Hey zippy you got your wires crossed. The right wing wackos are the uninformed voters who cut off their noses to spite their faces. How do nuts like Palin, Trump and Michele Bachmann even get past go? I can't wait for the RNC circus to begin.
LONDON (Reuters) - Massive downward revisions to oil output in Brazil and Iraq have increased the risks for oil markets of going from the current feast to famine within just a few years, leading to a price spike that would give a new boost to the U.S. shale industry.
Several oil industry heavyweights, including former BP boss Tony Hayward, have predicted a new bull market could arrive sooner than expected given the scale of capital and workforce withdrawal from the U.S. oil industry.
U.S. oil output growth has indeed stalled in recent months as companies drastically cut the number of drilling rigs following a steep fall in oil prices after OPEC decided against cutting output last November.
The irony for OPEC, though, could be that it might ultimately win the market share battle against most competitors but not the United States, where output from shale formations run by hundreds of independent firms can be switched on and off much quicker than in giant offshore projects such as in Brazil.
"I call this the shale wagging the dog scenario – as shale can work in a prices below $70 per barrel but much of the rest of the industry does not... It is a bullish scenario for 2017/18 time period," said Citi's Kleinman.
John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).
Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.
To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.
The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.
There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005). Continued below
Actually if you followed the thread you would have read that the information came from the NOAA and NASA site's. I'll let you figure out what the ACRONYM's stand for. Let me know if you need some help.
Everything you post is in dispute. NOAA and NASA jointly released their global temperature data in January of this year (2015), saying 2014 was the hottest year on record and 13 of the 15 hottest years on record have all occurred since 2000. This is scientific fact not gobbledygook #$%$ you post. What is the source of your misinformation?
Do you actually know the difference between scientific fact and opinion? norris stated," Arctic sea ice, extent is the highest for the date since 2005, and melt is the slowest since at least 2004." Did he pull this information off the "good republican" website or The Koch brothers website?
The Scientific agency that keeps track of the data said, "Arctic sea ice extent for May 2015 averaged 12.65 million square kilometers (4.88 million square miles), the third lowest May ice extent in the satellite record."
"Overall the total ice extent for May 2015 declined at a fairly rapid pace, losing 1.69 million square kilometers (653,000 square miles). This was slightly faster than the 1981 to 2010 average rate of decline of 1.41 million square kilometers (544,000 square miles). The ice extent is now tracking at more than two standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average."
Eric Steig, a glaciologist at the University of Washington, explains that what’s crucial to Antarctic sea ice is wind patterns, since if winds blow sea ice away from the continent, more ice can form closer in as new areas of open water are created and then freeze over.
“We can explain sea ice trends in the Antarctic rather well if we take into account the full range of changes in winds that have occurred,” writes Steig. Critically, that includes stronger winds blowing from the west around the region (wonk term: “circumpolar westerlies“) that, Steig says, actually seem to be tied to more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and less ozone in the stratosphere — factors that humans are behind.
“Far from discounting climate change in the Southern Hemisphere, the apparent paradox of Antarctic sea ice is telling us that it is real and that we are contributing to it,” adds Guy Williams, an Antarctic expert at the University of Tasmania.
Moreover, though total ice extent may grow through this process, we shouldn’t misinterpret what that means. “Antarctic sea ice is unrestricted in extent, unlike Arctic sea ice,” explains climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. ” As a result winds can blow it away from Antarctica and new ice forms in behind, but the ice then is very thin. So increases in Antarctic sea ice do not equate with increased volume.” So in the long run warming overall temperatures will eventually eat into Antarctic sea ice, causing it to also decline.
"December 7, 2009"
Digging deep to support your cause, a true soldier! I guess current events haven't been too kind to you right wingers! The Pope will be ashamed of you.
NOAA states, "The Great Lakes ice cover data set is relatively short: 1973 to present. However, averaging the ice cover data for each lake for different 20-year time periods does reveal a downward trend in ice cover."
"With 2014 in the record books, this means that 13 of the 15 hottest years on record have all occurred since 2000. Also, this marks the 38th consecutive year with global temperatures above average. In comparison, the last time we set a global record cold temperature for the year was way back in 1911."
I know facts are useless in the world of myth and magic.
Every ENERGY STOCK I follow is down today genius including the Alerian MLP ETF! Get a life or go to confession. Just go somewhere!
Where do you come up with this nonsense? NASA and NOAA state that the 20 warmest years on record have occurred since 1981, with the 10 warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Last year 2014 was the hottest year on record and 13 of the 15 hottest years on record have all occurred since 2000. These people are the ones who actually keep track of these things.
Hey norris I think you were reading this from a mirror reflection because it's exactly opposite of what you posted! Shocking to say the least.
Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)
Arctic sea ice extent for May 2015 averaged 12.65 million square kilometers (4.88 million square miles), the third lowest May ice extent in the satellite record.
Overall the total ice extent for May 2015 declined at a fairly rapid pace, losing 1.69 million square kilometers (653,000 square miles). This was slightly faster than the 1981 to 2010 average rate of decline of 1.41 million square kilometers (544,000 square miles). The ice extent is now tracking at more than two standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average.
So you're saying there were no deductibles before or folks were coming in to talk about sports or the weather but now are only coming to the doc when they're actually sick. What about the families who were sick and didn't go to the doc because they had NO healthcare. The healthcare industry said it would have been a DISASTER if the ACA was repealed. My current physician is so busy working with his sick patients he doesn't have time to eat or sleep. How do you find time to post on a messenger board, doc?
Actually norris the lies I was referring to were goski's ones pertaining to LINE and all his BS predictions about bankruptcy and $20 oil. Try to keep up. You change subjects so often you're starting to confuse yourself. BTW another big victory for Obama, you right wingers must be taking inventory in the bomb shelters and re- loading all the guns today.