Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

December 15, 2013, 11:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by pokerguy (aka al neipris)

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$

0

0

Pikka: I know that it shows up in a lot of the data series. I also know that it stems from the basically the same roots so that is hardly surprising.

Sure we cannot, because the data does not allow, assume that it is a regular cycle beyond the two cycles that we can see. We also cannot assume that it is not a continuous cycle either.

We do know that there are very long cycles in the data. We cannot assume they do not exist either (just because it is convenient to do so).

I rather suspect that the next few years may well make it more difficult to ignore these natural cycles in the data.

I have already made a prediction (based on natural cycles) that next year’s UAH figures will be lower on average than this years. Time will prove or disprove that.

---

Comment on Week in review by pokerguy (aka al neipris)

December 15, 2013, 11:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by phatboy

≪ Previous: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

$

0

0

Yes, Lolly, every time it snows in New England seemingly every other day lately, we’re caught unprepared. You’d think we’d learn.

Comment on Week in review by phatboy

December 15, 2013, 11:23 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by willb

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by pokerguy (aka al neipris)

$

0

0

We’re no more unprepared for heavy snow in the UK than we always have been, and it always causes chaos when it happens. But that’s not what Viner meant, but I suspect you already know that

Comment on Week in review by willb

December 15, 2013, 11:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by phatboy

$

0

0

@R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist:
If the energy flowing out of the ocean has been reduced due to a cool phase of the PDO, then your explanation for increased OHC is not a greenhouse effect and is therefore not due to CO2. Unless you are also claiming that the PDO cool phase is a result of a GHE. Is that what you are claiming?

Comment on Week in review by Chief Hydrologist

December 15, 2013, 11:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by ordvic

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by willb

$

0

0

Jim – I read the first to the fourth over decades. I am not wasting any more of my time on the IPCC but go directly to the scientific source. I doubt really that you do more than read activist blogs and summaries. Not interested?

Comment on Week in review by ordvic

December 15, 2013, 11:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

“Uhm, damage from sea level rise has not been trivial this century already”

I guess I shouldn’t have pigeon holed Drudge as here he linked a story about rising sea water:

apnews.myway.com/article/20131215/DAAMTNNG1.html

Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Pekka Pirilä

December 15, 2013, 11:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by ordvic

$

0

0

Greg,

The same can be said about all observations that:
- are not predicted independently of the data
- can be described in a natural way by a small number of parameters

What makes the observed warming from 1970s significant is that it was predicted before any real sign of the warming due to the increase in CO2 had been observed. Both its general timing and magnitude are consistent with the best scientific understanding of that time developed originally by Manabe and his coworkers.

Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

December 15, 2013, 11:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Howard

≪ Previous: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

Pikka: Go on then, how would you predict this graph will extend to the right?

http://snag.gy/N4pUQ.jpg

---

Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Howard

December 16, 2013, 9:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Eksperimentalfysiker

≪ Previous: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

$

0

0

As I keep saying, climate is a geological problem. Geologists are polymaths, having to have working knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, geography, climatology, oceanography, meteorology, surveying, drafting, numerical modeling, analytical chemistry, crystallography, microscopy, structural mechanics, hydraulics, technical writing, ditch-digging, hole drilling, wilderness hiking, off-road driving, camping, beer drinking, beard growing

Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Eksperimentalfysiker

December 16, 2013, 9:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Howard

$

0

0

Judith,

Let me just add that I really appreciate the way you have stepped outside the “comfort zone” with this blog. – Thanks!

Comment on Week in review by jim2

December 16, 2013, 9:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Eksperimentalfysiker

$

0

0

All of this guys assets should be seized as part of the punishment and returned to the tax payers. From the description in the article, he appears to be sociopathic. A polypath?

Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Steven Mosher

December 16, 2013, 9:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by jim2

$

0

0

GaryM,

you have no idea how new ideas, new discoveries, and new art actually come about. You see everything through a simple either-or filter.
nothing new there. nothing novel. nothing interesting or informative.
Your perception is dominated and controlled by your vocabulary, and
since you refuse to question it, you’ll always see the same thing.

Comment on Week in review by jim2

December 16, 2013, 9:52 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

From the article:
Potential for dual-horizon development has been an important emerging theme in the Eagle Ford Shale play. The most recent report of highly successful test results in the Upper Eagle Ford zone came from Marathon Oil (MRO) during the company’s Analyst Day last week.

Marathon disclosed that it has been testing the Upper Eagle Ford as well as the Lower Austin Chalk, which is deposited right on top of the Eagle Ford formation, to evaluate the opportunity to co-develop these two zones alongside with the primary Lower Eagle Ford horizon.

The company has recently initiated two Upper Eagle Ford / Lower Austin Chalk pilots. The pilots are located in the Karnes County as indicated on the map below with light-blue dots.

(click to enlarge)

(Source: Marathon Oil’s December 11, 2013 Analyst Day Presentation)

The horizontal laterals have landing position in the Lower Austin Chalk, immediately above the Eagle Ford top, and access both zones via fracture stimulation. Marathon is testing the Austin Chalk and Upper Eagle Ford directly over Lower Eagle Ford wells to see the performance of all the wells in the system as a co-development. The pilots’ configuration is shown in the upper right of the slide below.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1899841-eagle-ford-shale-2014-will-be-the-year-of-vertical-downspacing

Comment on Week in review by jim2

December 16, 2013, 9:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by jim2

$

0

0

From the article:
Amazing Economics

Ultra’s transaction reveals outstanding drilling economics that, at the high end of the range, exceed 600% at the well level (assuming November strip prices for commodities).

(click to enlarge)

(Source: Ultra Petroleum November 1, 2013 Investor Presentation)

The extraordinary returns are defined by attractive oil-dominated EURs and very low drilling costs – just under $1.5 million – on Ultra’s acreage (picture below).

(click to enlarge)

(Source: Ultra Petroleum November 1, 2013 Investor Presentation)

Expected EURs appear comparable for Ultra and Bill Barrett’ acreage – in the 250 Mbo per well range. Notably, Ultra is using two wells – the A North well and the Rogers 16-43 – that appear to be Bill Barrett’s wells to anchor the cross-section shown on the picture in the previous subsection.

Bill Barrett’s Rogers 16-43 well provides an important case study because the well is one of very few horizontal wells in the area that has been on production for a significant period of time. The Rogers well has more than 4.5 years of production history and has cumulatively produced 171,000 barrels as of last summer. While the well’s initial production rate may appear unimpressive – it peaked at less than 130 barrels of oil per day – the well managed to produce >100 barrels of oil per day for 32 continuous months and was still producing at approximately 70 barrels a day most recently.

According to Ultra, the Rogers 16-43 well is not an anomaly, with the flat production profile also demonstrated by several other wells in the East Bluebell area as well as in the Three Rivers area. Ultra is using a hyperbolic decline model that it believes is typical for Lower Green River oil wells in the area. For the Rogers well, Ultra is using a b-factor of 1.6 and estimates its EUR to be 530 MBo, which is more than two times higher than the average EUR Ultra is forecasting for its PUD locations.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1899371-bill-barrett-strong-read-across-from-ultra-petroleums-uinta-acquisition

Comment on Week in review by David Springer

December 16, 2013, 10:02 am

≫ Next: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by jim2

$

0

0

GaryM | December 16, 2013 at 12:58 am |

“Do you know what it means when you are the only one who can hear the dog whistle?”

Well it could mean you’re the only dog within earshot.

It could mean it’s a bad whistle and you’re blowing it out of earshot from anyone else.

It could mean you’re at a convention for the deaf and someone is blowing a bad dog whistle.

There are other possibilities. Which one do you mean?

---

Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by David Springer

December 16, 2013, 10:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Tom C

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by David Springer

$

0

0

Who gives a flip what you think about GaryM?

Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Tom C

December 16, 2013, 10:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by David Springer

$

0

0

“Are climate scientists polymathic? Most don’t seem to be; rather the subject seems to be constrained by the monomathy of the IPCC consensus, …”

Yes!! Very true and of great consequence to the debate.

Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by David Springer

December 16, 2013, 10:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by Tom C

$

0

0

Howard | December 16, 2013 at 12:36 pm | Reply

“having to have working knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, geography, climatology, oceanography, meteorology, surveying, drafting, numerical modeling, analytical chemistry, crystallography, microscopy, structural mechanics, hydraulics, technical writing, ditch-digging, hole drilling, wilderness hiking, off-road driving, camping”

Sounds more like a rancher than a geologist except you’d have to add in veterinary skills, animal husbandry, horseback riding, rifle and handgun expertise, and not being afraid of shadows and non-toxic invisible trace gases.

Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by David Springer

December 16, 2013, 10:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by David Wojick

≪ Previous: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by David Springer

$

0

0

In other words the prototypical Aggie. You can’t swing a dead cat around here without hitting a Texas A&M graduate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A&M_Aggies

Comment on Week in review by David Wojick

December 16, 2013, 10:43 am

≫ Next: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by ordvic

≪ Previous: Comment on Masters(?) of many trades by David Springer

$

0

0

US Feds request comments on social cost of carbon:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact

Be heard, at least a bit. Comments can simply be sent to SCC@omb.gov. This is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB, which I helped set up in 1981.