Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[agentaqua]

All of us concerned citizens, environmentalists and unhappy people can ... hate on the resource sector as much as we want it will continue to be a waste of time ...

It's really unfortunate that you choose to perceive others concerns over the consequences of increasing the levels of CO2 and other greehouse gases as: "hate on the resource sector", 3x5. Not only is that an inaccurate and misleading statement - but fairly egotistical, as well. I agree that we are all on this spacecraft together, and we all have personal responsibility for our own lives and choices and some of those choices unfortunately contribute to our collective problem.

However - this is where our system of governance can and should take the initiate to help expand our choices and long-term planning as a society. That is what societies do - and that is what the current capitalist economic system does NOT. It is *NOT* a form of governance - a fact not seemly understood by pro-market PR types.

The oil and gas industry is not - in my mind - any more or less to blame than any other industrial economic activities or any human activities on this planet - as far as apportioning "blame" - which you appear to coach in terms of "hate". That industry has a "carbon footprint" - as do other industries - and it may be a major contributor to the release of greenhouse gasses. I understand that people in that industry may feel threatened if they feel that factor puts their jobs at risk.

The debate is not about that - for me. It's about the long term consequences of the risk of continuing to put large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It's about what do we do when sea levels rise? What do we do when we run out of readily-available hydrocarbons as a main source of energy and transport? We know this will happen. It is irresponsible not to realize this, accept the science, and plan for the next 60-300 years - quite a different approach than playing the stock market - I agree.

I really don't see any reason why we shouldn't develop alternative energy sources such as renewables like wind, and solar when and where they make sense. I don't see why we don't stretch-out our limited supply of hydrocarbons that we know will run out someday. I can't understand how or why anyone would have any serious debate nor issue over these suggestions, but instead decide to get stuck on that there must be some vast scientific hoax perpetrated on them by credible scientists whose reputation they seek to tarnish w/o even really knowing what science is. That's the bizarre part to me. Maybe you can help ne out here 3x5. Why are you against planning for the future - developing a new industry based on alternative renewable energy? Why are you stuck in the dark ages? Is it fear?

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/au-ccr012315.php

Climate change redistributes fish species at high latitudes
AARHUS UNIVERSITY

IMAGE: ATLANTIC HALIBUT, HIPPOGLOSSUS HIPPOGLOSSUS, IS A SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE TRANSFER VIA NE AND NW PASSAGES. view more

CREDIT: PHOTO: PETER RASK MØLLER, UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN, DENMARK.

For millions of years, large parts of the marine biotas of the North Atlantic and North Pacific have been separated by harsh climate conditions in the Arctic. A new study published in Nature Climate Change underlines that climate change has begun to weaken this natural barrier promoting the interchange of fishes between the two oceans along with many ecological and economic consequences.

Dr. Mary S. Wisz (DHI, Denmark), formerly of the Arctic Research Centre, Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, co-lead the study as part of an international research team representing diverse fields of fish taxonomy, trophic ecology, fisheries science, climatology, oceanography, and ecological modelling.

The team's results based on predictive ecological modelling, shows that Arctic warming promotes the interchange of fishes between the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans via the Northwest and Northeast Passages as sea temperatures and productivity increase at high latitudes.

The last time the environmental conditions allowed such large-scale transfer to occur was nearly three million years ago during the opening of the Bering Strait, which facilitated the spread of mostly Pacific marine species toward the Atlantic.

Redistribution of species and interchange will cause a tremendous increase in fish biodiversity in coastal areas around e.g. Greenland and Svalbard, and thus dramatic changes to interactions between species.

History has shown that such biotic interchange can result in severe ecological consequences. For example, the construction of the Suez Canal in 1869 resulted in the invasion of the Mediterranean Sea by Red Sea marine fauna. The Mediterranean fish community is now dominated by Red Sea fishes, and this has had harmful ecological and economic consequences for Mediterranean biodiversity and its fishing industry.

The newly published work foresees that some commercial species will extend their range at higher latitudes and potentially increase fish yields. However, these fish populations will also encounter new ecological contexts with climate change, such as competition between existing and invading species. The coming decades will therefore present new challenges and opportunities for North Atlantic and North Pacific fisheries, which today contribute almost 40% to commercial fish landings, globally.

###

Contact:

Dr. Mary S. Wisz, DHI-Department of Ecology and Environment, DHI, Agern Allé 5, H&ostroke;rsholm, Denmark, phone: +45 3018 3157, mail: msw@dhigroup.com.

Dr. Peter Groenkjaer, Arctic Research Centre, Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, phone: +45 2338 2177, mail: peter.groenkjaer@bios.au.dk.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/as...e=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=socialmedia

EYE OPENER
THE GATHERING STORM
Air pollution in Asia may be changing weather patterns in the United States.
<iframe width="730" height="456" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JQiuz-9TD4I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
BY CLARA CHAISSON | @CLARACHAISSON | 5 hours ago

Increasingly intense storms in the United States might have an unexpected origin: Asian air pollution. Researchers from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory have found that aerosols from across the Pacific strengthen extratropical cyclones—a type of storm system that drives much of our country's weather.

Asia is home to the world's 20 most polluted cities, but that dirty air doesn’t stay put, as the above animation of aerosol emissions shows. Water vapor in the atmosphere condenses around particles, and an influx of particulate matter—say, from a coal-fired power plant—can produce bigger, badder clouds. So far, the atmospheric scientists have only looked at how pollution from the continent affects North American weather, but they expect that the effects are global in scale. When countries around the world finalize carbon emissions commitments this year, let’s hope they remember we’re on different sides of the same planet.

 

[triplenickel]

It's really unfortunate that you choose to perceive others concerns over the consequences of increasing the levels of CO2 and other greehouse gases as: "hate on the resource sector", 3x5. Not only is that an inaccurate and misleading statement - but fairly egotistical, as well. I agree that we are all on this spacecraft together, and we all have personal responsibility for our own lives and choices and some of those choices unfortunately contribute to our collective problem.

However - this is where our system of governance can and should take the initiate to help expand our choices and long-term planning as a society. That is what societies do - and that is what the current capitalist economic system does NOT. It is *NOT* a form of governance - a fact not seemly understood by pro-market PR types.

The oil and gas industry is not - in my mind - any more or less to blame than any other industrial economic activities or any human activities on this planet - as far as apportioning "blame" - which you appear to coach in terms of "hate". That industry has a "carbon footprint" - as do other industries - and it may be a major contributor to the release of greenhouse gasses. I understand that people in that industry may feel threatened if they feel that factor puts their jobs at risk.

The debate is not about that - for me. It's about the long term consequences of the risk of continuing to put large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It's about what do we do when sea levels rise? What do we do when we run out of readily-available hydrocarbons as a main source of energy and transport? We know this will happen. It is irresponsible not to realize this, accept the science, and plan for the next 60-300 years - quite a different approach than playing the stock market - I agree.

I really don't see any reason why we shouldn't develop alternative energy sources such as renewables like wind, and solar when and where they make sense. I don't see why we don't stretch-out our limited supply of hydrocarbons that we know will run out someday. I can't understand how or why anyone would have any serious debate nor issue over these suggestions, but instead decide to get stuck on that there must be some vast scientific hoax perpetrated on them by credible scientists whose reputation they seek to tarnish w/o even really knowing what science is. That's the bizarre part to me. Maybe you can help ne out here 3x5. Why are you against planning for the future - developing a new industry based on alternative renewable energy? Why are you stuck in the dark ages? Is it fear?

I can hardly bother to reply, I've given my opinion on everything you asked above several times in this thread so I have no reason to believe it won't go in one of you ears and out the other for the third time. Not even a tiny bit worried about losing my job because regardless of what you say you're still going to consume. You'll note that despite protest and anti energy sentiment being at all time highs demand is up 900,000bpd this year. Keep wandering around with picket signs wondering why nothing changes. You've completely missed the point of my post yet again. Thanks for finding your own words though it was refreshing.

I disagree with your assessment of capitalism, if alternatives could come anywhere close to providing the needs of consumers at a similar price point we'd all switch tomorrow. That would solve the problem of the energy industry existing instantly. I mean between common sense and social consensus who wouldn't change? There's a reason no green billionaires have stepped up, they got to be billionaires by being smart and know they'd toss their money into the wind. The same reason no political party will go down that road, it's suicide. I can hear Mulcair chewing on Trudeau now for spending with no return. Just an example of course as Harper won't even try! Seems to me it's the only system that's had anything resembling success.

Energy has a footprint but it isn't the largest in this country, yet it gets the most flack it's so irrational. The fact that it's the poster child for industries that need to be stopped but isn't the worst and is likely the hardest to give up is why I assume it to be hate based. The opposition isn't logic based. I did ask twice why you thought that was so but you missed the point or maybe disagree with my line of thought can't tell since you won't even entertain the thought. If you care to look back a couple weeks you'll see where I outlined my suggestions on planning for the future, you're completely wrong about me. You confuse my posts pointing out my perception of reality with my wants, 2 different things. One would have to be pretty stupid to not realize what should happen. Sadly it isn't what the masses want. Look at US car sales now that there's a tiny rebound in the economy, they didn't run out to buy solar panels. If they do let's hope they're domestic made not dirty Chinese. As I pointed out in a conversation with GLG earlier this issue is barely in the top 10 in the general public, most people are more upset about gays being able to marry.

The only way you'll make a difference is slowing the consumption then production will follow. Shutting down domestic gas production will only shift it elsewhere as it doesn't address the root cause. Odds of the new producer, likely third world doing it better than us? Near zero. Show me another industry that spends the kind of money the energy sector does improving processes and making things better. I could be wrong since according to you I'm so very very stupid I don't even know I'm stupid! lol

You shouldn't be so hasty to categorize people to suit your preconceived notions. It clouds your ability to listen and evaluate fairly. Alarmist or denier, Liberal or Conservative, blah blah blah digging in at either end of those categories is ignorant. Moderation is key. You know there are people that choose these careers knowing they're necessary and want to do something to make sure they're done as well as possible.

 

[triplenickel]

http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/as...e=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=socialmedia

EYE OPENER
THE GATHERING STORM
Air pollution in Asia may be changing weather patterns in the United States.
<iframe width="730" height="456" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JQiuz-9TD4I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
BY CLARA CHAISSON | @CLARACHAISSON | 5 hours ago

Increasingly intense storms in the United States might have an unexpected origin: Asian air pollution. Researchers from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory have found that aerosols from across the Pacific strengthen extratropical cyclones—a type of storm system that drives much of our country's weather.

Asia is home to the world's 20 most polluted cities, but that dirty air doesn’t stay put, as the above animation of aerosol emissions shows. Water vapor in the atmosphere condenses around particles, and an influx of particulate matter—say, from a coal-fired power plant—can produce bigger, badder clouds. So far, the atmospheric scientists have only looked at how pollution from the continent affects North American weather, but they expect that the effects are global in scale. When countries around the world finalize carbon emissions commitments this year, let’s hope they remember we’re on different sides of the same planet.

Let's make sure we shackle them to coal or gas from our good old buddies in Russia. Or do you think we can sell them solar panels?

 

[OldBlackDog]

Love your new science. May and might!! New scientific terms, LOL.

http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/as...e=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=socialmedia

EYE OPENER
THE GATHERING STORM
Air pollution in Asia may be changing weather patterns in the United States.
<iframe width="730" height="456" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JQiuz-9TD4I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
BY CLARA CHAISSON | @CLARACHAISSON | 5 hours ago

Increasingly intense storms in the United States might have an unexpected origin: Asian air pollution. Researchers from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory have found that aerosols from across the Pacific strengthen extratropical cyclones—a type of storm system that drives much of our country's weather.

Asia is home to the world's 20 most polluted cities, but that dirty air doesn’t stay put, as the above animation of aerosol emissions shows. Water vapor in the atmosphere condenses around particles, and an influx of particulate matter—say, from a coal-fired power plant—can produce bigger, badder clouds. So far, the atmospheric scientists have only looked at how pollution from the continent affects North American weather, but they expect that the effects are global in scale. When countries around the world finalize carbon emissions commitments this year, let’s hope they remember we’re on different sides of the same planet.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Climate Change Scientists: Juno Here Because Of Global Warming

Nor'EasterClimate change enthusiasts are determined to cover all bases; they assert that the enormous East Coast winter storm is the result of global warming. According to climate change true believers, the big snowstorms of recent years can be attributed to warmer climes nearby.

The theory propounds that the warmer temperatures from climate change trigger more precipitation in North America, which then produces snow when the temperature drops. According to The Guardian, “Five of New York’s biggest snow storms have occurred since 2000, and 2014 was the hottest year in 130 years of temperatures records.”

Of course, The Guardian quoted Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC. Trenberth pointed out that ocean surface temperatures near the East Coast were roughly 2F above normal last year, and argued that there was 10% more water vapor in the atmosphere, ergo, bigger winter storms. The Guardian noted that the atmosphere contains 4% moisture for each one-degree rise in temperature.

It was estimated that the current storm, nicknamed Juno, may drop two feet of snow around New York and three feet in Boston. Scientists from the American Meteorological Society claim that 35% of the rain from Hurricane Sandy was produced by climate change.

Of course, the United Nations has chimed in, saying that Nor’easters like Juno will only grow larger because of the differential between the Arctic cold and the gradually warmer seas. Michael Mann, a scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, summed up:

There is no doubt that a component of that anomalous warmth is due to human-caused climate change. Those warm ocean temperatures also mean that there is more moisture in the air for this storm to feed on and to produce huge snowfalls inland. … Climate change is making these sorts of storms more common, much as it is making Sandy-like Superstorms and unusually intense hurricanes more common.

The recent history of the IPCC, one of the leading proponents of the climate change agenda, shows how times have changed. In 2001, in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” It also claimed that Earth would see “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change.” The IPCC still agreed with that assessment in 2007, writing, “Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming.”

Former UN IPCC lead author Richard Lindzen said of the IPCC in September 2013, “I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

Source

 

[OldBlackDog]

Can The Media Please Stop Quoting Bill Nye As A Science Expert

nyeCalling yourself the “Science Guy” does not mean that you are an expert on anything. It means you’re the host of a kids show.

Instead Bill Nye is being interviewed as if he were an expert on every possible topic from footballs to evolution. He’s out there blaming the blizzard on Global Warming; a subject that, like most other things, he knows nothing about.

Bill Nye was an aspiring comedian who wasn’t funny and so began doing edutainment for kids instead. He has no PhD. He has a BS in mechanical engineering.

Every few years Nye fills out the astronaut application and goes in for his astronaut physical. And every few years he is rejected. His degree in mechanical engineering from Cornell University isn’t enough. Nye says he needs a Ph.D. to be an astronaut.

“Physically, athletically and as project man, a solver of mechanical problems, a tinkerer, I am as good as anybody,” he says. “I’d love to get a Ph.D in applied physics or fluid mechanics, but that’s a seven- or eight-year commitment.”

Being an astronaut would help him change the world, he says. He considers changing the world to be a lifelong goal.

You can see why NASA rejected him. Bill Nye, like most lefties, wants to change the world. He just doesn’t want to make any commitments. (Also he’s athletically as good as anyone? Seriously?)

It’s not clear when he last worked in his actual field, but it would seem that he hasn’t done it in decades.

But then he began yelling a lot about Creationism, which caught the attention of lefty clickbait sites staffed by millenials who grew up with his kids show, and began treating him as an expert on everything.

So now we have Bill Nye being quoted on life after death, football pressure and evolution. Not because he’s an expert, but because he’s a celebrity. And unlike Tyson, he’s not even a celebrity scientist.

Just a celebrity. And a fifth rate one at that.

Bill Nye is a comedian who wanted to change the world by becoming an astronaut but wouldn’t take the time to get a PhD. Now he got his wish because media standards have fallen so far into the toilet that it will quote anyone who agrees with them and whose material might go viral.

Source

 

[tubber]

"Bill Nye is a comedian who wanted to change the world" from the cut and paste warehouse for uncited, glib, irrelevant, and otherwise banal drivel.
Try harder to understand how the people you trust have manipulated you to be their spokesmodel, OBD. You might find it's a better use of your time to connect autism to vaccines despite the literature as does Jenny McCarthy.

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/01/29/A...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=290115
Did Alberta Just Break a Fracking Earthquake World Record?
Regulator says drilling likely triggered 4.4 temblor.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca

Fox Creek, Alberta: 'Location of earthquake consistent with being induced by hydraulic fracturing operations,' says Alberta Energy Regulator spokesperson.

That would likely make it the largest felt earthquake ever caused by fracking, a development that experts swore couldn't happen a few years ago.

Fracking operations in British Columbia's Montney shale generated similar seismic activity of that magnitude last year, and earthquake scientists at Ontario's Western University are still analyzing the two events to see which is the largest.

"The location of the earthquake is consistent with being induced by hydraulic fracturing operations," confirmed Peter Murchland, a spokesman for the Alberta Energy Regulator.

"The AER regards all changes in seismicity that have the potential to indicate an increased risk associated with hydrocarbon production seriously," Murchland added.

Jeffrey Gu, a physics professor at the University of Alberta, said the Alberta Geological Survey and other agencies were investigating the Fox Creek swarm, which hit about 260 kilometres northwest of Edmonton. But Gu said he could not disclose their findings at this time. He offered no details on the scale or scope of the investigation.



Alberta experienced more than 400 small earthquakes between 1985 and 2010. But according to the Alberta Geological Survey, felt earthquakes are uncommon. "There have been fewer than 15 catalogued events greater than magnitude 3.5 since 1985," it has stated.

For years industry and fracking experts argued the technology wouldn't cause quakes that could be felt on the surface.

But specialists in earthquake hazards such as Gail Atkinson, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Induced Seismicity Hazards at Ontario's Western University, argued the opposite.

"I have consistently maintained this kind of thing can happen," said Atkinson. "With fracking, the magnitudes have been increasing every year."

Natural Resources Canada reported a swarm of at least 15 earthquakes this January west of Fox Creek in a region where Encana, Talisman, Apache, Chevron Canada and ExxonMobile intensified the drilling and fracking of two-kilometre-long horizontal wells nearly a year ago.

The companies are cracking rock in the unconventional Duvernay shale at a depth of 3,000 metres in order to extract condensates, a product typically worth more than oil and used to dilute heavy bitumen for pipeline transport.

An investigation by Atkinson last year into a related swarm of 25 small earthquakes in the same area ranging in magnitude from 2.5 to 3.5 between 2013 and 2014 found that the events also corresponded "closely to hydraulic fracture treatments of oil and gas production wells in the immediate vicinity."

Last Friday's shaker

Since Dec. 2014, a second swarm of earthquakes has rattled the region within a 50-kilometre radius of the community of Fox Creek, an oil and gas town with a population of 2,000 people in northern Alberta. The community is about 260 kilometres north of Edmonton.

The largest Fox Creek quake registered 4.4 magnitude and caused walls to shake and beds to move. It became the source of constant social chatter on Friday, Jan. 23.

"When we hit a magnitude of 3.8 this month, I'd thought for sure that the industry would stop and take a smoke break to figure out what's going on," said 57-year-old Barb Ryan, a Fox Creek resident who has been keeping an eye on resource development. "But they didn't. Many are in denial here."

Ryan has pressed for more transparent monitoring over the fracking industry's growing impacts on water, air and public health, but said she has faced resistance from local authorities. (She also graphed the Fox Creek swarms using coordinates from Natural Resources Canada.)

The earthquakes have mostly taken place in the province's first "play based regulation pilot," a geographical area where the regulator has given blanket approval to the development of the formation as opposed to approving one well at a time. The Alberta Energy Regulator says the strategy "results in regulatory efficiencies," but critics call it a new form of deregulation.

Ryan said that most people in Fox Creek know little to nothing about the first or second earthquake swarm, because there has been no public reporting on the events.

To recognize the risk of earthquake hazards in Alberta might put livelihoods on the line and businesses at risk, she said. "Cognitive dissonance prevents some communities from admitting or even discussing the resource industry's impacts. The topic is very divisive."

Many Alberta geologists did not answer Tyee queries on the earthquake swarms.

Based on public data from Natural Resources Canada, Ryan estimates the region around Fox Creek has recorded approximately 94 small quakes since 1990.

"We've had more than 70 of those quakes since Dec. 2013," she said. "We once averaged zero to three quakes a year. Since the initial swarm, we've averaged zero to four quakes a day."

A BRIEF HISTORY OF ALBERTA'S MAN-MADE QUAKES
Alberta's oil and gas industry has caused both small and significant earthquakes throughout the province since the 1960s.

The rapid extraction of sour natural gas from the Strachan pool near Rocky Mountain House set off a 4.0 magnitude quake in 1974 followed by 146 tremors in the 1980s, including a 3.4 magnitude tremor.

In 1970, the pumping of water into depleted oil fields near Snipe Lake likely triggered a 5.1 magnitude earthquake, perhaps the largest in the province's history.

A 1990 report by the U.S. Geological Survey noted that this earthquake "is considered to be the first and largest known Canadian example of an earthquake induced by fluid injection in a producing oil field."

The injection of steam to melt 400-metre deep bitumen formations in Cold Lake can lift and then drop the land by as much as 10 to 30 centimetres over a month. The heaving of the ground creates a constant stream of micro-earthquakes and frequently fractures well casings.

Since 1958, the industry has pumped more than 2 million barrels of water into old oil formations to coax out more petroleum.

In addition, the province has more than 2,500 wastewater disposal wells.

— Andrew Nikiforuk
...continued...

 

[agentaqua]

Rise of 'man-made' quakes

Overwhelming scientific evidence from the U.S. Geological Survey now shows that the fracking industry and its need for huge wastewater disposal wells have fostered unprecedented "man-made earthquakes" in the eastern and central U.S. In the process the industry has rewritten seismic records in Ohio, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Arkansas and Texas.

Some experts now argue that man-made industry quakes are more dangerous than natural ones. Western University's Atkinson said that "the hazards may be significant, depending on the proximity of infrastructure, and should be carefully evaluated... the hazard is concentrated close to the activity [within about five kilometres], because the motions die off with distance."

Added Atkinson: "The earthquake hazard from induced seismicity in places like Alberta where seismicity is being triggered is greater than the natural earthquake hazard... it will take regulators in the United States and Canada a while to figure this out."

Experimental frack operations typically require up to 18,000 horsepower to pump 18,000 barrels of water and between 100 and 165 tonnes of rock crack openers, sand or "proppants" as many as 40 times to create fractures along one lateral well.

Alarmed by the industry's ability to trigger earthquakes, regulators in B.C. and Colorado recently introduced a seismic traffic system. Whenever fracking operations or injection wells activate felt earthquakes greater than a magnitude of 4.0, operations must shut down to prevent more serious shaking.

Alberta has no such policy. Operations that currently generate earthquake swarms can do so with impunity, though that may soon change, according to a spokesman for the province's energy regulator.

"The AER is developing a scientifically-based protocol for addressing anomalous seismicity that is appropriate for Alberta," Murchland said.

At one time, industry experts and lobbyists maintained that "seismic activity caused by hydraulic fracturing is not a hazard or nuisance."

But the complexity of geology has confounded the industry. While inducing micro-earthquakes to open rock pores, a frack job perturbs the stress of the rock. Injected fluids can then find faults and cause slips, resulting in earthquakes.

"We don't know the magnitude limits for these earthquakes or how big an event can get," said Atkinson, who has analyzed seismic hazards for dams, buildings and offshore platforms.

"We also don't know if we can predict in advance the likelihood of triggering such an event, either. And we don't know if we can image the faults before fracking and avoid them, or how they'll behave if we hit them."

Injections reactivate faults: experts

The Alberta Energy Regulator told The Tyee that it is also investigating another swarm of earthquakes that shook up Cardston, Alberta. That incident "was likely induced by hydraulic fracturing," a spokesperson said.

In 2012, as many as four earthquakes rattled an area near the Blood Indian Reserve, or Kainai Nation. The tremors ranged from 2.4 to 2.7 in magnitude according to data captured by the U.S. Geological Survey in Montana. It shook homes on the reserve where many residents remain opposed to fracking. The province has yet to issue a report on the earthquake swarm.

Injecting fluids into shales to create fractures can create a chaotic and uncontrollable network of cracks that can connect to fault zones. The reactivation of these faults can then trigger an earthquake, scientists say.

The disposal of toxic wastewater extracted from fracking jobs into deep formations can also cause swarms of earthquakes by the same mechanism.

Injection wells, with names like King Kong and Deep Throat, can trigger earthquakes up to 20 kilometres away. The wells may inject more than 150,000 barrels of waste into the ground a month. Years may pass before the fluids migrate or change rock pressure, activating nearby faults and fractures.

Between 2010 and 2013, the U.S. Midwest, home to extensive fracking, has experienced more than 100 induced and felt earthquakes over a magnitude of 3.0 per year, compared to the normal average of 21.

Oklahoma, once a seismically quiet region, has now become the most earthquake prone jurisdiction in the Lower 48 due to fracking and the injection of its associated wastewater. It now records more earthquake activity than California.

Oklamahoman earthquakes
Due to a 50 per cent increase of quakes greater than a magnitude of 3.0, the U.S. Geological Survey issued residents of the state an unprecedented advisory last year: prepare for "increased hazard" from industry-made quakes.

"Building owners and government officials should have a special concern for older, unreinforced brick structures, which are vulnerable to serious damage during sufficient shaking," said the warning.

The earthquake swarms have produced lawsuits in Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas alleging that oil and gas companies are responsible for making earthquakes that have caused property damage and personal injury. In Oklahoma, there has been a rush on earthquake insurance.

Due to growing concerns about public health, groundwater contamination and man-made earthquakes, New York state banned the mining of shale basins last year. The governments of the Yukon, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have placed moratoriums on the technology. A new group in Prince Edward Island is calling for a complete ban.

BC frack quake monitor hired

Industry-made quakes in northern B.C. have become such an ongoing concern that the Induced Seismicity Monitoring Network Consortium, which represents government, industry and regulators, recently hired a seismologist for two years.

The earthquake hazard expert will "monitor induced seismicity from natural gas development in northeast B.C. and study the relationship between fluid injection and potential large-magnitude seismic events."

To date, B.C. fracking operations have tried to avoid faults by reducing frack stages, or using less proppant to keep cracks open, but to no avail. "The success of these mitigation measures is difficult to ascertain," stated the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission in its latest earthquake report.

Unlike other geological agencies on the continent, the Alberta Geological Survey, an arm of the industry-funded Alberta Energy Regulator, does not report on induced seismicity in a timely fashion. There is little data available from 2010 to 2014 when hydraulic fracturing took off in the province.

Residents north of Cochrane claim that seismic activity caused by the fracking of the Cardium oil formation not only cracked foundations and broke windows, but has not been properly investigated.

When a possible earthquake uplifted Ann Craft's mobile home in 2012 during the fracking of four shallow coal bed methane wells, the province agreed to do a study and then reneged on its promise.

Members of the Alberta Geological Survey say that provincial seismic monitoring is inadequate: "[It] is likely that network coverage in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin is too sparse to consistently detect" small events caused by injection wells, land subsidence or hydraulic fracturing, said one recent study.

A 2014 report by the Alberta Energy Regulator concluded that the risk of industry-caused earthquakes was low, but added that its monitoring capacity was not up to the task: "f it becomes necessary to verify or refute a definitive causal correlation, it would be hard to do so with the currently available data. In the areas of concern, more work is needed to expand the array of seismic stations to precisely detect the epicentre and hypocenters of an earthquake."

'Minor anomalous seismicity': CAPP

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers describes hydraulic fracturing as a "safe and proven" technology to extract natural gas and oil, even though one recent Alberta fracturing incident broke cap rock and released nearly 12,000 barrels of bitumen into aquifers and the boreal forest at a Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. operation.

But CAPP adds that "certain oil and gas basins, such as the Horn River Basin of British Columbia, have a distinctive geology, and hydraulic fracturing has caused rare and minor anomalous seismicity."

Earthquake hazard scientists argue the industry has routinely underestimated the complexity of geology for unconventional hydrocarbons everywhere, and is now encountering unknown faults and triggering earthquake swarms by negligent design.

In Australia, one group of scientists at Southern Cross University recently argued that the fracking industry has moved as fast as a hare, while public policy and good baseline science has proceeded with the pace of a tortoise. [Tyee]

Andrew Nikiforuk is an award-winning journalist who has been writing about the energy industry for two decades and is a contributing editor to The Tyee. Find his previous stories here.

This coverage of Canadian national issues is made possible because of generous financial support from our Tyee Builders.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/diversifying-alberta-s-economy-away-from-oil-won-t-be-easy-1.2933995

Diversifying Alberta's economy away from oil won't be easy
Nearly everyone agrees Alberta needs to diversify. The question is: How?
By Tracy Johnson, CBC News Posted: Jan 29, 2015 11:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 29, 2015 11:00 AM ET
Tracy Johnson
Business reporter

In the fall of 2011, when oil was trading around $100 a barrel and Keystone XL still seemed a no-brainer, the Canada West Foundation brought together 30 economists, academics and business people to talk about diversifying Western Canada’s economy.

The report was called "Who Cares about Baskets, We’ve Got Eggs!" – a clever title that neatly sums up Alberta’s approach to diversification when times are good: Eh, who cares?

The report concluded that diversification was still a relevant objective in Western Canada, but not as important as the pursuit of prosperity more generally.

Translation: Times are so good right now, let’s keep riding the wave.

That kind of thinking has come back to haunt Alberta.

With a projected budget shortfall of more than $6 billion and forecasts of flat, if not negative, economic growth, Alberta is once again talking diversification.

Jim Prentice says 'tough choices' needed to face Alberta's financial crisis
"The only piece of the economy that picks up during these kinds of downturns is conferences on how we can diversify our economy," says Todd Hirsch, chief economist at Alberta Treasury Branch. "We don’t tend to worry about it too much when oil is at $100."

Frittering away wealth

Here’s an example of what Hirsch is talking about. In 2006, riding a wave of resource revenue, Alberta’s government sent a $400 cheque to each Alberta resident not in prison.

It was called the prosperity bonus, or more colloquially "Ralph bucks," after then Premier Ralph Klein. It cost the province $1.4 billion.

"At the same time, the University of Calgary was looking at expanding," says Hirsch. "It had great plans for a downtown campus that was going to cost around $1 billion. I think we missed some great opportunities to invest in our post-secondary education systems; instead, we frittered away our money. People got a couple of dinners and put some gas in their Hummer, and that was about it."

'We chase it and chase it and chase it and never really crack the nut.'
- Todd Hirsch, Senior Economist, ATB Financial
Hirsch is not being too harsh.

Although some donated to charity or used the money to make ends meet, an unscientific survey of a dozen colleagues here at CBC Calgary shows a lot of frittering took place. Ralph bucks were spent on iPods and beer, ski equipment and one fondue party for 80 people. No Hummers though.


Alberta's economy by industry 2013
Alberta's economy by industry in 2013, based on data from Statistics Canada (CBC/Statistics Canada)

Alberta’s economy is more diversified than it was 30 years ago. In 1985, direct revenues from the energy sector accounted for 36 per cent of the economy. In 2013, that number was 26 per cent.

However, that doesn't account for the indirect effect of the oil industry. For example, construction accounted for 11 per cent of the economy in 2013, but that would include pipeline and oilsands construction. Finance accounted for four per cent, but that would include loans to the energy industry. The actual number is impossible to pin down – but is certainly higher than 26 per cent.

"There’s spinoff after spinoff," says Doug Porter, chief economist at the Bank of Montreal. "When you just look at broad numbers, it understates the dependence of the province on the energy sector."

Ontario's economy by industry 2013
Ontario's economy by industry in 2013, based on data from Statistics Canada (CBC/Statistics Canada)

For many years, the goal of diversification was to have an economy that looked more like Ontario, with no dominant industry. To achieve that, many things were thrown at the wall.

Alberta Advantage

The Lougheed government of the 1970s tried diversification through outright ownership of diversified companies, as an example, buying a stake in Pacific Western Airlines and moving its head office to Calgary.

In the '90s, it was the Alberta Advantage, the idea that low tax rates would encourage businesses to move to the province.

"We chase it and chase it and chase it, and never really crack the nut," says Hirsch.

A DIRTT Environmental Solutions commerical interior
A commercial interior by DIRTT, which manufactures such interiors using video-game technology. Companies like DIRTT, which will post more than $100 million in revenue this year, will have less trouble attracting staff as the labour market in Alberta deteriorates, one economist says. (DIRTT Environmental Solutions)

Scott Jenkins is the president of DIRTT Environmental Solutions, a company that has nothing to do with the energy sector, despite its name.

DIRTT manufactures commercial office interiors using video game technology, and is a success story by any measure. A decade old, it will post more than $100 million in revenue this year and has grown to 850 employees.

"We’re really a tech company that operates in an older industry of construction. Instead of studs and drywall, we use software."

Hiring gets easier

Jenkins says when DIRTT started, it had no trouble raising money in Alberta, but as it has grown, it’s been hard to find skilled staff. The money was there, the people were not.

"You are competing in the good times with the resource industry, which can pay people really well," says Jenkins. "The quality of life is very high and the skill sets – technology and engineers, geologists – are geared specifically to that industry."

DIRTT recently opened an office in Salt Lake City, Utah, because it was easier to find the software programmers it needed.

"It’s not to say we can’t find quality people in Calgary. We can. It’s just a little more difficult," Jenkins said.

Companies like DIRTT will have less trouble attracting staff now, as the labour market in Alberta deteriorates. There's an upside to that, says Hirsch.

"It's now maybe an opportunity for those non-energy industries to gain a foothold. There will be some nice resumés coming though the door."

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129113719.htm
Iceland rises as its glaciers melt from climate change
Date: January 29, 2015
Source: University of Arizona
Summary: Earth's crust under Iceland is rebounding as global warming melts the island's great ice caps. In south-central Iceland some sites are moving upward as much as 1.4 inches (35 mm) per year. A new paper is the first to show the current fast uplift of the Icelandic crust is a result of accelerated melting of the island's glaciers and coincides with the onset of warming that began about 30 years ago, the researchers said.

Journal Reference: Kathleen Compton, Richard A. Bennett, Sigrun Hreinsdóttir. Climate driven vertical acceleration of Icelandic crust measured by CGPS geodesy. Geophysical Research Letters, 2015; DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062446 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL06244

 

[agentaqua]

Love your new science. May and might!! New scientific terms, LOL.

First off OBD - may and might are not new terms in science nor the English language.

Secondly - the fact that these terms are commonly used in science and you are not seemingly aware of that fact - nicely illustrates the point I was making earlier about the lack of science literacy in the denier camp. Thank you for that example.

Thirdly - This is not "my" science - it is everyone's science, OBD - even yours.

Fourthly - Science has even a more robust and defensible way of saying "may" and "might" - It's called "STATISTICS" - a specialized branch of mathematics. Scientists routinely say things like there is a 95% chance that this particular variable represents the true value of the population 19 times out of 20. These are the same kind of mathematical inferences that are used in all the sciences - even the engineering sciences which design and build your industrial equipment and vehicles that you use all the time without thinking about it. Then there are the recommendations and discussion sections where "may" and "might" are often used. Scientists are generally a cautious lot - commonly using "may" or "might". Again - you are only demonstrating your ignorance of science with the comments above - LOLs notwithstanding.

 

[agentaqua]

http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=11129

Smothered oceans: Extreme oxygen loss in oceans accompanied past global climate change
January 28, 2015

Rapid warming of the planet can cause ocean basins to abruptly lose oxygen, which marine life depends on, say UC Davis researchers. (Thinkstock image)
Seafloor sediment cores reveal abrupt, extensive loss of oxygen in the ocean when ice sheets melted roughly 10,000-17,000 years ago, according to a study from the University of California, Davis. The findings provide insight into similar changes observed in the ocean today.

In the study, published in the journal PLOS ONE http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115246 , researchers analyzed marine sediment cores from different world regions to document the extent to which low oxygen zones in the ocean have expanded in the past, due to climate change.

From the subarctic Pacific to the Chilean margins, they found evidence of extreme oxygen loss stretching from the upper ocean to about 3,000 meters deep. In some oceanic regions, such loss took place over a time period of 100 years or less.

“This is a global story that knits these regions together and shows that when you warm the planet rapidly, whole ocean basins can lose oxygen very abruptly and very extensively,” said lead author Sarah Moffitt, a postdoctoral scholar with the UC Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory and formerly a Ph.D. student with the Graduate Group in Ecology.

Marine organisms, from salmon and sardines to crab and oysters, depend on oxygen to exist. Adapting to an ocean environment with rapidly dropping oxygen levels would require a major reorganization of living things and their habitats, much as today polar species on land are retreating to higher, cooler latitudes.

The researchers chose the deglaciation period because it was a time of rising global temperatures, atmospheric carbon dioxide and sea levels — many of the global climate change signs the Earth is experiencing now.

“Our modern ocean is moving into a state that has no precedent in human history,” Moffitt said. “The potential for our oceans to look very, very different in 100-150 years is real. How do you use the best available science to care for these critical resources in the future? Resource managers and conservationists can use science like this to guide a thoughtful, precautionary approach to environmental management.”

The study’s co-authors include: Russell Moffitt with the Marine Conservation Institute; Tessa Hill, professor in the UC Davis Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and at the Bodega Marine Laboratory; Wilson Sauthoff and Catherine Davis of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences; and Kathryn Hewett, UC Davis Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

The study arose from a graduate level course that was taught at UC Davis in winter 2013 by Hill. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation.

 

[GLG]

Originally Posted by agentaqua
ya OBD - 95% of all of NASAs, NOAAs, IPCCs likely thousands of scientists, technicians, and support staff are "secretly" against big oil and are making this stuff up to ruin the economy...

They do it because it protects their own jobs as it's got political favor the spin doctors live on both sides of any issue. There is absolutely something funny going on behind the scenes, I suspect social programming, jealously of success, and blind faith.

Are you saying that there is a hoax on both sides of the argument. I can see it on the fossil fuel side but the science side too? Do you have an example of some science that is clearly a hoax? Perhaps there is something I missed. Could happen but I do not know of an example that this has happened.

It can be illustrated simply in a question I asked GLG twice before that he flat out ignored. I've asked before why is the energy sector the subject of the backlash, the cause du jour when it isn't the largest emitter? Why don't people go against the biggest emitter especially when it's something so easy to go without? Maybe you've got a thought that isn't a copy and paste to add?

So your question is why pick on the energy industry when they are not the ones that are the "real" problem?
I thought I answered but if not here is your answer.
It's because that industry is the one with the fastest growing CO2 output.
In Canada the tarsands are projected to be the largest output of CO2 in the coming years.
In BC, LNG is expected to be the largest output of CO2 in the province.
All other sectors are going to stay the same, or drop even though they are growing.
Clearly all sectors need to do some work but where is our best bang for our buck going to come from?
Lets have a look at some numbers from the latest Environment Canada report.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=E0533893-1&offset=4&toc=show
Table 1: GHG Emissions by Economic Sector (Mt CO[SUB]2[/SUB] eq) (excluding LULUCF)
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TH="class: align-left, bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]Mt CO[SUB]2[/SUB] eq[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #EEEEEE, align: center"]1990[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #EEEEEE, align: center"]2005[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #EEEEEE, align: center"]2010[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #EEEEEE, align: center"]2011[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #EEEEEE, align: center"]2012[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Transportation[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]128[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]168[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]167[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]166[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]165[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Oil and Gas[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]101[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]159[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]163[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]164[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]173[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Electricity[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]94[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]121[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]99[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]92[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]86[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Buildings[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]70[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]84[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]79[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]85[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]80[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Emissions-intensive and Trade-exposed Industries[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]95[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]89[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]76[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]80[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]78[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Agriculture[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]54[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]68[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]68[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]67[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]69[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Waste and Others[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]48[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]47[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]46[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]47[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]47[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]National GHG Total[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]591[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]736[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]699[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]701[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]699[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

That's history and we have no way to change that.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is what we are looking at in the way of projection to the year 2020

Table 3: Change in GHG Emissions by Economic Sector (Mt CO[SUB]2[/SUB] eq)
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=E0533893-1&offset=5&toc=show

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TH="class: width-40, bgcolor: #EEEEEE, align: center"][/TH]
[TH="class: width-10 align-middle, bgcolor: #EEEEEE, align: center"]2005[/TH]
[TH="class: width-10 align-middle, bgcolor: #EEEEEE, align: center"]2012[/TH]
[TH="class: width-10 align-middle, bgcolor: #EEEEEE, align: center"]2020[/TH]
[TH="class: width-10 align-middle, bgcolor: #EEEEEE, align: center"]Change
2005 to
2020[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Transportation[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]168[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]165[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]167[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]-1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Oil and Gas[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]159[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]173[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]204[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]45[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Electricity[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]121[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]86[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]71[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]-50[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Buildings[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]84[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]80[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]98[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Emissions-intensive and Trade-exposed Industries[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]89[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]78[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]90[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Agriculture[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]68[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]69[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]70[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Waste and Others[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]47[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]47[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]46[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]-1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Expected LULUCF Contribution[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]-[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]-[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]-19[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]-[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Total[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]736[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]699[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]727[/TD]
[TD="class: align-center, align: center"]-9[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]


Perhaps 3X5 you can tell us where our we have the best chance of decreasing our CO2?

Here is an idea....
Everyone in Canada get solar panels and electric cars so that the Oil and Gas industry can grow and add shareholder value...

 

[GLG]

As I pointed out in a conversation with GLG earlier this issue is barely in the top 10 in the general public, most people are more upset about gays being able to marry.

I think a lot of Canadians are concerned with our addiction to fossil fuel and climate change.. gay marriage... not so much.

Climate change survey reveals Canadians' fears for future generations


Poll suggests acceptance of climate change science rising - and most don't see Canada as a laggard

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cli...adians-fears-for-future-generations-1.2852605

A new Environics poll suggests a majority of Canadians worry about climate change and how it will affect their children and grandchildren.
The survey of 2,020 people revealed 50 per cent of respondents are "extremely" or "definitely" concerned about a changing climate, and 78 per cent of those fear the kind of legacy it will leave for future generations.

"It hit a nerve," said Keith Neuman, who is executive director of the Environics Institute for Survey Research.
He said it's the first time the institute has asked the legacy question in annual surveys on climate change.
"The one about future generations was the one that elicited the strongest reaction, that the greatest number of people who said they were concerned about climate change were really worried about this," he said in an interview with CBC News.
The institute, a non-profit arm of the polling company, partnered with the David Suzuki Foundation, which helped to pay for the cost of this year's research.
Acceptance of science grows

Among the findings, the poll suggests the percentage of Canadians who believe in the scientific fact of climate change continues to edge up — to 63 per cent in 2014 compared to 60 per cent last year. One in 10 remain skeptical about the science.
The survey also suggests Canadians are increasingly willing to shoulder the cost of helping to fight the effects of a changing climate. Support for a B.C.-style carbon tax continues to "inch up," with 56 per cent now strongly or somewhat supporting a tax on carbon emissions.
That support is strongest in Ontario and Atlantic Canada, both at 61 per cent, followed by Quebec at 52 per cent.
Last week, the premiers of Ontario and Quebec agreed to jointly co-operate on climate change, with both supporting an eventual price on carbon.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has consistently refused to impose a federal price on carbon, calling it a job killer.
But Neuman says the most recent poll shows Canadians are willing to consider it.
"What we are seeing is a basic openness to this kind of policy among citizens... saying, here's something that probably won't cost me that much and I do feel like I should do something."
The poll is being released just before the start of the UN climate change conference next week in Lima, Peru. Representatives from 195 countries are meeting to draft a new climate treaty that could be signed in Paris next year.
Split feelings about Canada's performance

Despite the fact Canada has been roundly criticized at these meetings for its lack of action to reduce emissions from the petroleum industry, the federal government gets a surprisingly positive assessment for its own actions in the Environics poll.
It shows the public's view of Canada's performance on climate change compared to other countries has remained the same over the past seven years:

• A third (34 per cent) think Canada's performance is better than others.
• One third (32 per cent) say it's about the same.
• The remaining third think it's worse.

"It's clear that Canadians want their government to do more," said Neuman. "But they may not be judging it that harshly because they don't know or appreciate what has been done elsewhere."
The bottom line, said Neuman, is the new poll shows the Conservative government's handling of climate change is not going to turn into a ballot box issue.
"There are lot of things that happen in Ottawa and seem to be significant events but have surprisingly little impact on public opinion."
The survey was based on random telephone interviews conducted with 2,020 Canadians between Oct. 6 and 19, 2014. Based on the probability sample size, results are expected to be accurate to within plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing 3X5 we can agree on is, why aren't we taking more action on this issue.
Could it be a lack of leadership or is it that our current leadership is placing all our bets on increasing our CO2 and most people feel they have no power to change this. Even on this website the pressure to do nothing from OBD (It's all a hoax) and you (we are doing it for China) is a bit much.

Perhaps we should talk about some positive things that NG industry is doing here in BC.
I heard that a new regulation to cut NG flaring by 50% is coming down the pipe.
3X5.....Can you tell us more?

 

[GLG]

Canada falls short of its 2020 climate change commitment


Oil and gas sector to put Canada over on emissions

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-falls-short-of-its-2020-climate-change-commitment-1.2865992

Canada remains well short of meeting its international 2020 climate change commitment, Environment Canada reported Monday, even if the economy tanks and global oil and gas prices remain on the skids.
Even under the worst-case scenario, the 2014 Emissions Report says Canada would still fail to cut greenhouse gases 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 — as Canada committed to do under the Copenhagen accord.

The report, which includes measured emissions through 2012, suggests that under its benchmark projection, known as a reference scenario, Canada will get just over halfway to its international commitment.
"The government of Canada is focused on a pragmatic approach to addressing climate change that will reduce emissions while continuing to create jobs and encourage the growth of the economy," states the report.

Sharply rising GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector will almost completely offset falling greenhouse gases from Canada's electricity generating sector — leaving Canada 1.2 per cent below 2005 levels if all existing and announced measures remain in place through 2020.
In fact, greenhouse gas emissions will actually increase between 2005 and 2020. But the Conservative government has told the United Nations that it will count the carbon sink contribution of Canada's boreal forest against its GHG totals.
"As the economy grows beyond 2012 (the latest year available for historical emissions levels), total emissions are projected to increase," states the report.
Environment minister in Peru

The report comes as Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq is in Lima, Peru, for international talks on the next global climate accord, which is supposed to be finalized in December 2015.

"It's absolutely a black eye for us internationally," NDP environment critic Megan Leslie said in an interview.
The Conservative mantra has long been that the world's major emitters must all be at the table, Leslie said — a tune that hasn't changed even after last month's agreement between the world's two biggest emitters, China and the U.S.
"It's all happening around us and we're not a party to that conversation."
The report shows Canada will be 116 megatonnes short of its 2020 commitment under the reference scenario, giving it a "snowball's chance in hell" of meeting its international target, said Liberal critic John McKay.
Environment Canada used three different scenarios for estimating emissions to 2020.
Under a case of booming economic growth and high fossil fuel prices, Canada would emit 781 megatonnes of GHGs in 2020, far above the 611 Mt target under Copenhagen.
The reference scenario sees Canada emitting 746 megatonnes in 2020, about 53 per cent of the way to its target, while anemic annual growth of 1.5 per cent annually and low global prices for oil and gas could get Canada down to 716 Mt.
Oil, gas emissions rise

The benchmark price of crude oil is off nearly 40 per cent since July, the lowest it's been in five years, and has continued to slide since the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries decided to maintain its production last month rather than cut it in order to support prices.

What's clear from the report is that the oil and gas sector is driving emissions growth and will continue to do so through 2020 under current government policies.
Environment Canada projects oil and gas emissions will rise 45 Mt over 2005 levels by 2020, almost offsetting the 50 Mt drop in electricity generation emissions for the same period. The other significant area of GHG growth is from buildings, up 14 Mt by 2020.
The Conservatives have been promising regulations on the oil and gas sector since 2008 but keep punting action into some indefinite future.
"I don't understand how the environment minister can continue to stall on limiting emissions from the oil industry when her own ministry's data shows that the rapidly rising pollution from the tar sands is what prevents Canada from keeping its word on the world stage," said Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada.

 

[GLG]

Climate Change Scientists: Juno Here Because Of Global Warming

Are you sure you want to hang your hat with the author of this wacky post?
William Bigelow
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art..._Rant_of_the_Day-_The_Onion_Goes_Anti-Semitic

Is this the sort of folks you would say represents your way of thinking?
Perhaps you should look at the source of your information and see if it is credible before you post this nonsense.
Is that asking too much?
Oh wait that's not how you roll is it.... shoot first then ask questions because that's the lazy way to do things.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129143040.htm

Global warming won't mean more storms; but big storms get bigger, small storms shrink
Date: January 29, 2015
Source: University of Toronto
Summary: Atmospheric physicists predict that global warming will not lead to an overall increasingly stormy atmosphere, a topic debated by scientists for decades. Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged.

Journal Reference: F. Laliberte, J. Zika, L. Mudryk, P. J. Kushner, J. Kjellsson, K. Doos. Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate. Science, 2015; 347 (6221): 540 DOI: 10.1126/science.1257103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1257103