Gas prices function just like a tax. It is money out of the economy and into the government kitty.
Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
From the article (my emphasis):
…
Summary
Montney contains almost 29 billion barrels of natural gas liquids and over 136 billion barrels of oil.
Liquids-rich Middle Montney is where the real action is.
Enough shale gas to supply Canada’s needs for 145 years.
In the world of a constantly changing oil and gas environment, the Montney shale basin is the sleeping giant that holds the key to accelerating Canada’s shale oil and gas boom, but the real treasure within this giant is a tight liquids-rich zone (approximately 15-20 miles wide) that has big and small players alike narrowing their focus for the potential of a giant payout.
A pervasive hydrocarbon system in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) in Alberta and British Columbia, the Montney is estimated to hold 2,200 trillion cubic feet of gas, almost 29 billion barrels of natural gas liquids and over 136 billion barrels of oil. But it is the tight liquids-rich fairway (approximately 15-20 miles wide) that contains high concentrations of both free condensate and natural gas liquids that everyone is pursuing in what may very soon be one of the largest commercially viable plays in the world.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2508465-canadas-shale-boom-more-to-come-in-montney
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Matthew R Marler
WebHubTelescope: Are you that ignorant of statistical mechanics? Par for the course of all the denier followers who don’t understand the applicability of B-E, etc.
Perhaps you ought to have confined your comment to statistical mechanics, not distribution times or adjustment times. As mwgrant noted, a Cauchy distribution does not have a mean, but that is a tiny subset of “fat tailed” distributions. Is the Cauchy distribution widely used in statistical mechanics as a model for some phenomena?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Alternative News Now
Reblogged this on <a href="http://canadianclimateguy.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/week-in-review-2/" rel="nofollow">Canadian Climate Guy</a> and commented:
Judith Curry - week in review.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Matthew R Marler
oops, it was NW who mentioned the Cauchy distribution, not mwgrant. Sorry.
mwgrant noted that data sets always have means. When you have samples from a Cauchy distribution, larger sample sizes to not imply greater precision in estimating the (nonexistent) mean.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
Record hot August:
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wagathon
Global Warming Causes Mental Illness, Cancer
Global warming could lead to a worldwide increase in mental illness and cancer, according to a new U.S. government report calling for more public funding to further study one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.”
Government scientists from several agencies—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency—claim that “higher ambient temperatures” caused by global warming will increase cancer rates and catastrophic natural disasters as the world warms will create stress and anxiety that lead to mental illness…
(http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/04/global-warming-causes-mental-illness-cancer/ )
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by jim2
Just because a certain formula for the “mean” of a distribution doesn’t work for a Cauchy distribution does not mean it has no mean. It only means the mean formula doesn’t work for that distribution.
So, you guys can stop being so mean to each other and also stop with the meaningless arguments. You simply demean the blog when you do.
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
Extremes:
↧
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Rob Ellison
Yes – the ‘consensus’ here is unrecognized for what it is. The only consensus is the AGW groupthink and the only plurality allowed is that of the benighted and misbegotten. Conservatives who are quite literally in their eyes psychologically disturbed or committing crimes against humanity. It makes them quite unable to process complexity or uncertainty – it is all measured against the groupthink in a Procrustean struggle to make reality fit the meme.
A neat example is webbly’s ‘CSALT model’ – which he was prattling on about yet again earlier – and which I was ignoring because frankly it is not worth discussing as anything but cutting the legs off data to fit the bed.
It is of course a multiple linear regression – not a model – in which various data streams are scaled to fit the temperature series. Any bright 10 year old could do it – it is at about that level of interest, significance or relevance. Of course it requires accurate data on all of the contributing factors and can’t be projected forward without an ability to predict the evolution of these factors. But the data is uncertain and there are unknown factors in the cause and evolution of large changes in TOA radiant flux. The latter includes changes related to ENSO.
‘Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture. An illustration of the variability in TOA radiation is provided in Fig. 1, which shows a continuous 31-year record of
tropical (20S–20N) TOA broadband outgoing longwave (LW) radiation (OLR) between 1979 and 2010 from non-scanner and scanner instruments.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
And a near global SW proxy for the same period.
What it shows is cooling in IR and warming in SW between the 80’s and 90’s and an interesting step change in the ‘climate shift’ around the turn of the century. This data utterly confounds the AGW groupthink and so is ignored by and large.
Genuflect to AGW and then discuss the complications? There is a pattern in this. The genuflection is a requirement to avoid invoking the ire of the Borg collective. Resistance is futile.
Climate shifts at mutli-decadal scales are a fact – with changing intensities and frequency of ENSO. A change in the 20th century to more frequent and intense El Nino with decadal periods of alternating El Nino and La Nina dominance. A shift back to centennial La Nina dominance seems a possibility.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natual,’ Tsonis said.
Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation with changes emerging in ENSO behaviours. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade to three if the recent past is any indication.
These shifts are utterly unpredictable. This is the science of complexity and uncertainty – deterministic chaos arises in complex and dynamic systems and creates unmistakable uncertainty. These are anomalies and the essence of groupthink is to rationalise away anomalies for as long as feasible. Then the Kool-Aid comes out.
↧
Comment on JC at the National Press Club by mikerestin
Tonyb there’s much more to ask like setting the CO2 knob…
At what level would you set the sea?
How much snow would you allow to fall each year?
How much rain would you provide?
At what temperature and ph level must the ocean be set?
So many questions.
Now what’s the correct CO2 setting to ensure the perfect climate?
How does anyone accept it in their own head?
Then to believe that making billionaires out of millionaires by trading carbon credits and giving the government lots more money to piss away is going to save the planet?
Exactly, how does that work?
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by mwgrant
To be clear I pointed out the logarithmic distributions. I should have written lognormal distribution. If one is working with a theoretical lognormal distribution, e.g., as in a simulation, then the mean and variance can be calculated exactly from the mean and variance of the associated underlying normal distribution. However, a common problem working with many environmental data sets is to estimate the mean, variance and different types of intervals of ‘lognormal’ data, i.e., data skewed to the high side. In practice it is messy but essential to get at these numbers. The concept of a mean is very much alive in these ‘heavy-tailed, distributions.
↧
Comment on Week in review by PA
Jim D:
“AK, the stadium wave is in a cool mode to explain the pause, but doesn’t explain the 0.7 C rise since the last time it was in this phase.”
1. The IPCC makes the gratuitous assertion that 110% (their PDF says it could be more), of post 1950s warming is anthropogenic. The PDF allows significant chance of values up to 150%.
2. They assume that other human forcings (land use, aerosol etc. aerosol, cloud response to aerosol, etc.) combined are a net negative. greenhouse gas forcings are positive.
3. Changes in solar irradiance have little effect.
How do you take this forcing chart and get a 16+ year pause?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by curryja
The BIG question is why the pause 1940-1976 is so much warmer than the pause prior to 1910. The answer is NOT AGW. So the key question is convincing why the mechanism causing the warming between the two earlier pauses was not operational in the warming between the two latter pauses.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
This is a test of your integrity, willy:
“Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
Are they talking about a little bit of the global warming? There is a lot of context as to what they meant, willy. I will be more specific;
Did they mean to convey that humans are causing less than half of global warming?
Do your best to be decent, willy. Like you were before you got mixed up with the wrong crowd.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Brandon Shollenberger
Jim D:
Brandon, as I said at the top, I would have liked more, but they certainly provided a useful graph in Figure S3. This answers a lot of questions people have by itself.
It’s “a useful graph” we can’t verify. We can’t even do basic checks to see if the responses people gave which the graph is broken down into are realistic.
A lot of the discussion on the Cook paper has been on points it didn’t even make, and it misses the point that it did make, the consensus gap. I think it is just one big rhetorical detour in the blogosphere.
You say this, yet you’ve consistently avoided discussing the point I brought up – that forum discussion shows Cook et al are misrepresenting their results while their critics are accurately portraying those results. That’s true whether or not the paper made any particular points.
The paper has been represented by the authors of the paper in a certain way, and their discussion when designing the project shows that representation is deceptive. That’s a topic well worth discussing.
Besides, if you read the post I linked to, the forum discussion shows the paper itself misrepresented their results by conflating two different positions as the “consensus” position.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
Judith –
I just saw the you were quoted as saying that:
we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales,”
Did you really mean to say that or was it just a slip of the tongue? Do you really think it is foolish to think that CO2 influences the climate on centennial time scales?
I mean first, I assume that you mean anthropogenic CO2, not just CO2? Is that right?
And second, I assume that you mean dominates, not influences, is that right?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)
> Did they mean to convey that humans are causing less than half of global warming?
You go first, Don Don: tell me where you got that “there is a nearly unanimous consensus among climate scientists that humans have caused from >50% to 100%, of recent global warming.”
Reading the page Brandon did not cite here but where he revealed all the IPs and the emails (as an IT, he should know better: this is stuff over which one could get fired) would suffice to answer your question, BTW.
You have it all backwards, Don Don, and no, appealing to Pekka won’t help you.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Water molecules have rotation lines in the microwave wavelengths, which is how microwave ovens work. The energy for these wavelengths corresponds to temperatures down to a fraction of a Kelvin. At 100 K these molecules have so many rotation states available that having any two in the same state has a vanishingly small probability, and you should use classical Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics for distinguishable particles otherwise you would be wrong.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
You failed the test, willy. Bon voyage!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
