Rob, I am sure most people that go to ATTP get their information on climate science from other sources as well. It isn’t the Branch Davidians with David Koresh (ATTP) holding the chains ya know.
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Oops!
…
“Demand is falling not because the economy is weakening but because we’re simply learning how to use our cars better … and we’re doing more and more of our shopping online.”
…
(From the previous link)
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
phatboy, the host is actually pretty reasonable, but a bit hung up on the status quo defense initiative.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Joseph | September 26, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
Rob, well go ahead publish something in a reputable journal since you seem to have all the answers.
You may – just as a suggestion – go to the source instead of posting empty snark. This is a tactic that works only in the sheltered workshop of ATTP and ilk.
Here’s another one – http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Try to work out just what it means – and not what you imagine it should mean – or what you were told it should mean.
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Damn and double damn.
Joseph | September 26, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
Rob, well go ahead publish something in a reputable journal since you seem to have all the answers.
You may – just as a suggestion – go to the source instead of posting empty snark. The latter is a tactic that works only in the sheltered workshop of ATTP and ilk.
Here’s another one – http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Try to work out just what it means – and not what you imagine it should mean – or what you were told it should mean.
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
Myself, I can just compare the ensemble mean to observation and see things aren’t following the game plan and it is not hard to compare region “projections” with regional observations. It isn’t really rocket science.
If it is so simple, then why don’t Gavin and the rest say the models do have skill? I won’t accept nefarious intent without proof and incompetence is not an acceptable reason for something “anyone” should be able to see.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
From the article:
…
Summary
Continental Resources made a bold prediction that recovery factors in the best areas of the Bakken may ultimately exceed 20%.
Using a more conservative assumption of ~15% recovery, Continental estimates the Bakken’s recoverable reserves in the 62-96 billion barrels range.
Even after applying some risking to these estimates, the Bakken should sustain production at 2-3 million barrels per day for multiple decades.
Continental Resources (NYSE:CLR) unveiled its new recoverable reserves estimate for the Bakken play last week. The company estimates that the Bakken Petroleum System’s original oil in place is in the 413 billion barrels (P50 estimate) to 643 billion barrels (P10 estimate) range.
…
Despite a considerable reduction in the OOIP estimate, Continental’s new resource appraisal shows a real breakthrough on the recovery factor side. The company raised its recovery factor estimate to ~15%, a steep change from the 3.5%-10% range that was often used by the company and the industry in the past. For example, Continental’s previous presentations have focused on a recovery factor range of 3.5%-5%, as one can see on the slide above.
Moreover, Continental commented that the 15% recovery factor assumption may prove to be conservative for full-field development mode. The company’s extensive reservoir simulation analysis for its Hawkinson density pilot suggests that recoveries as high as 20%+ can be achievable with density drilling using the company’s traditional completion techiques and, likely, may be further increased with enhanced stimulation designs.
…
The Bakken is currently producing ~1.1 million barrels of high quality light sweet crude per day. Assuming that the play’s current annual growth pace of ~250,000 barrels of oil per day can be sustained over the next three years, then slowing down to only half of the current rate, one would arrive at ~2.1 million barrels per day of oil production from the Bakken in 2020
…
Under the most optimistic scenario, assuming Continental’s OOIP P10 estimate for BPS materializes, the recoverable resource is fully extracted, and the recovery factor ultimately exceeds 20%, the Bakken could potentially plateau at ~4 million barrels a day for a multi-decade period. However, such a deep recovery of resources across the entire play would likely reflect substantially higher than current price levels for crude oil.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2510885-the-bakken-how-long-will-the-resource-last
↧
Comment on Week in review by dennis
evil scientist meme? Who said lemmings were evil.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Jim D
The main albedo change in the last 60 years is probably ice/snow loss, which is another positive feedback to the change and not independent.
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Jim D
Matthew Marler, yes, CO2 and temperature are changing so fast and consistently that it really is that sensitive to the delay you choose. I don’t know how to interpret that. Longer delays may be more realistic because the ocean has to respond with a delay. As Vaughan Pratt showed, it is a characteristic of an exponential rise that there is this ambiguity between delay and sensitivity.
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Joseph, “If it is so simple, then why don’t Gavin and the rest say the models do have skill?”
Some of the rest are and there are new PhD candidates working hard on cloud Parameterization. Oddly, with correction to cloud parameterization, in particular mid-level liquid-layer topped stratiform clouds the modeled “sensitivity is just about exactly what Lewis and Curry published.
. http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~gc903759/phd/ABarrett_Thesis.pdf
You know Joseph, there is a lot of stuff going on other than the Gavinator.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Yes – they get their information from gatekeepers of the groupthink dynamic.
‘Although it has failed to produce its intended impact nevertheless the Kyoto Protocol has performed an important role. That role has been allegorical. Kyoto has permitted different groups to tell different stories about themselves to themselves and to others, often in superficially scientific language. But, as we are increasingly coming to understand, it is often not questions about science that are at stake in these discussions. The culturally potent idiom of the dispassionate scientific narrative is being employed to fight culture wars over competing social and ethical values. Nor is that to be seen as a defect. Of course choices between competing values are not made by relying upon scientific knowledge alone. What is wrong is to pretend that they are.’ http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchandexpertise/units/mackinder/pdf/mackinder_wrong%20trousers.pdf
Science progresses to something real – the Borg collective cult of AGW groupthink space cadets are chasing anomalies down a rabbit hole with overweening – but doomed – ambition to transform economies and societies. An onanistic psycho-sexual wannabe revolution that is converging up it’s own arse at the same time. Overall – a neat trick – but not one we want to witness. .
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rob Ellison
Somehow I find that to be a convenient but unlikely narrative.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
Judith –
==> “Scientists seen as competent but not trusted”
Well golly, gee, I thought for sure with your oft’ stated concern about the “crisis” in public trust of climate scientists, you were going to quote this part from the article:
Overall, Fiske and Dupree’s work shows that climate scientists seem to be less suspect than pure scientists and researchers.
Guess you musta just missed that part, eh?
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Jim D
As for the period, the paper chose a local max in 1940 just before a decline in temperature that wasn’t representative of the rise after 1959 and they figure that decline in to their temperature change. I don’t think it is good to have a baseline that starts at a local max, unless you are trying to diminish the temperature change. 1959 may be a better starting time, being in a fairly flat period on the downward decline after the max.
↧
Comment on Week in review by omanuel
Totalitarian, lock-step consensus opinions emerged as “settled science” and “standard models” for government-funded research almost immediately after a news black-out of events in Aug-Sept 1945 [1] prevented the public from knowing:
1. STALIN WON WWII,
2. Formed the UN in Oct 1945, and
3. Consensus science in 1946 [2, 3].
References:
1. “Aston’s WARNING (12 Dec 1922); CHAOS and FEAR (August 1945)”:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/CHAOS_and_FEAR_August_1945.pdf
2. “WHY Did You Deceive Us in 1946?”: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/WHY.pdf
3. “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Jim D
It is interesting that the fastest warming area at 1 C per decade is the Arctic Ocean. I say this is feedback. Not sure if there is another explanation being proposed here.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
joey, joey
I didn’t say anybody is evil. You made that up. And it’s your crowd’s meme. You are struggling here, joey. Your little bootay buddies are sipping Kool-Aid and toasting marshmallows back home on attp. Don’t miss out.
↧
Comment on Week in review by PMHinSC
Joseph | September 26, 2014 at 9:27 pm |
Capt,
“I don’t think most people here have the expertise to criticize the science. I know I don’t. For example, have you ever worked on a GCM? How much of the literature have you read on GCM’s?”
You have to believe that climate is deterministic and or that climate science is sufficiently understood to include all salient natural variables (e.g. clouds, water vapor, carbon cycle) for it to matter whether anyone has worked on GCMs. Perhaps the problem is that given the current state of climate knowledge, GCMs are the wrong approach. Or perhaps it means that they aren’t mature enough to be useful in determining policy. Given the current state of knowledge, GCMs are at best of academic interest only.
↧
Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder
Here is an interesting article about trolls and sadism:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/tech/web/online-trolls-sadists/
This might explain why some people spend a lot of time commenting on the blogs of people the don’t like – they actually derive some pleasure tormenting others.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
