Comments for Deep Climate

Comment on Open Thread, February 2012 by Deep Climate

Deep Climate — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:12:52 +0000

I think the plan itself is solid. As I recall, there could be increased frequency or more dense spatial sampling at certain points when warranted, triggered by certain conditions seen in the regular sampling. Also some of David Schindler’s work looked at detecting air-borne contamination by examining nearby snow, so I think they will have looked at the right contaminants and contaminant pathways.

I trust scientists like Schindler and Miall to keep the government’s feet to the fire in all aspects including scientific design, transparency and governance. The interesting discussions will be with industry – they’ll be asked to pay more but have less control than they did under the current RAMP program.

Comment on Open Thread, February 2012 by Deep Climate

Deep Climate — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:03:51 +0000

Doonsbury looks at climate change “facts”:

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2012/02/06

Comment on Open Thread, February 2012 by Holly Stick

Holly Stick — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:53:10 +0000

The open thread discussion at Deltoid, including Laframboise’ book, led me to check her Amason reviews. On of the newest ones, Jan 19, 2012, was by “Stephen Harper” who has reviewed 8 books there: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1WOSPWZI1QJYW/ref=cm_pdp_rev_all?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

I don’t think(?) it’s actually the PM, though I bet he would agree with much of what this reviewer says.

Comment on Open Thread, February 2012 by joe

joe — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:13:22 +0000

Interesting (and refreshingly thorough!) article on the tar sands monitoring. While the independent oversight is obviously critical, the proposed monitoring seems week, IMHO.

I haven’t seen the monitoring plan, but the article states that they’ll be ramping up from annual sampling (!) to monthly. But as the saying goes, “dilution is the solution to pollution” – any chemicals or compounds leaching into the river will be diluted to beyond detectable levels pretty quickly. What is needed (again, IMHO) is near-continuous water quality monitoring downstream of every tar sands operation to detect pollutants entering the river.

What about groundwater? Air pollution? Soil contamination?

Comment on Meet Alan Gibbs, builder of amphibious HumVees and “climate science” coalitions by Deep Climate

Deep Climate — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:49:29 +0000

Here are some excerpts from the history of the ICSC as a U.K. corporation (found by searching at UK’s corporate registry, Companies House):

===============
Status: Dissolved 28/09/2010
Date of Incorporation: 24/10/2007
===============
24/10/2007 INCORPORATION DOCUMENTS
13/05/2010 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR EMMA GIBBS
15/06/2010 FIRST GAZETTE NOTICE FOR VOLUNTARY STRIKE-OFF
28/09/2010 FINAL GAZETTE: DISSOLVED VIA VOLUNTARY STRIKE-OFF

Comment on Open Thread, February 2012 by Deep Climate

Deep Climate — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:28:47 +0000

Thanks – I’ve fixed the link, which is actually the same story you pointed out.

Comment on Open Thread, February 2012 by Holly Stick

Holly Stick — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:45:11 +0000

Your “ragged rollout” link does not work.

There is a very interesting article about the discussions between governments and scientists in the week before the monitoring announcement:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Scientists+historic+battle+over+oilsands+monitoring/6100226/story.html

And Pembina Institute’s reaction calls for better management as well as monitoring:

http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2308

Comment on Open Thread, February 2012 by Deep Climate

Deep Climate — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:46:28 +0000

Michaels calls Claude Allegre the “lead author” of the WSJ 16. But that’s just because Allegre’s name appears first alphabetically. So there’s still no indication as to who actually wrote this thing.

Comment on Joe Oliver recycles debunked EthicalOil.org talking points on oilsands emissions, refuses to accept climate science by Ted Kirkpatrick

Ted Kirkpatrick — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:59:46 +0000

Thanks for the clarification, DC. Yes, I was also surprised by the claimed “5%-10%” increase. Given how much energy is used in extracting and upgrading bitumen, that seemed low.

Yes, he actually said that today on CBC Radio’s “The House”. The disconnect is staggering.

He avoids talking about carbon unless he’s forced into it. Minimizes visibility of the disconnect.

Comment on Joe Oliver recycles debunked EthicalOil.org talking points on oilsands emissions, refuses to accept climate science by Deep Climate

Deep Climate — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 03:41:17 +0000

Both well-to-wheels and well-to-tank analyses should be used. However, WTW is primarily useful in comparing different types of fuel (e.g. gasoline vs compressed natural gas). For the same fuel, i.e. gasoline from crude oil, the tank-to-wheel combustion will be the same, and the differences between sources will all be from WTT emissions (extraction, upgrading, refining etc).

There is also controversy about the Jacobs study (commissioned by Alberta Energy) that underpins the relatively low differential found. The EPA criticized the State department for underestimating the additional GHGs from oil sands.

But if one is interested in global emissions, yes, then it’s total cumulative emissions that count. The most rational scenario, and one that would naturally arise if a global escalating carbon price were in place, would see oil oil use in general decline, especially in the OECD countries, and would favour conventional lower carbon oil over carbon-intensive non-conventional sources.

On the other hand, if you’re Joe Oliver you look forward to technological improvements that will unlock even more of the oil sands and raise Canada’s oil reserves even higher than the currently estimated 175 billion barrels. Yes, he actually said that today on CBC Radio’s “The House”. The disconnect is staggering.