Alberta under reports oil and gas emissions?

[Gestalt]

So they lied about clean up cost and now this. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-than-thought

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Gestalt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"The pioneering peer reviewed study............ "

Yep, didn't read past this:

Peer reviewed = circle jerk of environmentalists

Means qualified people versus the rebel peoeple

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Feruk]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"The pioneering peer reviewed study............ "

Yep, didn't read past this:

Peer reviewed = circle jerk of environmentalists

The die hard anti anything to do with environment research lobby strikes again. Scientists doing science in Alberta on emissions? Must be a scam right? We should trust oil companies and our right wing politicians only (and maybe Jesus)! Anyone else just wants to knock us down a peg, right?

All I'll say is that it's good the study wasn't done in Saskatchewan, cuz holy shit! That'll be a mess.

[dirtsniffer]

I've tried to find the report, but I couldn't. If anyone knows where I can find it please share.

[thinmyster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"The pioneering peer reviewed study............ "

Yep, didn't read past this:

Peer reviewed = circle jerk of environmentalists

I stopped reading past this.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Alberta ubder reports oil and gas emissions?

[ExtraSlow]

I obder report my dank size.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[jltabot]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've tried to find the report, but I couldn't. If anyone knows where I can find it please share.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.7b03525

[schocker]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.7b03525

Sounds a little reachy in the 'implication' section with the ifs.. Why in chops do you vent the casing gas though?

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The so called "peers" who are doing the reviewing are just as biased

This isn't even a true scientific area, it is just cherry picking mass data collection to support whatever hypothesis you want. Not only that, there is little to zero accountability because anybody who disagrees with their little climate club gets ostracized so it won't upset grant money from special interest groups.

Climate science today is about as unbiased as the Rebel, and just as trustworthy. It runs on sensationalism of natural disasters and glacial melting, which I hate to break it to you, have been happening long before we as a species ever stepped foot on this earth.

Is the Earth's climate changing? Of course, it has an undeniable history of change. Do billions of people swarming the planet stripping away natural areas for roads, cities, farms, and other large scale infrastructure? I would say yes. Does human created C02 play a role? Probably, but I would say this specific factor has been massively overblown to the point of stupidity... likely for profit, and out of spite by the chronic have-nots of the world.

How would you know any of this given that you opted not the read the article?

[Feruk]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How would you know any of this given that you opted not the read the article?

Exactly. While the article may be bias, Sugarphreak's post is nothing but bias. It's Trump-style ranting.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[revelations]

I would suggest that direct, airborne data collection from a 3rd party source is more usually more truthful and more reliable than the emitting industry itself.

HOWEVER

Regional methane and ethane emission rates were calculated based on airborne measurements from a series of flights conducted during October 27 to November 5, 2016.

If I sampled traffic on Deerfoot at 5pm on weekdays, I would report the DF is 100% GRIDLOCK. Similarly, short term measurements during (perhaps) peak activity will also show a statistical anomaly much easier.

They SHOULD HAVE run the flights perhaps 1-2x monthly for 12 months, AND THEN published the results. (ie. this was a really stupid, poorly thought out/sampled, study)

[lasimmon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would suggest that direct, airborne data collection from a 3rd party source is more usually more truthful and more reliable than the emitting industry itself.

HOWEVER



If I sampled traffic on Deerfoot at 5pm on weekdays, I would report the DF is 100% GRIDLOCK. Similarly, short term measurements during (perhaps) peak activity will also show a statistical anomaly much easier.

They SHOULD HAVE run the flights perhaps 1-2x monthly for 12 months, AND THEN published the results. (ie. this was a really stupid study)

Eh, I don't think flying over a field at any given time is going to show more or less emissions on the average.

There is a ton of released Methane that goes un-reported.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Eh, I don't think flying over a field at any given time is going to show more or less emissions on the average.

There is a ton of released Methane that goes un-reported.

Um, there absolutely are seasonal fluctuations in volatile gas emissions from any given environment. Cause by both seasonal variations in the industry AND environment seasonal variations.

Again, I dont doubt the potential accuracy potential of airborne surveys, but the sampling was very short sighted. Had this been a 12 month long study, then its relevant.

[jltabot]

Not that I know anything about aerial survey equipment, does anyone know how accurate their measurement tools would be? A 95% confidence level accounting for instrument uncertainties seems a little high, no? Especially if you're surveying from a plane? More curious than anything else.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Oh like I even had to bother reading it to know that people like Tim Gray are somehow behind it.

This shit is so biased that my post is actually quite neutral in comparison.

Resorting to calling it Trump-Style is also perfectly in line with what I expect. That is the standard go to discredit. The playbook is basically to create self serving groups to credit one another in a giant circle jerk, and then systematically discredit all that disagree.

In the words of Trump... Fake News!

So you haven’t read it? The thing with science is you can’t get anything intelligent from reading a news paper’s summary of something they don’t understand. So the only thing you can do to decide whether or not you believe the right controls were in place during a study, causation/correlations are assigned correctly etc is to actually read the study.

No offence but wasn’t it you that was using Tim Ball from the friends of science to back up some of your claims. Even though that guy is a nut job who has been found receiving funding from oil companies and also been caught lying/exaggerating about his educational background. Maybe it was someone else though....

[mr2mike]

I'm going to blame near-by cattle and farms.
Why? Because, why not?