Harnessing oilsands won't cause 'climate calamity'
|
February 22 2012
Andrew Weaver isn't what you'd call an oilsands apologist.
Weaver, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, was a lead author with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
He is one of the world's leading authorities on global warming and one of the fiercest critics of the Harper government's carbon emissions policy - or lack thereof.
That's what makes Weaver's latest research publication such startling news.
This past Sunday, Weaver and his doctoral student, Neil Swart, published an analysis in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change, an offshoot of Nature, the world's most prestigious science journal.
In their paper, Swart and Weaver conclude the impact of burning all the economically viable proven reserve of Alberta's oilsands - all 170 billion barrels - would be negligible. Burning all the proven reserves between 2012 and 2062, they say, would raise global temperatures by just 0.02 C to 0.05 C.
Burning up all the oil in the areas currently being mined would have even less impact.
"If only the reserve currently under active development were combusted," they write, "the warming would be almost undetectable at our significance level."
Even using up every last drop of estimated oil-inplace, including bitumen that's currently inaccessible or unproven - even if such a thing were possible - would raise global temperatures by roughly 0.35 C.
That's a stark contrast to the claims of those such as NASA climate scientist James Hansen, a leading opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline, who described Alberta's oilsands as "the biggest carbon bomb on the planet."
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work. Emails not shown.
Use your Gravatar username and email address to show your custom avatar. Want your own avatar? Sign up here.
If you post an image, please upload to a photo-sharing service like ImageShack or TinyPic and use the link they provide you. Do NOT link directly to the photo's source unless you have permission.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to Admin' link. If you find your post gone, it is because you violated the TOS above or it was in reply to a deleted comment.
Comments
Yeah, and I guess one could argue we are 'reliant' on water as well.
This silly and backward aversion to cheap energy, enhanced crop production, and milder climate, is truly a mental disorder.
Petrophobic.
Much better we jump ship to some new technology that only "works" if it is heavily subsidized by the tax payers, where all the start ups have been going bankrupt as though it were scripted.
WTF are they on?
Put THAT in yer pipe and Smoke it you hippy losers!
after denialgate-gate,we'll see more
BBC News 22 Feb 2012, threat to the world's communications and energy infrastructure from Electro Magnetic Pulse due to massive Bursts of Solar Energy.
Over five minutes was devoted to this 'Sensational News' item, various 'experts' commented on various aspects of this 'threat' the last one to comment was asked by John Humphrys 'so what defence do we have against this threat?'
I knew what was coming, and sure enough the reply was 'well more investment in robust infrastructure'
Yep, give us your money and we'll save you!
Look out for it folks, this is gonna go big with the scaremongers.
You heard it here.
EMP is the new climate change
We may not see an EMP for over a thousand years, but it is something for which we should be preparing. An ounce of preparation would be worth a pound of repairs.
Let's hope Tom Cruise is around, you know...
...'Hey Maddy, have you tried changing the solenoid?'
War of the Worlds, just before New York got torched by the Martians.
Ho Ho Ho
The IPCC took the established CO2 constant and upped it 12-fold, making the theoretical warming from CO2 doubling go from 0.10 degC to 1.2 deg C, and they then claimed that water vapor would augment this to 5-8 deg C of warming with their mythical positive feedback, having decided to deny the existence of the convectional heat engine of the water cycle.
In other words, his results should indicate negligible changes throughout.
Better yet, the warmists have a BIG secret—N2 and O2 do have IR spectral bands, even more than CO2! The IR spectrum of air clearly shows significant bands at all the bands absorbed by N2 and O2 absorption—the IPCC attributes all bands to water vapor except two small ones for CO2.
So, if there is a crowd of 1000 people all screaming, you will not here the baby crying in their midst. You also will not hear two babies crying in their midst. CO2 is a crying baby.
I was very surprised how difficult it was to late IR spectra for N2 and O2. There may be a reason for this, as they do not want this known.
"The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone."
These are all trace gases.
With no mention of N2 and O2, the reader is led to assume that they do not have IR activity. This is a lie by omission.
Hey Charles! It is their favorite tactic. Half truths, and whole lies.
RSS feed for comments to this post