further reduction of the predictions of dangerous future climates. In my view, the 2014 IPCC report was somewhat obfuscatory on this issue: there was no expert assessment of one key parameter, 16 the climate sensitivity (the expected actual temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere), because of wide disagreements between models and data, and the current debate points to a lowering of the estimated range of values. 49 In addition...”


    “Tackle megacities first

    If one were to regard the decarbonization of the global economy as a great battle to avert an impending disaster, a sensible strategy would be to tackle the largest component of the problem first. In recent years, more people have started to live in cities than in the countryside. By 2050, well over half the global population will live in megacities with multimillion populations. How will megacities be energized? Consider Shanghai today,...”


    Postscript: renewable energy in Germany

    The actual data for electricity in Germany during 2014 is now available, 51 the fruits of a $200B investment in wind and solar energy. While one can show isolated times of a few hours on one or two days where significant (say >30%) electricity is generated by renewable sources (see slides 266–9 of Ref. 51), the total contribution each of wind and solar sources of electricity average to 8% of average demand, leaving fossil fuels and nuclear energy to provide the other 84% (see slides 11–13 of Ref. 51). The problem is that for significant periods during winter when there is no solar or wind energy, the entire peak annual demand must be provided from the older generators. Not a single old generator can be turned off because it is needed to cover intermittency. However the older generators are providing 84% not 100% of the energy as they used to, and they must now ...”


    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...DC/core-reader



    Last edited by KC; 15-05-2018 at 09:26 PM.

  60. #1760

    Default

    Interesting. The dwindling ash tree comment though jumped out at me. The near extinctions of Chestnut and American Elm forests weren’t directly global warming related and I didn’t think the destruction of nearly all our Ash trees was directly related to global warming either.




    How an Ancient Extinction Foreshadowed the Planet’s Future – Mother Jones

    Excerpt:
    “The question matters greatly. Today, volcanism is no longer pumping so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but humans most certainly are, and it’s helping to drive what many paleontologists are calling the sixth mass extinction of life, with the long list of victims including things like the once-common golden frog of Panama, and North America’s dwindling ash trees. By some accounts, the rate of species loss today has not been seen since the last of the non-avian dinosaurs perished about 66 million years ago.”


    https://www.motherjones.com/environm...lanets-future/







    Millions of Ash Trees Are Dying, Creating Huge Headaches for Cities
    An invasive beetle, the emerald ash borer, is killing millions of ash trees in American cities.

    By Tina Casagrand


    Excerpt:
    “There are seven billion ash trees in North America, and within the next few decades, the beetle could kill most of them—a die-off ten times bigger than the one caused by Dutch elm disease.

    In big cities, where ash species account for up to a quarter of trees in public spaces, planners must consider the environmental consequences of the massive die-off—liability hazards, an increase in stormwater runoff, and the simple problem of disposing of millions of dead trees. And officials don't have time to waste.

    Eight years after the initial discovery of the beetles in an area, about 50 percent of the ash population will die—all at once. The rest die within another two to three years. ...”

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...s-environment/
    Last edited by KC; 18-06-2018 at 08:52 AM.

  61. #1761

    Default

    Here is proof the MrCombust is speaking the TRUTH.

    In the news today it was announced that there is a severe shortage of carbon dioxide and we need more CO2 to survive on this planet.

    Full story from CBC

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/carbon...tage-1.4715346
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 21-06-2018 at 06:08 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 81415161718

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •