Perhaps because the thermometers are not evenly distributed over the earth surface so local changes become ‘global’ once ‘averaged’… Part of why I think the satellite data are the way to go.

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

After looking at the map, I am puzzled about how the PDO warm phase versus cool phase can explain global temperatures. It seems like a buzz word that really has little meaning when you look into it.

On the other hand the ENSO oscillation has a real effect on global temperatures because there is a real change in the temperature of the South Pacific Ocean.

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Ed, you missed my personal favorite:

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”

Seems like all Nordic people(s) with last names beginning with S are proficient in English ;<).

What I think ought to be suggested by our side is not merely a three-hour-or-so debate before the public or a scientific conference of mildly interested observers, but a really intense and thorough (week-long, video-recorded) debate by a panel of a half-dozen experts on both sides before a prestigious 40-member panel of judges. (E.g., from the NAS, NSF, and editorial boards of relevant scientific journals.) A condensed version of the justifications of each member for his/her decision will be permanently posted on a website devoted to recording their judgment for posterity. I think this would concentrate their minds.

Such a debate would allow dissenters to bring out the full wobbliness of the hotheads case and the fishiness of some of their behavior before a panel of judges wise in the subterfuges of scientists on a mission. And putting the judges in the position of rendering a formal, considered, permanently publicized opinion on the AGW claim (as opposed to offering a horseback opinion of it with no real “due diligence” and no real downside to their being wrong) will encourage them to look at this controversy from every angle and make a more responsible judgment. Even if they waffle and say “more studies are needed” and “better data sharing is needed” and “the case is unproven,” that will take the steam out of the hotheads’ crusade and knock them off their high-horse about “the science is settled,” etc.

OTOH, if Official Science IS willing to endorse the alarmists, then that will be, in time, a fatal blow to scientism. (“Science, and only science, can speak with authority about truth.”) That debunking will almost be worth the expense and disruption the hotheads will create in the interim. (Will Rogers said, “It’s almost worth the Depression to see how little our bigshots really knew.”)

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphere.html

Absolutely right; it is the overall thinness of the Martian atmosphere, as well as the distance from the sun that is key to the low temps.

Canada’s stuff is often called tar sands. More bitumin in less (and looser) fill. Our oil shale is just that, mostly shale (very fine structure bound together) with the bitumen in it. Less “good stuff” and more rock. This is all a gross generalization since there are many different deposits of many different sorts in both countries, but it’s OK as a generalization.

I’ve handled some of our oil shale. It will burn in a fire, but not too well, and smells somewhat of oil. It still looked and acted far more like shale than anything else… like you had spilled a bit of motor oil on a chunk of fine sandstone or mudstone and it had soaked in.

These difference contribute to the different break evan points for extraction. Some of the Canadian works at about $25/bbl equivalent (I think IMO Imperial Oil and SU Suncor each have some of that). While the U.S. stuff takes more like $50/bbl to $90/bbl to break even (more heat is wasted heating rock, just to be thrown away). The exact figures vary with the individual deposits. Israel has some deposits too, as does Jordan. I think the Jordanian was break even at about $20/bbl.

Many of the synthetic oils from coal and trash are cost competitive in the $50 to $80/bbl range. Can you guess why OPEC is having “trouble” restricting supply enough to get the oil price back above $50/bbl?… Usually it takes them about 6 months to a year. Just about the time it takes to bankrupt the alternatives companies that crop up during the oil price spikes…

Extraction of oil from sands and shales is very water and heat (usually from natural gas) intensive. The expansion of production is water limited and constrained by the price of natural gas. I’d vote for using GTL rather than burning the nat gas to cook rocks, but that’s just me… Nuclear process heat would be a better alternative in some ways.

edward (08:00:47) :
Arthur
It is partly due to distance, however without an atmosphere the Earth would also be pretty cold, perhaps frozen.

It would be like the moon, hot on the sunny side, extremely cold on the dark side.

pkatt (22:00:57) :

Heres a question for you. The hawaiian islands sit upon the tallest mountain range in the world. Currently the volcanic activity there is building another new island from the sea floor up…. how much water does that displace?

A minute amount that is balanced by subduction.

It really looks like the remaining warm ocean spots are active volcanic areas…. http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_regions.cfm

Are you suggesting that the active volcanic areas move around the sea bed? Check temperature anomolies from last year to see how the anomolies shift.

And a second question. If Co2 is an overwhelming greenhouse gas in the small amounts man contributes, then why isnt Mars, with its higher concentrations of Co2 a very warm planet?

Distance from the sun and very low atmospheric pressure make it cold but it is still very much warmer than the surface of Phobus (180C or so more) so there is still a pronounced greenhous effect.
What about Venus? 97% CO2 and very hot!! Off course the pressure is about 93 times more than the earth and it is closer to the sun.

George E. Smith (11:05:44) :

An excellent piece on the properties of salt water. If there was one plausible argument for creationism, it would be the properties of water. It really is amazing stuff.

Well a couple of lawyers wouldn’t recognise the truth if it ran them down in the street. Imagine having to post a notice of intent to perform measurment experiments out in your backyard, before reading your owl box thermometer.

Straw man debating is passe now; first crucify the persons bringing the news; then accuse them of not standing up for their beliefs.

JimB (19:13:42) :
Shale oil in Wyoming?

- forgot that one in the last post – possible, as long as you don’t mind paying at least $4 to $5 / gal at the pump. Technology is in it’s infancy. Not that we shouldn’t be pursuing it, but commercial viability is years away & only with high product prices. Even if commercialized, the rate at which the oil will come out is slow because of the low permeability of shale. Helpful, yes. A solution, no.”

Jeff…thanks for your response. It’s great to have someone from the industry present some insight into some of these problems.
What’s the difference between our shale oil and Canada’s? I know they’re going like gangbusters up there…something like 100,000 people employed, boom town, no housing available, flying people in daily on chartered jets, etc.

JimB

The U. S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has released U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.

The report is available at: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

The full 231 page printable pdf report is at: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84

The Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2, so according to “settled science” some people (not me) should really expect Mars to be warm.

In reality, the pressure is very low and water vapor is virtually zero. Add the other reasons given here and you get the cold Mars we know.