Dec 072012
 

Did you see the release by NOAA of the Arctic Report Card this week?

No surprises in many ways.  Record low sea ice extent in 2012.  Accelerating melt of Greenland ice sheet.  The cryosphere is  telling us the world is changing and doing so much, much quicker than any of our models, science etc. has suggested.  Of course, our GHG emissions are growing at a faster rate than the worst case scenario presented in IPCC .  So, we aren’t just changing the climate …  we are doing it at a rate even faster than we thought we would!

One thing that is interesting in 2012.  There were few places in the Arctic during 2012 that were exceptionally warm — it was kind of a typical year albeit with more warm than cool periods but without any extreme anomalous conditions.  Notwithstanding that, the melting of sea and glacier ice was record setting — the environment has kind of been ‘pre-conditioned’ over the years so the ocean is warming and the ice is thinner and ….  So, even near ‘normal’ years weather wise can have significant melts.  Essentially, it is further evidence that we are fundamentally changing the system — our actions over the past decades will continue regardless of whether we reduce emissions.

It will be interesting to see what impact the changing Arctic has on our winter this winter.  There are suggestions that the changes in the Arctic are enabling more substantial and stable incursions of cold air south in the winter — creating the kind of winter cold that Europe saw last year.  Here is western Canada, we have had an early start to winter and the two seasonal predictions I have heard on the radio speak of the expectation of a cooler than normal winter.

Jun 132012
 

from NSIDC

 

The melt of Arctic sea ice is well underway for another summer.  The National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado publishes the above chart regularly.  They note the rapid decline that began in May putting extent below the 2007 record low season.

The sea ice is generally thinner now than in years past.

The first Arctic Sea Ice Outlook has been published and suffice to say no one is expecting anything close to historical averages.

 

 

 

 

 

Jan 182012
 
Back yard observation

After an extended warm and dry period through December and some of January, winter arrived this week with a little sow and a lot of cold. It has been interesting reading various science and pseudo-science organizations try to explain the winter this year. In the fall, the prospect of a La Nina winter caused most forecasts to suggest a cold winter particularly in western north America. Which largely hasn’t happened – although winter isn’t over. 

 

Increasingly, people look to the significant change in the Arctic oscillation to explain the different behavior tis winter. 

 

It is also interesting to note the near record minimum extent of Arctic sea ice and the minimum volume of Arctic sea ice. It has been slow to re-freeze and thicken -especially on the Russian side of the pole. 

 

It is perhaps not surprising there have been difficulties forecasting this winter. Given the highly anomalous sea ice patterns, we haven’t seen anything like this combination before. Our atmospheric and oceanographic models have never been tested against such a low ice cover.  This winter might be providing a good case study – perhaps we will learn more about some processes that will improve forecasts in the future. 

 

Oct 102010
 

With the daily publication of EnviroAb, I thought I would add a weekly commentary on some of the topics I found of most interest/value.

The relative roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial committees reviewing oilsands monitoring was frequently discussed this week with questions of overlap, duplication etc.

The intent to establish aprovincial committee was announced Sep. 26:

http://alberta.ca/acn/201009/2920144932A4E-0BA6-6932-D9C0606CCBFE2BC1.html

And the names were made available this week:

http://environment.alberta.ca/03183.html

The committee is to report by Feb and is reviewing monitoring results and methods – to understand the apparently different results and to understand their significance historically.

The federal panel was announced Sep 30 and is to report within 60 days:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=981D86D0-D3DB-4D71-8957-8EF52F85A05E

The mandate here seems broader – they are to review research and monitoring. The release actually mentions “of environmental effects” but I somehow doubt they will be limited to that.

It seems the federal panel is somewhat more oriented to the methods and systems in research and monitoring shill the provincial panel is more oriented to resolving some of the specific inconsistencies in observations. So, they are complementary but it would have been better if the provincial panel reported first.

James Hansen added significantly to the hearings about the Total oilsands proposal:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/oil-sands-should-be-left-in-the-ground-nasa-scientist/article1743844/

I found two things interesting about this intervention. First, I wondered about his appearance at such a hearing and being reported as from the Goddard Institute. I presume he wasn’t presenting a position of GISS but his own opinion. I wonder if that was made clear during the hearing.

More importantly, this whole hearing is a reflection of the reality that there is really no policy or law in place today to manage GHG emissions. One has to have the argument over each individual project or initiative.

May 252010
 
Water drops

Summer can be a fleeting thing in western and northern Canada.  Last week was a prime example …  +30 C to start the week but closer to +3 C to start the first “summer” long weekend.  We can only hope for a turn around!

The annual meeting of the International Arctic Buoy Meeting will be held in a couple weeks in Oslo — just prior to the IPY Final Conference.  The IABP coordinates the deployment of weather, ice and oceanographic buoys throughout the Arctic ocean.  Today’s map of Arctic sea ice shows that the ice extent in the Arctic right now is lower than it was at this time in 2007 — the year of the minimum sea ice recorded in the Arctic.  It is a very interesting development — particularly in light of the results that suggest that much of the remaining ice is thin — thinner than perhaps we know.  Read the comments of University of Manitoba professor Dave Barber.

Sea ice in Canada’s fragile Arctic is melting faster than anyone expected, the lead investigator in Canada’s largest climate-change study yet said Friday — raising the possibility that the Arctic could, in a worst-case scenario, be ice-free in about three years.

We will have a challenge at the IABP to find ice that is suitable for us to deploy our instruments.

Photo: Actually taken a couple weeks back, this was taken as the late snowfall  melted from some of the early spring flowers in the yard.  Vignetting intentionally applied in photoshop to draw attention to the focus of the image.

May 202010
 
Elbow River

(Photo:  Elbow River, Calgary, Alberta)

I am certainly no expert but I am interested in trying to understand the emissions of carbon from various energy sources.  A report from CERA calculates the ‘well to wheels’ emissions with Canada’s oil sands as the energy source.  (Well to wheels is defined as:  The oil extraction, processing, distribution, through to the combustion of the refined products, such as gasoline and the resulting emissions that exit through the tailpipe.)

The study conclusion states that emissions ”are approximately 5 to 15 percent higher than the average crude oil processed in the United States.” 

A comment on a National Post site suggests the emissions of heavy oil sources in California are higher than the average oilsands emissions.

It would be very interesting to determine more ‘wells to wheels’ calculations of emissions.  Personally, I would like to see these calculations be inclusive of all ‘associated’ emissions.  For example, the production of conventional oil can, depending on what is done, be accommpanied by the flaring or venting of natural gas. 

The wikipedia entry concerning oil production in Nigeria, indicates the oil from there is light and sweet (implying there would be lower overall emissions to refine this to a usable state) but then goes on to indicate that much natural gas is flared off.

I will be trying to learn more about the equivalencies of so called “well to wheels” emissions for various energy sources.

May 102010
 
Blades of Grass

Alberta Prime Time had a debate on the efficacy of Alberta’s regulations on greenhouse gases.  Andy Ridge of the Alberta Climate Change Secretariat debated with Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute.

At issue was what exactly was the substance of the Government’s news release of May 5th — where it was reported that emissions were reduced relative to the business as usual scenario.

It felt like the debate was like so many climate change discussions this year — thinking of Climategate etc. — a discussion of apples and oranges.  We don’t even have a common understanding of the basic data/information and we are not really giving it to people in a way they can understand it.

I wonder if we need to bring some private sector accountability to the reporting of emissions.  Imagine investing in a company with an annual report that said something like “Losses were $17M less than expected under a business as usual scenario.”  Or, in light of the big spill in the Gulf, suppose BP were reporting “The spill is now 17 million fewer barrels than under a business as usual spill.”

We can report that emissions were lower than expected …  but we also should expect our governments to be both honest and truthful and report the full emissions — thereby making it clear that it wasn’t an actual decline in emissions but rather it was a slowing in the rate of increase.

I think, though, that is is more than just a #rebootab issue ….  it is an issue for all governments at all levels.  Believe it or not, the electorate are all big people.  We can handle the truth; we will reward those that tell it — the good, the bad and the ugly.

The image with this post is from my backyard — my grass slowly taking up some of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  But, my grass is growing every which direction — it is haphazard without any clarity and one can’t tell if there is an overall direction to it.  It summed up my sense of the information from the debate.

Apr 212010
 
Whyte Avenue

I attended the Alberta Capital Airshed Alliance (ACAA) AGM this past week.

I learned that the emmissions of pollutants ( NOx, SO2, PM2.5) are roughly emmitting by these sectors in our region:

50% – transportation (cars, trucks, buses, etc.)
25% – large industrial sources (such as refineries, etc.)
25% – other sources – med and small industry, offices, malls, etc. Etc.

So, with continuing significant population growth and development in the capital region, to maintain our mostly Alberta blue skies, we must effectively manage our emissions from transportation. That requires action by a lot of people.

And, we see some of those. The UPass system must be encouraging the adoption/use of transit – a practise that we will want students to continue as they move from studying to “work” in other places. The City’s (with support from the province etc.) Development of LRT and other transit initiatives is a long-term investment in air quality. The federal governments recent announcements of car standards is yet one more action.

How can the ACAA help advance continuing progress? Or, should the ACAA focus efforts on the other 50% of emission sources?

EAVB_WXLRNPTYAP

Mar 312010
 

On March 19th, the Suncor refinery in east Edmonton recorded a upset in their operating that resulted in plumes of smoke.

Yesterday, the Sherwood Park News reported that the Province of Alberta was awaiting further technical details from Suncor.  The paper specifically reports that:

At the time of the first sample there was a 0.278 mg/m3 concentration of particulate matter at the refinery fence line and 1.00 mg/m3 at Petroleum Way/Steambank Avenue.

I am thinking I don’t understand the units or the units have been mis-reported.  For example, the Conference Board of Canada has a site that compares particulate matter across Canada and between Canada and other countries.  Average numbers reported are typically 15 to 30 microgram per cubic metre.  The highest number above is 278 microgram per cubic metre.  Am I right in this?

The Edmonton Journal reported on this on March 20th.  There are a couple interesting pieces in that report.

It notes that a Suncor spokesperson identified that there were no exceedences of provincial air quality limits reported.  A future post on this — I wonder what parameters are measured and whether they are reliable indicators for this kind of incident.

Chris Severinson-Baker from the Pembina Institute suggested people in Sherwood Park should have questions about this and noted that the monitors likely would not have measured the hydrocarbons that were emitted.

How do we access information to determine whether we should be concerned or not? Could we have more open data concerning emissions? Do we even have the capacity to determine emissions from such a process upset?