Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Tar Sands Aerosols 'R Us.


As I've noted before, the ladder of (peer-reviewed) science knows a top and a bottom.

And the journal Nature is right at the top of said ladder.

Here is the lede of the actual abstract (no MSM filter required) from one of the latest articles published in said journal that was written by scientists at Environment and Climate Change Canada, the University of Calgary and Yale University:

Worldwide heavy oil and bitumen deposits amount to 9 trillion barrels of oil distributed in over 280 basins around the world1, with Canada home to oil sands deposits of 1.7 trillion barrels2. The global development of this resource and the increase in oil production from oil sands has caused environmental concerns over the presence of toxic compounds in nearby ecosystems3, 4 and acid deposition5, 6. The contribution of oil sands exploration to secondary organic aerosol formation, an important component of atmospheric particulate matter that affects air quality and climate7, remains poorly understood. Here we use data from airborne measurements over the Canadian oil sands, laboratory experiments and a box-model study to provide a quantitative assessment of the magnitude of secondary organic aerosol production from oil sands emissions. We find that the evaporation and atmospheric oxidation of low-volatility organic vapours from the mined oil sands material is directly responsible for the majority of the observed secondary organic aerosol mass. The resultant production rates of 45–84 tonnes per day make the oil sands one of the largest sources of anthropogenic secondary organic aerosols in North America...

'Nuff said?

And, as an aside, it is interesting to note that the paper was first submitted (i.e. 'received' by the journal on November 9, 2015 which is just a couple of weeks after....Well...You know...



Lew said...

You've pointed out the top of the ladder, RossK.

Here's the bottom:

“We could potentially electrify the oilsands, which would make the oilsands the cleanest oil produced anywhere on the globe.” - Christy Clark, April 07, 2016.

Anonymous said...

ExxonMobil CEO: ending oil production 'not acceptable for humanity'

Anonymous said...

Holy shit.

motorcycleguy said...

Mr. RossK, could you please give the journal "Nature" Christy Clark's phone number? This is all well and good but they have missed an equally big scientific revelation. Here in BC, burning natural gas to liquefy natural gas for export is "green" but burning it to generate economical backup electricity at Burrard Thermal is "dirty". The people at "Nature" probably already have Abbott and Costello's number to find out who's on first. If their number is busy it automatically forwards to Bill Bennett.

motorcycleguy said...

.....and another thing.....when they do get Bennett on the phone.... he can explain how he scientifically modified his calculator to produce numbers that show it is in the best interests of British Columbians for him to keep approving IPP's (Narrows Inlet on the Sunshine Coast a prime example).... and pay them 3 times the going rate for electricity that they would send to Alberta to do all this "greening" (because it is proven we don't need it here)....and... also explain why draining alpine lakes, diverting waterfalls, stringing powerlines and industrializing pristine fjords (Jervis and Princess Louisa Inlets to follow) are equally "green"