Coal, not oilsands, true climate change bad guy: study | CTV News
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."
Hansen Says Development Of Tar Sands Would Mean “Game Over For Climate”
The known climate scientist James Hansen emphasizes that the extraction of tar sands would increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 50%. ‘When the development of the tar sands continues, then it means “game over for the climate,’ says Hansen.”
Posts
12 comments:
A paper published today in Nature Climate Change says the Alberta tar sands would only add 0.03 C to global warming:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/02/new-paper-says-only-tiny-temperature.html
I gotta admit - in my blogging days I was a pretty fierce opponent of Weaver - I stopped short of Tim Ball - Weaver never sued me for defamation, though I was more careful than Dr. Ball.
But I give him more credit now. This is the first time that one of the AGW supporters have suggested that there is anything but a tragedy from any use of fossil fuels.
This likely is because he works in Canada and isn't a recipient of millions of dollars based upon his opinion.
This IS a game changer. If this is a revelation, then what else is not known by the Warmists? It collapses the entire house of cards. By the null hypothesis, the theory is dead...
Lemon, I think you're wrong. Another example was the Schmittner et al paper published in Science last November:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385.abstract?keytype=ref&siteid=sci&ijkey=jI1RklqVcZeJ6
Or papers that find no decline in the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. Or regional evidence for the MWP.
This assumption that all scientists who believe climate change is a serious problem are all crooked is really bullshit. The vast, vast, vast majority of scientists are simply doing their science as best they can. Some of them have come to believe it is going to be a serious problem. Deal with the science instead of attacking their characters.
And the Weaver paper certainly doesn't mean "the theory is dead." His result is based on a 1.5 C/TtC response.
Of course coal is still the bad guy. It's the cheapest, most plentiful source of energy we have.
And cheap plentiful energy just simply cannot be allowed.
Tom - since Hansen made the claim that the building of the pipeline would be "game over" for the planet and Weaver is saying "not" ths should creat a nice cat fight with flying fur, especially with congress having passed a new energy bill which includes the XL Pipeline. It should be fun to watch.
David - here's the quote from Hanson: "Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles."
And Weaver releasing this study flies in the face of the "consensus". I agree and disagree with you. Yes - not all climate scientists are on the take. But the ones on the take are the ones that are heard.
You have absolutely no evidence Hansen is "on the take" -- he's simply doing his job. If he wanted to only present a catastropic view, why would he write this?
"...Climate sensitivity, the eventual global temperature change per unit forcing, is known with good accuracy from Earth's paleoclimate history. However, two fundamental uncertainties limit our ability to predict global temperature change on decadal time scales.
"First, although climate forcing by human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) is known accurately, climate forcing caused by changing human-made aerosols is practically unmeasured. Aerosols are fine particles suspended in the air, such as dust, sulfates, and black soot.... Aerosol climate forcing is complex, because aerosols both reflect solar radiation to space (a cooling effect) and absorb solar radiation (a warming effect). In addition, atmospheric aerosols can alter cloud cover and cloud properties. Therefore, precise composition-specific measurements of aerosols and their effects on clouds are needed to assess the aerosol role in climate change.
"Second, the rate at which Earth's surface temperature approaches a new equilibrium in response to a climate forcing depends on how efficiently heat perturbations are mixed into the deeper ocean. Ocean mixing is complex and not necessarily simulated well by climate models. Empirical data on ocean heat uptake are improving rapidly, but still suffer limitations.”
-- James Hansen et al, “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications,” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421–13449 (2011), http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf
>>Of course coal is still the bad guy. It's the cheapest, most plentiful source of energy we have.
And cheap plentiful energy just simply cannot be allowed.<<
More bullshit. Coal's problem is that it's extremely dirty. Not just that it emits a lot of CO2/Joule, but it pollutes the air in the traditional sense, plus its mercury pollution.
Coal causes more damage than value, according to a recent paper (by the economist skeptics have turned to for economic analysis about climate change):
Muller, Nicholas Z., Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus. 2011. "Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy." American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75.
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/documents/Env_Accounts_052609.pdf
The phrase "on the take" is short hand for "dependant on the continuing funding that is derived from the delusion that the world will end because of our high living."
And when he (and Mann et al) make it personal, then they are subject to personal attack. I make no apology for doing this.
I remember when greenies were leading a charge against Ban deodorant, it being an aerosol, and all...
Oil Sands and Internal Combustion are either major causes of the myth of global warming, or they are not. If they are not, then the entire basis of the theory is proven false. Null hypothesis. They based their theory on something that is simply untrue - or at the very least - based on Weaver's paper, something that is not a significant contributor.
Hansen's job is to do science. That's not "dependent on funding."
Mann et al hardly started the getting "personal" business, which goes back at least to what happened to Benjamin Sanders after the AR1.
Attacking people's characters, like you're doing, is just a cowardly way of trying to win when you can't counter their ideas. That will always come back to bite you, because you lose the respect of others. It's especially cowardly when you're hiding behind anonymity when you do it.
from Davids Link:
Assessing the impact of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 kelvin (K) as the best estimate, 2 to 4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and nonzero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K as the 66% probability range, which can be widened using alternate assumptions or data subsets). Assuming that paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, these results imply a lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.
You really think that Hansen would do this without getting paid? And its not only money - it's also good for his ego. Probably makes hippy chicks swoon.
As far as my cowardice - the price of revealing one's self as a "denier" whether of the holocaust or of the climate scam is well documented.
I'm not prepared to lose my tenure by commenting negatively in my own name on this matter.
Post a Comment