Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html

America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America's Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC's short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

Here is an interesting article about untapped oil in the US...

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html?fark

Quote:

America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America's Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC's short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

Shale oil has been well known for decades, lots of work is being done, but the oil is hard to extract, and is expensive, much more expensive than conventional oil. As conventional oil becomes more scarce, this resource could become more important, but it continues to be only a possibility at the margins of economic viability at today's prices. I posted a while back an article about a project in the richest oil shale area of the Piceance Basin of Colorado being placed on hold, for yet another time because of economics. Economics is only one problem, the others include water and environmental opposition.

You are correct, but I go back again to the least expensive and easiest resources that we should use, that including ANWR and offshore areas. If we believe in the free market, and we should, we should let the market dictate all of this without artificial manipulation. I am mystified as to why we choose to shoot ourselves in the foot? Well, I know why, it is the short sighted and idealistic environmentalists that have convinced enough congressmen to forget reality. We will do this until the economic situation gets so bad that one day, people will start to wake up to reality again.

Don't worry about superior knowledge. I have been away from the business long enough now that I am not totally current, but I do take the AAPG bulletins (Amer. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists) and they have interesting articles on the latest oil plays. I had kind of forgotten about the Bakken, but usually the short stories in the main stream media leave out the details, and often the devil is in the details, which may include production problems, recovery rates, etc. for some reservoirs. The Bakken has been known for a long time, and the oil is there, but recoverability of how much is the question. But it is an important play. I intend to read up on it more as to what is currently happening in more detail.

And of course let's not forget the Republican whackos like Jeb Bush and the Governator, who have repeatedly refused to consider offshore oil drilling off their coasts because of the potential impact on their scenery and their beaches and the tourist dollar.

And let's remember too the oil company whackos, as we learned in the research into why the California energy crisis happened, who were worried in the 80s and 90s that excess refining capacity, which was plentiful then, would reduce their profits due to competition (capitalism, remember? they hated it when it worked against their own bloat), so they bought up just about all the independents and shut them down, and figured out ways to shut down some of their own capacity too. A lot of their "woes" were self-created. Kinda like biting your own leg.

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html

In 2001, Judith Lean plotted a graph on Solar Irradiance Reconstruction from data that she and her colleagues had recolected until 2000. Graph and data were published in a paper released by ADSHAB for Public Access. However, for unknown reasons, that graph by Judith Lean disappeared from the Internet; hence I saw necessary to chart again the graph based on the data published by NOAA in 2001. I've attached the graph on Solar Irradiance by Lean below these paragraphs.

The graph clearly shows that the Solar Irradiance is not decreasing from 1985; on the contrary, the Solar Irradiance is increasing up to date. Mike Lockwood has declared to the press (remember that pseudoscience usually is released through Media in the first place) that the Solar Activity has decreased since 1985, while the warming is increasing since the same year, concluding that the Sun has nothing to do with the Earth's Climate. Examine the data and the graph and figure out who's wrong and who's right.

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html


From the actual data we conclude that the graphs from Lockwood and Frölish were flawed:

1- Examine closely the graph and you'll see how the solar irradiance radiation has increased, not decreased. The trend line (dashed line) is clearly rising. We cannot rebuff evidence.

2- Lockwood and Frölish took only the last portion from data corresponding to years 1985-2006. Those data indicate that the number of sunspots has been decreasing, but the solar irradiance is really increasing. The only year with a remarkable change of temperature was 1998. From that year to date, the temperature has not had absolutely a trend denoting an increasing, but quite the opposite, a trend to decrease (see a graph here). This has a clear connection with solar activity. If Lockwood and Frölish assure that the solar activity is diminishing, the thermometers on surface indicate that the tropospheric temperature is also diminishing, which forcefully falsifies the logic fallacy of Lockwood and Frölish.

3. The methodology used by Lockwood and Frölish to smooth the lines was applied only to maxima of R (sunspot number), dismissing the TSI. This practice hides the minima, which for the issue are more important than the maxima. For example, if the minimum of TSI in 1975 was 1365.5 W/m^2, it would contrast dramatically with the minimum of TSI of 1998 that was 1366 W/m^2 (0.033% higher). That would make the Sun in 1975 "colder" than in 1998. However, if we compare minimum values with maximum values, then the Sun would be frankly "warmer" in 1998 -when the solar energy output was 1366 W/m^2- than in 1975 -when the energy output was 1366.1111 W/m^2. Today (21/07/07), the global TSI was 1367.6744 W/m^2); hence, we see that we must not smooth maxima values through movable trends because we would be hiding the minima values, which are more important because the baseline of the "cooler" or lower nuclear activity of the Sun are higher everyday. The coolest period of the Sun happened during the Maunder Minimum when the TSI was 1363.5 W/m^2. The coolest period of the Sun from 1985 to date occurred in 1996 when the TSI was 1365.6211 W/m^2. An interesting blotch is that in 1985 the TSI was 1365.6506 W/m^2 and in 2000 was 1366.6744.

4. The graph of tropospheric temperatures is Hansen's twisted graph. Many of us for many times have demonstrated that it does not match with reality.

5. Lockwood and Frölish dismissed entirely the original work of Judith Lean et al published in 2001, which mysteriously disappeared from NOAA site. However, you can review data at NASA and below this paragraph:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
...
DESCRIPTION:
Updated solar irradiance reconstruction. (See also Lean et al., 1995).
Included are time series of annual mean irradiance from 1610 to 2000
of just the 11 year solar irradiance cycle, plus the 11 year
cycle with a background component. See Lean (2000) for discussion of
the amplitude of the background component.

DATA:

Calculation of TSI from calc_tsi_ann.pro
Mon Apr 2 15:18:18 2001

YEAR 11yrCYCLE 11yrCYCLE+BKGRND
1610.5 1365.8477 1364.7338
1611.5 1365.8342 1364.7075
1612.5 1366.2461 1365.0675
1613.5 1366.3650 1365.1611
1614.5 1366.4451 1365.2197
1615.5 1366.1591 1364.9456
1616.5 1365.7358 1364.5469
1617.5 1365.6107 1364.4189
1618.5 1365.6038 1364.3983
1619.5 1365.7001 1364.4717
1620.5 1365.7001 1364.4574
1621.5 1365.7001 1364.4431
1622.5 1365.7001 1364.4290
...
1975.5 1365.5466 1365.5020
1976.5 1365.6458 1365.6442
1977.5 1365.8248 1365.8557
1978.5 1366.2616 1366.3101
1979.5 1366.6193 1366.6769
1980.5 1366.6323 1366.6913
1981.5 1366.6829 1366.7280
1982.5 1366.2808 1366.2999
1983.5 1366.1989 1366.2001
1984.5 1365.8088 1365.8145
1985.5 1365.6382 1365.6506
1986.5 1365.6345 1365.6470
1987.5 1365.7865 1365.7990
1988.5 1366.0792 1366.0918
1989.5 1366.6445 1366.6570
1990.5 1366.5499 1366.5624
1991.5 1366.4423 1366.4547
1992.5 1366.2987 1366.3112
1993.5 1366.0251 1366.0377
1994.5 1365.7937 1365.8063
1995.5 1365.6962 1365.7087
1996.5 1365.6086 1365.6211
1997.5 1365.7365 1365.7489
1998.5 1366.0986 1366.1111
1999.5 1366.3817 1366.3942
2000.5 1366.6620 1366.6744

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html

In 2001, Judith Lean plotted a graph on Solar Irradiance Reconstruction from data that she and her colleagues had recolected until 2000. Graph and data were published in a paper released by ADSHAB for Public Access. However, for unknown reasons, that graph by Judith Lean disappeared from the Internet; hence I saw necessary to chart again the graph based on the data published by NOAA in 2001. I've attached the graph on Solar Irradiance by Lean below these paragraphs.

...

You can't compare the numbers from one source to the numbers from another source and conclude they have gone UP unless the sources use the same formula to figure TSI.

I know I "can't compare the numbers from one source to the numbers from another source and conclude they have gone UP unless the sources use the same formula to figure TSI." THAT IS WHY I DID NOT DO THAT!

Lean's numbers show that the TSI has gone down since 1975.

LEAN'S TSI NUMBERS HAVE NOT GONE DOWN SINCE 1975; THEY HAVE GONE UP.

http://www.biocab.org/
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Leans's numbers have gone up since 1975. Lean's numbers in 1975 were:
1365.5466 & 1365.5020.

Lean's numbers in 2000.5 were:
1366.6620 & 1366.6744. That's an increase, not a decrease.

The same article that posted Lean's numbers alleged that in 2007 the global TSI was:
1367.6744. That too is an increase, not a decrease.


... You were claiming that the TSI in 1975 was 1374. That means if you now think the TSI is 1367. That would mean tha the TSI has dropped by a full 7 w/m^2 since 1975. Would it not? This complete refutes your argument that it as gone up by only 1/2 watt.

I DID NOT DO THAT EITHER. A DIFFERENT SOURCE'S TSI GRAPH, OISM'S TSI GRAPH, SHOWS THE TSI NUMBERS HAVE NOT GONE DOWN SINCE 1975; THEY HAVE ALSO GONE UP.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide5.png

Oism's numbers have gone up since 1975. Oism's numbers from its graph for 1975 were:
1370.5.

Oism's numbers from its graph for 2005 were:
1371.5. That too is an increase, not a decrease.

Yes, posting graphs is great, except I got a tongue lashing from some liberal one time for stretching the screen so that you have to scroll back and forth to read posts. This problem occurs if a graphic is too wide in terms of pixels for some people's screens. Mine is currently a 15", so that problem is showing up on this page. As long as it doesn't happen all the time, I can live with it.

However, I also claim that both sources show an increase in TSI from 1975 to 2000.

ican711nm wrote:

However, I also claim that both sources show an increase in TSI from 1975 to 2000.

Of course they show an increase from 1975-2000. They will show an increase almost anytime you pick the minimum and compare it to the maximum in the 11 year cycle.

Your argument is illogical. The period
2000-1975 = 25 years. That's enough for a little more than two 11 year solar cycles. The evidence my sources provide us indicates the TSI 2nd cycle in that period is higher than the 1st cycle in that period. Add another five years and you discover 2005-1975 = 30. That's almost enough for three successive solar cycles with each cycle possessing higher TSIs than the previous cycle. Add another 2 years to get to 2007, and my sources show that increasing TSI trend continuing.

I expect that trend will eventually reverse even while the CO2 content of the atmosphere continues to increase. However, after that I expect global temperature will first moderate and then decrease. After that, I expect the CO2 density will subside as more CO2 is condensed out of the air and is absorbed by the earth's water and land surfaces. Can I prove my expectations are valid? No! And can you prove my expectations are invalid? I bet not!

Your sources show the opposite.

Which sources shall I believe--yours, mine, or someone else's? Why? Those are rhetorical questions, because I do not believe you know the answer, though you might pretend to.

...
But you are just filled with nonsense time and again ican.

I rarely, if ever, buy the arguments of those like you who employ slander to argue their case. For that reason, I don't believe you are capable of competent argument on this topic.

...

okie wrote:

Yes, posting graphs is great, except I got a tongue lashing from some liberal one time for stretching the screen so that you have to scroll back and forth to read posts. ...

...
Because the content of the graphs is so good though, does anybody know a way to easily resize them BEFORE they are posted? Otherwise, probably better to just use a link instead of posting the graph.