Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #250

Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Obsolete Science? Writing in Cosmos, Mason Inman has an article on M. King Hubbert, the eminent geologist who spent most of his career with Shell Oil. Unfortunately, Hubbert is best known for advocating his theory of peak oil, which assumed “if current trends continue.” Later advocates of the theory ignored the assumption, even when “current trends” changed, as they did with discovery of extensive oil resources in the deep ocean and the means of extracting the oil. Another remarkable development was the technology to extract oil and natural gas from shale, source rock, by hydraulic fracturing, fracking.

The article highlights the work of King Hubbard in understanding how fracking works. When Hubbert wrote, drilling was linear, and directional drilling consisted of slanting the drill string, primarily. Directional drilling with mud motors and sensors to control direction, allowing horizontal drilling, was yet to be developed.

The article discusses how Hubbert changed the thinking on how fracking works – under extreme pressure, the rock is fractured vertically to the surface, not horizontally as many geologists believed. Hubbert expresses his frustration with these geologists:

“’What I discovered was that the theoretical argument was having no effect whatever on these men’” Hubbert recalled. The engineers were absolutely sure that the fractures were horizontal. Every article, every ad on fracking showed fractures oriented that way. They had been ‘completely brainwashed’, Hubbert thought. ‘They didn’t have any real evidence, but they’d been so thoroughly indoctrinated on this thing that they knew damned well these fractures were horizontal.’ It mattered, because if they didn’t understand the forces at work, they couldn’t control it precisely. The technique would remain more art than science.”

The article does not mention the importance of proppants, such as sand, in keeping the fractures open, as discovered by George Mitchell’s company. Coupled with directional drilling, the theory of peak oil became history.

The article illustrates the importance in testing assumptions against empirical evidence, data. If the assumptions (guesses) are not supported by the data, the theory becomes dogma, obsolete. See link under Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?


Quote of the Week. “A genuine expert can always foretell a thing that is 500 years away easier than he can a thing that’s only 500 seconds off.” ——Mark Twain [H/t William Briggs]


Number of the Week: 5,544 pages


Is the Claim of CO2-Causing Dangerous Global Warming Obsolete? As discussed in prior TWTWs, (e.g. Nov 12 & 19) the highly influential 1979 Charney report contained an estimate that a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) would cause a warming of the earth’s surface of 3ºC ± 1.5 ºC (roughly 6ºF ± 3ºF). The report presented the assumption by climate modelers that the very modest warming by CO2 demonstrated by laboratory experiments will be amplified several times by a warming caused by water vapor taking place in the atmosphere over the tropics centered about 10 km, 33,000 feet – the so-called “hotspot.” Given the lack of data in 1979, there was no way to confirm or deny this important assumption and the findings.

The findings of the Charney Report of 3ºC ± 1.5 ºC have been repeated, with minor modification, in all five Assessment Reports (ARs) of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with no other explanation why CO2 warming occurring in nature will greatly exceed the warming found in the laboratory. These IPCC reports date from 1990 to 2014, with a sixth report underway. In general, the global climate models have the same results, but due to their incomprehensibility, it is not clear if the models use some other mechanism to arrive at the result.

The February 2 testimony by John Christy included comprehensive satellite data of global temperatures covering 37 years (from December 1978 to the end of 2015) of the atmosphere from the surface to 50,000 feet. These data demonstrated that a speculated, pronounced warming of the atmosphere from water vapor does not exist.

After over 35 years of speculation, 25 years of IPCC reports, multiple US government reports, and US government estimates that it spent over $40 Billion on climate science since 1993, and it spent over $150 Billion on activities to “fight global warming”; it is past time to produce physical evidence that the amplified atmospheric warming from increased water vapor exists. If the evidence is not produced, the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 will cause dangerous global warming is as obsolete as peak oil theory, or that the sun is immutable, unchanging. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy, Defending the Orthodoxy


Polar Regions – Arctic: The current warmth in the Artic provides material for alarmists to predict drastic climate change. Many of the stories fail to mention that although the mean Arctic temperatures are as much as 15ºC, about 30ºF, above normal, with some day-time exceptions, the temperatures are still well below freezing. Further, the alarmist stories fail to mention that temperatures in Asia are drastically below normal for weeks — as much as 60ºF below normal in Siberia.

Long before appropriate instrumentation, the Arctic experienced warm periods, as seen in the Greenland ice cores and in warm periods such as the 1920s. However, the alarmist reports use the faddish term “a new normal” for which the authors have little basis. Further, some commentators postulate that diminished sea ice over the past few years is altering the jet stream and will cause long-term climate change – speculation for which they have little or no empirical basis. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy and Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice


Polar regions – Antarctic: An analysis of the logbooks of eleven exploration missions between 1897 and 1917 showed that the condition of the Antarctic ice is comparable to what it is today. Given the alarm on melting ice in Antarctica during the 1950s, which continues today, some journalists were surprised by the study. Of course, the blame for the demise of the ice is always placed on carbon dioxide-caused global warming.

From the abstract: [From satellite monitoring,] “there has been a steady increase in ice extent around Antarctica during the last three decades, especially in the Weddell and Ross seas. In general, climate models do not to capture this trend and a lack of information about sea ice coverage in the pre-satellite period limits our ability to quantify the sensitivity of sea ice to climate change and robustly validate climate models. However, evidence of the presence and nature of sea ice was often recorded during early Antarctic exploration, though these sources have not previously been explored or exploited until now.”

The Ross Sea is part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which some have claimed to be near collapse – in thousands of years? See links under Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice.


COP-23: The UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 22nd annual Conference of Parties (COP-22) ended without any significant items accomplished except an agreement to work out a rule book by December 2018 and a plea for money to support the $100 billion per year Green Climate Fund. The next meeting (COP-23) is scheduled for 6 to 17 November 2017 in Bonn at the headquarters of the UNFCCC secretariat, but organized by Fiji.

The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has stated on its web site that it is the largest funder of UNFCCC. These moneys come mostly from U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Department of State (DOS). Its FY2014 – FY2016 budget states: “USAID and DOS funding supports USGCRP and the Climate Change International Assistance effort. In the past, some of this funding was counted under both categories. These efforts do not add to the USGCRP total.”

The budget shows that the FY 2015 Budget Enacted for DOS is $0.00, and for USAID is $0.00. How much is appropriated is not stated, or the amount of other funds that may be moved for such purposes. It will be interesting to see what impact these budgets, if maintained, will have on UNFCCC festivities. See links under After Paris! and http://www.globalchange.gov/about/budget.


US Election: There is a great deal of unsolicited advice being offered to the incoming Trump administration. In TWTW, these offers are broken into three rough groups: 1) favorable; 2) neutral, and 3) unfavorable [the groupings are not objective].

A major issue at this point is what should the Trump administration do about the UNFCCC, especially the Paris Agreement? Writing in the National Review, Joseph Eule argues that rather than ignoring it, Trump should send it to the Senate for a vote as a treaty – which requires support of two-thirds of the Senators (perhaps with a time limit). Eule points out:

“When the Senate approved the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, it did so with the proviso that any future agreement containing emissions targets and timetables pursuant to UNFCCC must be subject to Senate ratification. Secretary of State John Kerry thus connived to make the Paris Agreement “Senate proof” by making as much of it voluntary as he could. In this he didn’t completely succeed: There are still several provisions in the agreement committing the U.S. to actions that would require Senate approval. For example, the Nationally Determined Contributions in Article 3 and the mitigation commitments in Article 4 unequivocally require future U.S. administrations and Congresses to develop and put forward increasingly stringent targets and timetables, many elements of which would need to be legally binding and thus approved by the Senate.”

Approval of this treaty, expensive to the US with little or no known benefits, is unlikely now. As to the US withdrawing from the UNFCCC treaty, that may or may not be necessary, or desirable, if the Paris Agreement is not approved by the Senate as a treaty. See links: After US Election – Positive; — Neutral; and – Negative.


March 4, 1801: Starting on March 4, 1801, an episode important to the history of democracy began to unfold. After a bitter election, the losing faction (headed by John Adams) peacefully ceded the control of government to the winning faction (headed by Thomas Jefferson).

Adams returned to his private life, an attorney, without reprisal, prosecution, or banishment, which had been the custom in democratic Greece. Perhaps, this was the first time that such a peaceful transition of power took place.

The lack of communication between these former friends continued for years (together with Benjamin Franklin, they comprised the committee that initially drafted the Declaration of Independence). Then, Abigail Adams interceded and the two men learned to respect and admire each other even more.

In their behavior after the election, both demonstrated leadership skills that few can replicate.


Additions – CERN Experiment: In October, a paper was published questioning the results of the concept that cosmic rays, modulated by the sun, influence clouds and terrestrial climate. The Nov 5 TWTW linked to the rejoinder by Henrik Svensmark and included additional comments. In summary, observations and experiments go against the numerical model used by the CERN critics.

An earlier article is included in this TWTW, emphasizing the importance of the CERN Experiment and the Svensmark hypothesis. Among other things, CERN found aerosol particles form 10 to 100 times more abundantly if an ion from a cosmic ray is in the center of the cluster.

Jasper Kirkby, CERN particle physicist and originator and spokesperson of the CLOUD experiment, said: “We found that nature produces particles without pollution.

“Since time immemorial nature has had a perfectly good way of making cloud seeds throughout atmosphere by this gas to particle conversion and that’s new.

“Previous knowledge was that you required sulphuric acid – and that sulphuric acid is dominated by human activities.”

See link under Science: Is the Sun Rising? and the November 5 TWTW.


Number of the Week: 5,554 pages. According to reports, the just released text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement contains 5,544 pages – 2,056,560 words. And this was touted as an example of an effective Executive Agreement? See links under Other News that May Be of Interest.


We ask you to make a generous, tax-deductible donation to SEPP, an IRS recognized 501(c)3 organization.

Please address your check to: (Please note the change in address)


P.O. Box 1126

Springfield, VA 22151

Alternatively, you may donate through PayPal. See Donate at www.sepp.org.

Thank you — whether you celebrate Hanukkah, Christmas, or other holy days during this time, we wish you and your family happiness in this blessed season and a joyful new year.

Kenneth Haapala, President

Science and Environmental Policy Project




Science: Is the Sun Rising?

Has climate change been disproved? Large Hadron boffins cast shock DOUBT on global warming

Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels may not be the primary cause of global warming, according to the shock results of a new study by scientists behind the Large Hadron Collider (LCH).

By Jon Austin, Sunday Express, May 28, 2016


Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

The Sun-Climate Connection: Over 100 Scientific Papers From 2016 Link Solar Forcing To Climate Change

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Nov 21, 2016


Climategate Continued

NASA’s tricks exposed by ClimateGate emails

By Geoff Brown, Australian Climate Sceptics, Nov 22, 2016


Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt – Push-Back

Right-Wing Inquisitors on Campus

By Staff Writers, The American Interest, Nov 22, 2016


Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008


Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, NIPCC, Nov 23, 2015


Download with no charge


Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2013


Summary: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2014


Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Challenging the Orthodoxy

Prepared Testimony to House Committee on Science, Space & Technology

By John Christy, UAH, Feb 2, 2016


On the Existence of a ‘Tropical Hot Spot’ and the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding

By James Wallace, John Christy, and Joseph D’Aleo Aug 2016 [Shortened version]



Houston Chronicle: Letter of Protest on Climate Issue

By Charles Battig, Master Resource, Nov 22, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Perhaps, the American public understands uncertainty better than those proclaiming “mainstream scientific opinion.”]

Defending the Orthodoxy

Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment

Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate

By Jule G. Charney, et al, Climate Research Board, July 23-27, 1979



Santa’s Sweltering: North Pole Soars 36 Degrees Above Normal

By Laura Geggel, Live Science, Nov 21, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Comment From Clyde Spencer: As I understand this article, it isn’t that the Arctic is becoming ‘hot,’ but rather, that the Jet Stream is displacing the cold Arctic air and moving it southward, allowing warmer air to move into the Arctic. The impact of open water on heating and evaporation, especially in the Winter, is greatly exaggerated. Currently, the days are short and the sun is low on the horizon. The specular reflection from open water can exceed that of ice when the sun is on the horizon. Her explanation also doesn’t take into account that the Arctic is notoriously cloudy, as the Vikings were well aware, and open water or no, the heating from sunlight is attenuated.

[SEPP Comment: A warm Arctic causes intense cold in Asia and Greenland?]

What You Can Do To Stop Climate Change

By David Vognar, Huffington Post, Nov 21, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


“In his book Dangerous Years, David W. Orr investigates what has brought us to the point of ecological collapse and how, yes, we must change our economies and governments—but also nothing less than our hearts.”

“We imagine that we will be able to stop climate change before it gets too bad. Government planners and businesspeople are thinking in decades when the time scale for action has to be years, if not months.”

[SEPP Comment: We should punish ourselves without knowing why?]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Climate and Popular Revolution

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball, WUWT, Nov 22, 2016


Chapter 10 of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics FREE for New Subscribers!

By William Briggs, His Blog, Nov 25, 2016


Good News for the Realists: Bad News for the Deluded.

By Geoff Brown, Australian Climate Sceptics, Nov 21, 2016


Study: UHI [Urban Heat Island] in Hong Kong accounts for most ‘warming’ since 1970

Lack of pollution, decline in carbon emissions, has ‘negative implications’

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Nov 21, 2016


Link to paper: Unexpected release of phosphate and organic carbon to streams linked to declining nitrogen depositions

By Andreas Musolff, et al, Global Change Biology, Sep 31, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Reducing air pollutants increases water pollution?]

Whoops, turns out concrete is actually a carbon sink

By Anthony Wats, WUWT, Nov 21, 2016


After Paris!

Three (perfectly democratic) reasons Donald Trump will absolutely smother the Paris climate deal

By Benny Peiser, Financial Post, Nov 21, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: According to Peiser, Trump has three mandates to quash the Paris Agreement: 1) campaign promises; 2) Republican party platform; 3) Republican led Congress. Plus, there is little support among the American public for it.]

Trump’s climate plan may not be so foolish after all

By Bjorn Lomborg, Chicago Tribune, Nov 22, 2016


Climate Policy in the Age of Trump

By Jay Hakes, Real Clear Energy, Nov 21, 2016


“The basics of climate science were endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences in the late 1970s and approved by the U.S. Senate when it unanimously ratified the treaty negotiated at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.”

[SEPP Comment: The author fails to note two important issues: 1) The approval of the treaty contained caveats that have not been met. 2) More importantly, the science contained speculation that an increase in water vapor will amplify, by several times, any increase in temperatures by carbon dioxide. There is little or no evidence of this amplification.]

Donald Trump On Climategate & The Paris Agreement

Editorial, NYT, Via GWPF, Nov 23, 2016


Under Trump shadow, climate talks set 2018 deadline to agree [on] rules

By Alister Doyle and Megan Rowling, Reuters, Nov 18, 2016


Trump Is Dumping The Climate Fetish. What About Theresa May?

By Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, Nov 20, 2016


“Actually Trump was wrong. The UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change was not a Chinese plan to boost its own exporters at the expense of the West’s industrial base; it was a plan by western governments to penalise their own industrial base, to the benefit of the economies of China and the rest of the developing world.”

After US Election — Positive

Trump Should Let the Senate Kill the Paris Climate-Change Agreement

He could simply ignore it, but the smarter option is to send it to the Senate for a vote.

By Joseph Eule, National Review, Nov 23, 2016


Action Plan for President Trump

By Staff Writers, The Heartland Institute, Nov 21, 2016


Dear America, the Developing Nations of the World Thank You

By Vijay Jayaraj, MSc, University of East Anglia, Townhall, Via ICECAP, Nov 22, 2016


“The Trump-Climate Freakout… ‘I’m going to die from climate change!’”

Guest post by David Middleton, WUWT, Nov 22, 2016


It’s Time For The New President And Congress To Think Big When It Comes To Cutting Government Waste

By Ian Murray, Independent Journal Review, Nov 21, 2016


Trump Election Chills Kerry’s Antarctic Trip

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Nov 24, 2016


Major win: NASA [GISS] was neutered, turned into political PR machine, and Trump is going to fix that

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Nov 24, 2016


This Is The Most Partisan Agency In The Entire Federal Government, According To FEC Records

By David Krayden, Daily Caller, Nov 25, 2016


After US Election — Neutral

You Ought to Have a Look: How to Start Afresh with Climate and Energy Policy

By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, CATO, Nov 21, 2016


People took Trump seriously, but not literally — the media vice-versa

By Matt Ridley, Rational Optimist, Nov 23, 2016


Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa’s climate change budget in favour of sending humans back to the moon – and beyond

By Nick Allen, Telegraph, UK, Nov 20, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Gavin Schmidt, director of Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and a Federal expert reviewer of the Technical Support Document for the EPA Endangerment Finding, has threatened to resign if NASA-GISS funds are cut. Their offices are at 2880 Broadway, NY, NY, and the organization specializes in using surface instrumentation to “better understand climate changes.” http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt.html]

Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding as the president-elect seeks to shift focus away from home in favor of deep space exploration

By Oliver Milman, Guardian, UK, Nov 23, 2016


Salon: Here’s a List of Potential Climate Budget Cuts

Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Nov 23, 2016


After US Election — Negative

How Much of Obama’s Climate Agenda Can Trump Undo With the Stroke of a Pen?

President Obama relied on executive orders to issue climate rules because of an uncooperative Congress, but now those orders are vulnerable.

By Sabrina Shankman, Inside Climate News, Nov 23, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Gives a list of executive orders that may be reversed.]

Election Could Reverse Decades-Long Environmental Trend

By Bill Murray, Real Clear Politics, Nov 18, 2016


[SEPP Comment: If oil and gas were about to be depleted, and extremely costly, then giving them up is not difficult. Estimated resources of oil and gas have multiplied several-fold, and continue to increase. Giving them up becomes very difficult.]

If Trump quits [Paris Agreement], California could apply to join UN climate talks

Head of state senate says legal brains are exploring ways in which [the] golden state could be represented if Trump pulls nation from Paris Agreement

By Ed King, Climate Home, Nov 17, 2016


‘It’s a nightmare’: Green groups prepare to fight under President Trump

“We are going to have to fight for our clean energy future, and we’re going to have to fight harder.”

By Natasha Geiling, Think Progress, Nov 15, 2016


Seeking a Common Ground

The Real War on Science

The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress

By John Tierney, City Journal, Autumn 2016


Excerpts: The real war on science

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Nov 21, 2016


“To preserve their integrity, scientists should avoid politics and embrace the skeptical rigor that their profession requires.”

Trump and Science

The president-elect’s statements suggest a practical outlook, which makes a welcome contrast with Barack Obama’s crusading spirit.

By John Tierney, City Journal, Nov 14, 2016


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science

An Inverse Relationship Between Cancer Death Rates and County Temperature in Florida, USA

Hart, J. 2015. Association between air temperature and cancer death rates in Florida: An ecological study. Dose-Response 13: DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.14-024.Hart. Nov 23, 2016


“In commenting on these findings, Hart says they were ‘unexpected, given the dire predictions about global warming.’ Nevertheless, he adds that ‘the finding of a benefit from warmer temperatures on the death rates is consistent with a recent report which revealed that warmer temperatures are linked to decreased mortality for cardiovascular disease, strokes, and respiratory disease (Idso et al., 2014).’” [NIPCC Biological Impacts]

Modelling Tropical Cyclones: The Seemingly Never-Ending Effort

Camargo, S.J. and Wing, A.A. 2016. Tropical cyclones in climate models. WIREs Climate Change 7: 211-237. Nov 22, 2016


Mangrove Forests Can Reduce Acidification of Coastal Sea Water

Sippo, J.Z., Maher, D.T., Tait, D.R., Holloway, C. and Santos, I.R. 2016. Are mangroves drivers or buffers of coastal acidification? Insights from alkalinity and dissolved inorganic carbon export estimates across a latitudinal transect. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 30: 753-766. Nov 21, 2016


“…’mangrove-derived alkalinity exports may be one of the largest sources of alkalinity to the tropical coastal ocean and provide a localized buffering effect against coastal acidification.’”

Models v. Observations

Study Finds Less Gloomy Outlook for Subtropical Rainfall

UM Rosenstiel School researchers challenge previous understanding of drying projections for the climatic region

Press Release, Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science, Nov 14, 2016 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Link to paper: A re-examination of the projected subtropical precipitation decline

By Jie He & Brian J. Soden, Nature Climate Change, Nov 14, 2016


Model Issues

Global Warming To Reduce Wheat Yields (According To Models!)

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 23, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Comparing booming crop yields with predictions from models.]

Measurement Issues — Surface

Study: UHI in Hong Kong accounts for most ‘warming’ since 1970

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Nov 18, 2016


Link to paper: Characterizing the urban temperature trend using seasonal unit root analysis: Hong Kong from 1970 to 2015

By Wai-Ming To and Tat-Wai Yu, Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, Dec 2016


From the abstract: “The model of monthly temperature obtained from the seasonal unit root analysis was able to explain 95.9% of the variance in the measured monthly data — much higher than the variance explained by the ordinary least-squares model using annual mean air temperature data…”

Temperatures: Who do you believe? RSS or GISS?

By Geoff Brown, Australian Climate Sceptics, Nov 25, 2016


[SEPP Comment; Atmosphere or surface?]

US daily temperature records past, present, and future

By Gerald A. Meehl, Claudia Tebaldi, and Dennis Adams-Smith, PNAS, Nov 21, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Measurement Issues — Atmosphere

Satellite Data Reinstates Global Temperature Pause

By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Nov 21, 2016


[SEPP Comment: During the next six months, temperatures may drop further as sea surface temperatures decline.]

Changing Weather

A Revolutionary New U.S. Weather Satellite is Launched: GOES-R

By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Nov 20, 2016


State of the art weather satellite launched over the weekend promises huge gains in many areas

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Nov 21, 2016


University of Victoria: Eurasian Cold Waves Not Influenced By Arctic Sea Ice Melt!

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt, (German text translated/edited by P Gosselin), Nov 22, 2016


While the North Pole warms beyond the melting point, it’s freakishly cold in Siberia

By Jason Samenow and Justin Grieser, Washington Post, Nov 18, 2016 [H/t Climate Etc.]


Changing Climate

Chilling climate revelations from the last ice age

UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability Press Release by Staff Writers, Nov 22, 2016 [H/t Climate Etc.]


Link to paper: Abrupt reorganization of North Pacific and western North American climate during the last deglaciation

By Juan Lora, et al, Geophysical Research Letters, Nov 22, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Did melting of Arctic ice 14,000 years ago cause shifts in the jet stream, resulting in drying of the US southwest?]

Changing Seas

Unraveling the mysterious source of methane gas in the ocean

By Staff Writers, Cape Cod MA (SPX) ,Nov 21, 2016 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Link to paper: Marine methane paradox explained by bacterial degradation of dissolved organic matter

By Daniel Repeta, et al., Nature Geoscience, Nov 14, 2016


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

The impact of Arctic warming on the mid latitude jetstream : Can it ? Has it ? Will it?

By Barnes and Screen, Exeter, UK, No date [H/t Climate Etc.]


A Brief History Of Arctic Angst

Briefing by Staff Writers, GWPF, Nov 21, 2016


“Until the noise of a century of media hype and unscientific speculation about the Arctic has been removed from the public debate, science will be unable to explain what, if anything, the signal from the Arctic is telling us.”

Long Term Arctic Temperature Trends

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 23, 2016


[Looking at long-term Arctic records:] “It is fair to say that the current warm period has been more sustained, in comparison with the earlier one which also had several much colder years. But is this simply a case of weather?

“What is clear though is that temperatures have plateaued, and there is no evidence that they will trend higher. Indeed, history suggests that the next move will be downwards.

“As for the longer perspective, we only have to look at Greenland ice core data to see that there is nothing unprecedented about today’s climate there.”

Accounts From 19th-Century Canadian Arctic Explorers’ Logs Reflect Present Climate Conditions

By James E. Overland and Kevin Wood, EOS Vol. 84, No. 40, 7 October 2003, Via GWPF, Nov 25, 2016


Oh, darn. Study: Most meltwater in Greenland fjords likely comes from icebergs, not glaciers

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Nov 21, 2016


Link to paper: Iceberg meltwater fluxes dominate the freshwater budget in Greenland’s iceberg-congested glacial fjords

By Ellyn M. Enderlin, et al. Geophysical Research Letters, Nov 9, 2016


The Antarctic 2016 sea ice anomalies

By Mark Brandon, His Blog, Nov 24, 2016 [H/t Climate Etc.]


[SEPP Comment: Automation of full year of changing Antarctic sea ice as compared with 1989 to 1993 mean.]

Scott and Shackleton logbooks prove Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking 100 years after expeditions

By Sarah Knapton, Telegraph, UK, Nov 24, 2016


[SEPP Comment: The maps are illuminating. In addition, Captain Cook, who was an excellent navigator, sailed closer to the pole than ice would permit now.]

How Captain Robert Scott’s log book from his expedition of Antarctica more than 100 years ago raises troubling new doubts about global warming

By Christopher Booker For The Daily Mail, Nov 24, 2016


Antarctic sea ice strangely the same as 100 years ago when Ford Model T was around

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Nov 26, 2016


Link to paper: Estimating the extent of Antarctic summer sea ice during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration

By Tom Edinburgh and Jonathan Day, Cryosphere, Nov 21, 2016


Changing Earth

‘Atlas of the Underworld’ reveals oceans and mountains lost to Earth’s history

By Paul Voosen, Science, Nov 22, 2016 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine

How to Feed the World

By Bjørn Lomborg, Project Syndicate, Nov 22, 2016


“More cereals were produced annually in the last quarter of the twentieth century than in any preceding period, and more grain will be harvested this year than at any time in history. Since 1992, the number of hungry people worldwide has plummeted by more than 200 million, even as the human population grew by nearly two billion.

“But enormous challenges remain. Affordable, nutritious food is one of people’s top priorities everywhere, and one in nine people still do not get enough food to be healthy.

Lowering Standards

Michael Sununu: Manipulating climate data right before our eyes

By Michael Sununu, New Hampshire Union Leader, Nov 20, 2016 [H/t ICECAP]


NOAA Adjustments Correlate Exactly To Their Confirmation Bias

By Tony Heller, Real Science, Nov 21, 2016


[SEPP Comment: The correlation between USHCN adjustments and atmospheric CO2 is disturbing.]

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Dangers of Dust In a Warming World

By Travis Holtby, Triple Pundit, Nov 21, 2016


“Desertification is increasing as anthropogenic climate change accelerates.”

[SEPP Comment: Contrary to 30 years of Landsat photos showing a greening world.]

Expanding the Orthodoxy

Climate Change, the U.S. Military, and “the Intersection of Politics and Events”

By Schuyler Null, New Security Beat, Nov 1, 2016 [H/t Climate Etc.]


Questioning European Green

The European Blackout Risk

By Roger Andrews, Energy Matters, Nov 24, 2016 [H/t Paul Homewood]


“So will the lights go out somewhere this winter? The chances are against it. But if France does black out during severe weather/low wind conditions there could be a ripple effect that causes power outages over a larger area. And if worse comes to worst, which is a possibility that can’t be totally discounted, the question of how long it would take to black-start much of Western Europe will rear its ugly head.”

Analysis: Adding More Solar, Wind Power Increases Dependence On Fossil Fuels, ‘Doubles’ CO2 Emissions

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Nov 24, 2016


Germany Aims To “Throttle” Wind Energy To Avert Grid Overloading …Branch In Uncertainty

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 23, 2016


Irish Fury And Fierce European Opposition To Ugly Wind Turbines Mount Across Europe

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 25, 2016


Protected forests in Europe felled to meet EU renewable targets – report

Europe’s bioenergy plants are burning trees felled from protected conservation areas rather than using forest waste, new report shows

By Arthur Neslen, Guardian, UK, Nov 24, 2016


Green Jobs

Investing in the ‘bioeconomy’ could create jobs and reduce carbon emissions

By Staff Writers, EurekAlert, Nov 21, 2016 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Link to paper: An assessment of the potential products and economic and environmental impacts resulting from a billion ton bioeconomy

By Jonathan Rogers, et al., Biofpr, Nov 21, 2016


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

New Realism on UK Renewables Subsidies

By John Constable, GWPF Energy editor, Nov 23, 2016


“Frank discussion of the disadvantage of subsidy costs to renewables is now increasingly commonplace in Britain, amongst parliamentarians and others. This is extremely positive, and should give courage to government. But there is more to the full costs of these policies than income subsidies, and it is crucial that the Department of Business does not fudge its forthcoming study of the whole system costs of wind and solar.”

EPA and other Regulators on the March

US moves to block mining near Yellowstone

By Matthew Brown, AP, Nov 21, 2016 [Clyde Spencer]


[SEPP Comment: Extend the boundaries infinitely!]

Energy Issues – Non-US

Canada to phase out coal power by 2030: official

By Michel Comte, AFP, Nov 21, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Communities near fracking sites get power to decide how to spend £1bn fund, Philip Hammond announces in Autumn Statement

By Francesca Washtell, City A.M., UK, Nov 23, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Up to 10 percent of tax proceeds.]

Levelised Costs Of UK Electricity Generation

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 24, 2016


‘At first sight onshore wind appears to be the cheapest, but there is a catch!

“As I have been pointing out for some time, these costings always include carbon costs in the calculation for CCGT, as the BEIS paper shows on the very next page:

“So although CCGT works out at £66/MWh, the true cost, ignoring the totally artificial imposition of a carbon tax, is really £47/MWh. This is much less than wind or solar.

“And as the paper points out, no allowance is made for other costs incurred because of renewable energy, such as standby capacity and extra grid infrastructure.”

[SEPP Comment: Promoters adjusting the books for their schemes is one thing; when governments engage in such propaganda, it diminishes the integrity of government.]

Victoria paying big to drive at breakneck speed to repeat South Australia’s blackout

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Nov 25, 2016


“To help expensive, unreliable, intermittent green energy survive, the government subsidizes it by around 9c per KWhr (bear in mind the wholesale rate for coal fired power is 3 – 4c per kWhr.)”

“The real distortion to the system is the treatment of wind generated power. It is described as non-dispatchable (although some wind farms are now termed semi-dispatchable) as it must be used when generated. Wind farms do not bid a price into the wholesale market but rather take what is on offer, and in addition collect a legislated subsidy of around $70 to $90 per MWh from distributors who pass this cost on to the users. The consequence of this is a distortion of the market that drives out high priced [reliable] generators, such as the cleaner gas-fired plant, whose actual [dispatchable] operating costs are less than the subsidy paid to the wind farms.”

Energy Issues — US

Blowout Week 151

By Roger Andrews, Energy Matters, Nov 19, 2016


[SEPP Comment: More articles on the Texas Wolfcamp oil estimates, Trump election, and other energy issues.]

Washington’s Control of Energy

Feds boost biofuels mandate for 2017

By Devin Henry, The Hill, Nov 23, 2016


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Fracking’s strange origins

The recent energy boom owes much to a 60-year-old discovery by an American geologist named M. King Hubbert. Mason Inman reports.

By Mason Inman, Cosmos, Nov 21, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


The Aramco IPO and the Black Art of Estimating Oil Reserves

By Euan Mearns, Energy Matters, Nov 21, 2016


“It looks like the Saudi princes are using the same envelope as me. In this calculation, reserves become important in determining how long Saudi Arabia can maintain 12 Mbpd production.”

[SEPP Comment: How much is sale of 5% of state-owned Aramco worth?]

Return of King Coal?

How American Coal Could Come Back Leaner and Cleaner

By Christopher Mendoza, American Thinker, Nov 25, 2016


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Large-scale wind energy slows down winds and reduces turbine efficiencies

By Staff Writers, Phys.org, Nov 15, 2016


Link to paper: Wind speed reductions by large-scale wind turbine deployments lower turbine efficiencies and set low generation limits

By Lee Miller and Axel Kleidon, PNAS, Nov 14, 2016


Solar-Panel Roads to Be Built on Four Continents Next Year

By Anna Hirtenstein, Bloomberg, Nov 23, 2016


“For now, the cost of the materials makes only demonstration projects sensible. A square meter of the solar road currently costs 2,000 ($2,126) and 2,500 euros. That includes monitoring, data collection and installation costs. Wattway says it can make the price competitive with traditional solar farms by 2020.”

Sweden to scrap taxes on solar energy in 2017

by Staff Writers

Stockholm (AFP) Nov 21, 2016


“In October, the Swedish energy market regulator had estimated that in order to reach the target of 100 percent renewable energy, the share of solar electricity would have to rise to between five and 10 percent.”

[SEPP Comment: At a latitude between 55º and 69º North?]

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

EU considering halving crop-based biofuels by 2030: draft

By Robert-Jan Bartunek, et al, Reuters, Nov 22, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


Will Brussels Fix its Broken Biofuels Policy?

By Staff Writers, The American Interest, Nov 22, 2016


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles

Diesel, fuel of the future

By Martin Livermore, The Scientific Alliance, Nov 25, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Recognizing improvements in diesel engines and their greater efficiency over petrol.]

Health, Energy, and Climate

Spain anger over ‘energy poverty’ deaths

By James Badcock, BBC News, Nov 20, 2016 [H/t Paul Homewood]


Other News that May Be of Interest

The TPP monster has 5,544 pages. A real free trade agreement would have 1

Lately the Five Star Free Market label is just a fake seal of approval for something Unfree

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Nov 23, 2016


Link to article: Obama’s Convoluted TPP Agreement Is THREE TIMES AS LONG As The King James Bible [LIST]

By Christian Datoc, Daily Caller, Nov 6, 2016




Warmer Planet Could Be Dominated by Mosquitoes, Ticks, Rodents and Jellyfish

The distribution of wildlife on Earth is changing with the climate, making conditions more favorable to odd species such as trumpeter swans, beetles, marmots, albatross, killer whales and white-tailed deer

By Lacy Johnson, Scientific American, Feb 20, 2012 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


[SEPP Comment: Did it occur when the last ice age ended?]

Attack of the cannibalistic lobsters!

By Staff Writers, Climate Change Predictions.org, Nov 25, 2016


The waters off the coast of Maine are overflowing with lobsters, which, according to Mother Jones, is actually a bad thing.

Two main factors are causing the lobster population to explode. First, rising sea temperatures brought on by global warming are encouraging the crustaceans to grow quicker and reproduce more often, says Noah Oppenheim, a marine biology graduate student at the University of Maine.

Second, Oppenheim tells Mother Jones, over-fishing has rid the ocean of the lobster’s natural enemies, which include cod, herring, and other fish.

The result is a lot of lobsters that have nothing eat — which is why, as footage taken by Oppenheim shows, they have resorted to cannibalism. The Week, 24 Jul 2013

[SEPP Comment: Lobsters were cannibalistic long before human fear of global warming!]



1. Trump Can Ax the Clean Power Plan by Executive Order

The aggressive legal positions in Obama’s most controversial rules makes them easier to rescind.

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman, WSJ, Nov 20, 2016


The two attorneys representing the State of Oklahoma against the power plan write: President Obama pledged to wield a pen and phone during his second term rather than engage with Congress. The slew of executive orders, enforcement memorandums, regulations and “Dear Colleague” letters comprised an unprecedented assertion of executive authority. Equally unparalleled is the ease with which the Obama agenda can be dismantled. Among the first actions on President Trump’s chopping block should be the Clean Power Plan.”

[After Congress rejected cap and trade in 2009,] “the Environmental Protection Agency then devised a nearly identical scheme to mandate shifting electricity generation from disfavored facilities, like those powered by coal, to those the EPA prefers, like natural gas and renewables. No statute authorized the EPA to seize regulatory control of the nation’s energy sector. The agency instead discovered, in an all-but-forgotten 1970s-era provision of the Clean Air Act, that it had that power all along.

To support its preferred policy, the agency was compelled to “interpret” the statute in a way that contradicts what it acknowledges is the “literal” reading of the text and clashes with decades of its own regulations. It also nullifies language blocking regulation for power plants because they are already regulated under an alternative program. By mangling the Clean Air Act to intrude on areas it was never meant to, the regulation violates the constitutional bar on commandeering the states to carry out federal policy.

These defects are why the Supreme Court put the EPA’s plan on hold while an appeals court in Washington, D.C., considers challenges brought by the energy industry and 27 states. These legal challenges now appear to have been overtaken by events. President Trump can immediately issue an executive order to adopt a new energy policy that respects the states’ role in regulating energy markets and that prioritizes making electricity affordable and reliable. Such an order should direct the EPA to cease all efforts to enforce and implement the Clean Power Plan. The agency would then extend all of the regulation’s deadlines, enter an administrative stay and commence regulatory proceedings to rescind the previous order.

That would leave the D.C. appeals court—which some supporters of the plan are still counting on for a Hail Mary save—or the Supreme Court with little choice but to send the legal challenges back to the agency. While the Clean Power Plan could technically linger in the Code of Federal Regulations for a year or so, it would have no legal force.

When an agency changes course, it must provide a reasoned explanation to address factual findings supporting its prior policy. In certain instances that requirement may impose a real burden. For example, a rule rescinding the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” regarding the effects of greenhouse gases would have to address the evidence underlying it. A failure to provide a satisfactory explanation of a change in policy may render a rule “arbitrary and capricious” and vulnerable to legal challenge.

Environmentalist groups have already vowed to bring suit to defend the Clean Power Plan, but a challenge would be toothless. The aggressive legal positions underlying the Obama administration’s most controversial rules—including the Clean Power Plan, the Waters of the United States rule, and the FCC’s Open Internet order—will make it easier to rescind them. That’s because rejecting the assertion of legal authority underlying such a rule is enough to justify a policy change. If the agency’s view is that it simply lacks the power to carry out a rule, then it follows that the rule must be withdrawn.

Even if a court were to find that the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act underlying the plan is permissible, that would still not compel the Trump EPA to accept that interpretation as the only permissible one. And even if a court were to rule—erroneously, in our view—that the Clean Power Plan does not violate the Constitution’s vertical separation of powers, that would still not absolve the executive branch of the responsibility to consider that constitutional issue for itself and then act accordingly.

President Obama may soon come to understand that the presidential pen and phone is a double-edged sword.


2. Dear Editor, Pueblo Chieftain (CO), Nov 22, 2016

Unpublished letter from Howard C. Hayden

Sierra Club representative Charlotte Tournay and Pueblo Ready for 100 Campaign’s Meral Cooper praised solar, wind and hydro to the high heavens in Sunday’s opinion section. They didn’t mention jobs, but I have good news. You see, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the solar industry employs 210,000 people, while there are only 190,000 employed in coal mines. Considering the tiny amount of solar electricity produced, the solar industry employs about 70 times as many people for the same amount of electricity. The coal industry is developing plans to compete with that kind of job creation. They will get rid of all that heavy machinery and hire millions of miners to use picks and shovels. It might make electricity a trifle more costly, but think of all the jobs!

Speaking of money, there is a plan afoot to make gasoline free. All we have to do is to get the government to buy it for us. That’s just like wind and solar economics. After all, we have massive subsidies for wind and solar in the form of construction tax credits, production tax credits, local tax breaks, extra fees on utility bills, and mandates requiring that electricity come from wind and solar. If you put solar panels on your house, current law requires the utility to buy your excess daytime electricity at retail rates, which are typically three or four times as much as their wholesale rates. You see, the government is making wind and solar very cheap right now. Free gasoline is an easy next step.

Solar electricity is wonderful. Right now, in sunny places like southern California, you can get only a year-round average of one-sixth of the power it says on the nameplate because there aren’t all that many hours when the sun is well positioned high in the sky. Presently, the solar panels don’t work at night, but just think of what could happen if we had bright lights shining on our solar panels at night! [Boldface added]


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 28, 2016 12:20 am

The theory of peak oil was sound when Hubbert developed it and it’s sound now. It’s just the with every new reserve discovery and new extraction technique, the actual date of the peak is pushed further and further into the future. While true, it’s not particularly useful because we don’t know one of the key parameters to the equation, namely, just exactly how much oil there is that is ‘gettable’. I do not believe we will know we have actually hit peak oil until some significant amount of time after the peak has been passed.

Mike barminski
November 28, 2016 12:41 am

In article on peak oil hubbert mis-spelled once as hubbard.

November 28, 2016 1:10 am

“The result is a lot of lobsters that have nothing eat ” ??
“nothing to eat” ?

November 28, 2016 2:25 am

First of all peak oil isn’t about running out of oil, its about the price of oil rising to a level beyond some other competing source of energy. Probably, in a sane world, nuclear power. And the absolute limits on commercial use as energy comes when it takes more energy to extract the oil than the oil itself contains.
‘Peak horse’ wasn’t because we ran out of horses..
Second, in a finite planet, there has to be some limit to fossil fuel and to population growth. Peak oil and Malthus are derided because the peaks in oil and population haven’t happened yet: as the man falling past the 30th storey yelled…”OK so far!”
There is a fundamental human algorithm that broadly states ‘things tomorrow will be more or less as they are today’ which works well, until they are not.
And that’s when stupid people die, and smart people prosper.
With high tech and smarts, we may push world population levels and fossil extraction up to a slightly higher level than now, but we cannot sustain indefinite expansion. The developed world stopped its population growth some time ago. It is second and third world immigration that drives it now.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 28, 2016 7:23 am

Worldwide, population growth is attenuating . We are 80% of peak pop now! This is why the last of the die-hard malthusians are reaching a crescendo. Once pop has peaked, a lot of air comes out of the disastrastrophes’ balloon.

November 28, 2016 5:05 am

concerning the ‘Polar Regions – Arctic’ comments…
36 degrees F (the max anomaly) may not be above freezing everywhere, but it is a particularly unusual event and unlikely to have been seen during the 20th century.
Certainly there are temp record series going back 68 years which have never shown this level of anomaly…
and when you bear in mind it is pitch dark up there at the moment…
Still no mention of the truly exceptional low ice levels which accompany the arctic wide temp anomaly (and do note also the high temps over much of Canada at the same time). We can be sure these conditions have not occurred in the 37 year satellite record or indeed in the 150 years of collated detailed arctic records.
I’d still like to see this website post this in an article and explain it:comment image
Here’s a science based assessment of the weird conditions up there:
By the way, its getting to the time when the ice needs to reach Svalbard to allow female polar bears to get to their denning sites… it arrived late and partially last year and many were assumed to have diverted to Franz Josef land… Not reached Svalbard yet, and only partially at Franz Josef land (it has reached and retreated from there once). Are we sure all those polar bear populations are OK?

Pierre DM
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 8:59 am

Griff, I take it that you have never been anywhere near the arctic. For that matter I would guess you have not even been north of agricultural land.

Reply to  Pierre DM
November 29, 2016 4:42 am

An awful lot of research scientists, weather observers and satellites certainly have been in and over the arctic, which is where this information derives from.
There is undeniably an extremely unusual set of temperature and ice conditions in the arctic this year -which climate skeptics have not acknowledged, let alone tried to explain from the skeptic viewpoint.

Reply to  kenneth_richard
November 29, 2016 4:47 am

I’m sorry, but clearly there has been a considerable decrease in arctic sea ice extent over the last 80 years.
Not to mention a decrease in volume, age and thickness.
somebody is being a little misleading by putting that term ‘net’ in there and cherry picking charts.
Look at this chart and click the 2 then show all at left:
And its good news that the bears have some prospect of survival – but at what population level and where across their current range?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 5:09 pm

Griffie, thank you for incessantly showing a graph that indicates Arctic sea ice retreat bottomed out about ten years ago, if only you would show it back to 2007. AMO, anyone?

Reply to  Dave Fair
November 29, 2016 4:48 am

You can try this one if you like – and there’s a clear pattern of decline:
How come it never recovered, if it bottomed out?

November 28, 2016 6:18 am

Here we go – a problem clearly caused by climate change – Bolivian drought caused by retreating glaciers, in a region with a clear warming trend
explain this one away in terms of no warming/ a cooling world…
(and The Times today reports a French Alpine resort building a snow dome due to climate change reducing the annual snow/retreating glacier)

Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 6:29 am

..It’s called Llocal weather…

Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 12:16 pm

Griff, you are just a superstitious bible thumping climate kook. Read up again on how droughts work

Reply to  hunter
November 29, 2016 4:39 am

I read that the water supply in Bolivia comes from glacier fed rivers and that said glaciers are retreating, causing less water in the rivers and thus a drought.
Is there any possible way to dispute the fact that less water from glaciers is going into those rivers?

Gary Pearse
November 28, 2016 6:42 am

I missed the wuwt post on Oops concrete is a CO2 sink. I have pointed this out on numerous posts previously on wuwt and admit it didn’t seem to attract even one comment. Perhaps, it was the” other side” that took note of my offerings! I am appalled generally at the level of knowledge of basic chemistry in physicists who are largely at the core of CAGW science. I also mentioned that calcined lime used in mortars and plasters, similarly over time take back the CO2 emitted in its making. And don’t get me started on knowledge of chemistry concerning the oceans by oceanographers for scripps sake!
Come to think of it, where in hell were the cement makers hiding when they were being branded public enemy #2? And now UC Irvine PhDs are reporting something I knew 60yrs ago and probably about to award a PhD for this seminal finding. Omg it is worse than I thought!

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 28, 2016 8:51 am

Although I cannot argue with your premise (that physicist know too little chemistry), I don’t see that physicists are at the core of CAGW, but rather some selected physicists who ended up as astronomers who then drifted into climate science–or I could make a case that the noisy core of CAGW are journalists who drifted into science journalism. It seems a very easy mistake to drift out of one’s domain of expertise, but still think of oneself as an expert.
Physicists also make up an important core of the anti-CAGW, remember.
The scientists who are the most zealous of CAGW appear to be in the earth sciences and biology. Woe is to them. The next generation science standards for earth science, for example, no longer even discuss the rock cycle, but are infested with climate change claptrap from beginning to end. At some future point geologists will be faulted for lack of basic knowledge of geology. Climate change has been far more destructive than one could have imagined.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 28, 2016 8:52 am

Although I cannot argue with your premise (that physicist know too little chemistry), I don’t see that physicists are at the core of CAGW, but rather some selected physicists who ended up as astronomers who then drifted into climate science–or I could make a case that the noisy core of CAGW are journalists who drifted into science journalism. It seems a very easy mistake to drift out of one’s domain of expertise, but still think of oneself as an expert.
Physicists also make up an important core of the anti-CAGW, remember.
The scientists who are the most zealous of CAGW appear to be in the earth sciences and biology. Woe is to them. The next generation science standards for earth science, for example, no longer even discuss the rock cycle, but are infested with climate change claptrap from beginning to end. At some future point geologists will be faulted for lack of basic knowledge of geology. Climate change has been far more destructive than one could have imagined.

Steve Case
November 28, 2016 11:59 am

Quote of the Week. “A genuine expert can always foretell a thing that is 500 years away easier than he can a thing that’s only 500 seconds off.” ——Mark Twain [H/t William Briggs]
In other words:
If you can’t hit the broad side of a barn at 25 feet,
you’re not going to hit the target at 100 meters.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Steve Case
November 28, 2016 12:45 pm

1. Good point (right on target, 🙂 ) about hitting the barn.
2. I think, however, you may have missed the point of the Twain quote. Here is another quote along those lines to help:
” ‘Which is easier: to say, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Get up and walk?” ‘ ”
(Luke 5:23)
That is, the point of the quotes is: foretelling or claiming to perform something which is unverifiable in your lifetime is MUCH easier than to foretell or claim to be able to perform something that must occur soon. “Easier” meaning: low risk of failure.

Reply to  Steve Case
November 29, 2016 6:05 am

You mean if you can’t hit the broad side of a barn at 25 feet, you’re not going to hit the target at 1,393,636 miles. To scale it properly.

Marty Williams
November 28, 2016 1:26 pm

George Mitchell did not discover proppant (Frac Sand); been used in hydraulic fracturing since 1949.

Marty Williams
Reply to  Marty Williams
November 28, 2016 1:28 pm

And….will post check to SEPP!

Reply to  Marty Williams
November 28, 2016 2:33 pm

Yup. What Mitchell did in the Barnett was figure out how to go horizontal then long. His sleeve perf method has been mostly supplanted by plug and perf.

November 28, 2016 2:28 pm

In fact, the theory of peak oil production has not been consigned to,the dustbin of history. Hubbert famously predicted using the logistics function that US oil (at that time only conventional) would peak about 1972. It did. In the 1970’s he predicted the global (at that time, still only conventional) peak just after 2000. Using better data, a Sci Am article predicted about 2005. In fact, the global peak in conventional oil was 2008 per the IEA. Conventional oil is API>10, from a reservoir wilh >5% porosity and >10 millidarcies permeability.
The unconventional Orinoco tas sands and Athabascan bitumen sands have API<<10. Source rock shale oil has permeability <<1 millidarcie.
The 2008 IEA survey of the worlds most major ~800 oil fields producing ~2/3 of all crude showed annual decline rates of ~5.1% and accelerating. That means new replacement production of ~4.5mbpd must be brought on every year assuming no growth in demand. Ok, after 10 years the total Brazil deepwater subsalts have reached 3mbpd. After 20 years, Kashigan will finally produce 2.5mbpd this year. Iran hopes eventually to expand from 3.5mbpd to 4.5-5. Iran peaked two decades ago at 6. Hyperbolic Creaming curves by basin allow estimates of oil yet to be discovered; over 75% of everything everywhere already has been. Some shale TRR has been grossly overestimated by making basic mistakes; california's Monterey went from ~15Bbbl to effectively zero when the folded geology was included; there is nothing horizontal to drill. For the comical Bhazenov multiple screwups, see essay Matryoshka Reserves. EIA estimate ~75Bbbl. Actual ~5, less than Bakken at 8.1Bbbl using new plug and perf plus additional proppant.
Including all unconventional oil, the global peak can be predicted with reasonable precision to between 2023 and 2025. The proper curve is not Hubbert's logistic function, it is a skewed gamma function. Makes effectively no difference to peak production timing, but does soften the later downside because of the long tail.
Mistaking a price war for petroleum geophysics, and not understanding shale oil TRR (1-1.5% of OIP, maybe 3 percent in some favorable Permean shales like Wolfcamp a-d with 4-8% pososity) leads to silly statements like those at the head of yhis guest post that are easily proven false. Read the footnoted energy essays in my ebook Blowing Smoke. You might learn something.

November 28, 2016 4:58 pm

Regarding Hubbert’s comments on fracking, i.e. fractures being vertical, not horizontal:
As a young production engineer (46 years ago) I worked in the Pembina Field (discovered in 1953) of central Alberta, if a well was not frack’ed, it didn’t produce. The Pembina Field at that time was the largest field in aerial extent in North America. Stanolind Oil (name change to Pan American Petroleum Corp. and then to Amoco Canada) developed hydraulic fracturing technology and held the patent. The company had done studies on induced fracture orientation in the Pembina Field (Cardium formation) and the conclusion was that most fractures were oblique, some vertical, none horizontal. Further to this, and only confirming your natural understanding of the technology as applied to rock mechanics, induced fractures followed the plane of the least stress in the rock. It followed that, 1) given a uniform formation, such as a large sandstone, induced fractures would tend to have the same directional orientation and oblique-ness (sorry, Webster), and 2) shallower wells, when frack’ed, showed tendencies of the frac to be more horizontal, which is what you would expect as the overburden stress declined. Makes sense when looking in the rear view mirror.
The early work done by Stanolind in the late 1940’s was on shallow wells, where the induced fractures were indeed horizontal. This was extrapolated generally in the industry to assume that all induced fractures were horizontal, regardless of well depth and formation (rock) properties.

Verified by MonsterInsights