16 replies to this topic

[Keepitsimple]

A very interesting article......from a very credible source.

One of the world's top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta's oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes from burning coal.

"I was surprised by the results of our analysis," said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "I thought it was larger than it was."

They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That's about half the total amount of warming over the last century.

When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C.

In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe's vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees.

"We've heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tarsands it's going to lead to this, that and the other. We thought, 'Well, let's take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?' and the numbers are what they are."

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo...-184214482.html

[olpfan1]

I've always figured Coal polluted more

[lukin]

I've always figured Coal polluted more

It's too bad more people weren't as wise as you. Why do you hate the oil sands so much olp? The oil sands bring Canada great prosperity, don't you know that?

[olpfan1]

It's too bad more people weren't as wise as you. Why do you hate the oil sands so much olp? The oil sands bring Canada great prosperity, don't you know that?

Who said I hated the oil sands? its all canada has left
to prop the economy up...

[lukin]

Who said I hated the oil sands? its all canada has left
to prop the economy up...

So why are you constantly kissing waldo's ass and agreeing with his anti- oil sands propaganda?

Without the oil sands, Canada goes belly-up, which is exactly what some hard-core leftists want.

[TimG]

A very interesting article......from a very credible source.

To be clear: the source has zero credibility. However, the claim is interesting since he is usually a poster boy for alarmists it makes hard for alarmists to dismiss the story.

[olpfan1]

So why are you constantly kissing waldo's ass and agreeing with his anti- oil sands propaganda?

Without the oil sands, Canada goes belly-up, which is exactly what some hard-core leftists want.

You are mistaking me for someone else, I rarely agree with Waldo

[Keepitsimple]

To be clear: the source has zero credibility. However, the claim is interesting since he is usually a poster boy for alarmists it makes hard for alarmists to dismiss the story.

That's the context that I meant - he is credible in the minds the usual band of suspects.....however perhaps not so much anymore. Those alarmists tend to quickly throw people under the bus if they utter anything that minimizes the "crisis facing mankind". Do you think the CBC's Power & Politics will invite Weaver on the show and follow it up with that blabbermouth Elizabeth May? Not likely.

Edited by Keepitsimple, 20 February 2012 - 04:55 PM.

[waldo]

To be clear: the source has zero credibility. However, the claim is interesting since he is usually a poster boy for alarmists it makes hard for alarmists to dismiss the story.

oh snap! I wasn't quick enough before Simple could get his "credible walk-back in"!

ya, hey Simple - that's the trouble when your penchant for cherry-picking bites you, big time. Clearly, you've trashed UofVic's Weaver in the past. Of course you see no hypocrisy in you choosing to flaunt/tout something Weaver is now bringing forward, separate and above all the other formal positions on climate change Weaver holds... I mean, after all, you claim he's a, what were your words?... oh ya, you claim Weaver is a, "very credible source". (I trust you will now strike up a forceful position against fracking gas and coal burning... after all, your stated, "very credible source" has highlighted just how bad they are, right Simple?)

so what do we really have? Like any paper just released, like any single paper just released, like I've reiterated many times over, the paper needs to stand up against peer response. For what it's worth, the paper is already receiving informal criticism over calculation methodologies; criticism that weaver has acknowledged. Notwithstanding, Weaver doesn't include emissions (and temp conversions) associated with the actual in-situ mining/production of the tarsands product itself.

in any case, as stated several times now, a part of the criticism of tarsands expansion simply reflects upon symbolism... that it counters any real considerations towards weaning off fossil-fuels.

stay tuned for peer response to Weaver's paper... or... it will stand on it's merits. That's how science works, hey Simple. Of course, none of that fits the media narrative to over-hype the next paper, whatever "side" it projects... waiting on legitimate critical review is just so time consuming and inconsiderate of media's, "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality.

[waldo]

following up on the OP's reference to the stated credible Andrew Weaver... his commentary on the tarsands development:

[bush_cheney2004]

following up on the OP's reference to the stated credible Andrew Weaver... his commentary on the tarsands development:

Nice socks....

[waldo]

per Copenhagen Accord agreement to limit global mean temperatures from exceeding 2°C above pre-industrial levels, from the OP's reference to the just released Weaver study:

Andrew Weaver - UofVic Climatologist - Nature :

If North American and international policymakers wish to limit global warming to less than 2 °C they will clearly need to put in place measures that ensure a rapid transition of global energy systems to non-greenhouse-gas-emitting sources, while avoiding commitments to new infrastructure supporting dependence on fossil fuels.

[bush_cheney2004]

per Copenhagen Accord agreement to limit global mean temperatures from exceeding 2°C above pre-industrial levels, from the OP's reference to the just released Weaver study:

That's not going to happen....these "climate scientists" are economically and politically delusional.

[Keepitsimple]

It's refreshing to see a scientist who was vehemently opposed to the scale of emissions coming from the Oil Sands - has the integrity to publish a paper that seems to be counter to his previous beliefs. As he says:

“I was surprised by the results of our analysis,” said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “I thought (the threat of oilsands emissions) was larger than it was.”

“The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming,” Weaver said. “The problem is coal and unconventional natural gas.”

Whether he's developed an Alarmist reputation or not, he must have known that he would become an outcast in the IPCC community. For that, he deserves a merit badge of courage. Wait for the flurry of smoke bombs that will no doubt come from the zeolots.

[waldo]

It's refreshing to see a scientist who was vehemently opposed to the scale of emissions coming from the Oil Sands - has the integrity to publish a paper that seems to be counter to his previous beliefs.

Whether he's developed an Alarmist reputation or not, he must have known that he would become an outcast in the IPCC community. For that, he deserves a merit badge of courage. Wait for the flurry of smoke bombs that will no doubt come from the zeolots.

of course, the essence of the study (the single study, not yet subject to the peer review cycle) is not what you think it is, right?

integrity? This is the guy, Weaver, who you personally went after in another MLW thread - you certainly don't accept his broader climate change positions... of course you don't. Yet, quite unsurprisingly, you're prepared to categorically run with a selectively pulled claim from his latest paper. Of course you are. Didn't you read TimG stating, 'Weaver has no credibility'!

you are incorrect in claiming Weaver has "countered" his previous beliefs (re: tarsands). Weaver/Swart from their UofVic website: Neil C. Swart and Andrew J. Weaver, Nature Climate Change