And post #892, which preceded my comment, ended with this:
So, I said they're wrong, time has already told.
Maybe you should pay attention to what you're posting yourself...
Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
And post #892, which preceded my comment, ended with this:
So, I said they're wrong, time has already told.
Maybe you should pay attention to what you're posting yourself...
NASA is wrong? I just lost a whole ****load of respect for you.
How did an 11 year cycle end two years short?
Why does NASA keep insisting it's coming and bumped the peak from May 2013 to June2013? NASA/Marshall Solar Physics
You'd best get ahold them and let them know they are wrong.
james.a.phillips@earthlink.net is the man you'll want to contact and tell that he is wrong..
Letting them know the 11 year cycle ended short might be embarassing. It might be a better idea to start reading what NASA is saying before saying they were wrong.
No you fruit loop, pay attention. There wasn't anyone from NASA in that post you cut and pasted, there was a fellow from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and a fellow from National Space Science & Technology Center. The fellow from NSSTC is the one who thought the solar max would be here right about now, the fellow from NCAR said it should be about 2013. What I responded to was?? If you are paying attention, it was the fellow who said it should be here now.
Follow? Or do I need to actually hold your hand to walk you through your own posts? Kinda like your tantrum about the IPCC and NASA and aircraft exhaust. Then later, you actually looked at the Math, and didn't trust them any longer because they didn't give an answer that you actually like, it was too low for you. And I showed you that the IPCC math was even higher, even though you said they completely ignored it...
Does NASA farm out it's research as an umbrella organization? NSSTC copy and paste came from NASA. Want the link?
First one from NASA's pages Solar Storm Warning - NASA Science
Second one from NASA's pages that is the most current with the updated peak for June of 2013 New Solar Cycle Prediction - NASA Science where you'll find this coincidence:
First one from NASA's pages Solar Storm Warning - NASA Science
Second one from NASA's pages that is the most current with the updated peak for June of 2013 New Solar Cycle Prediction - NASA Science where you'll find this coincidence:
Looks like I am going to have to hold your hand, notice anything in that URL? Maybe if I bold it for you...
NASA Sciencescience-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/
It's not NASA research just because it's on NASA's news page.
Wave your hands all you like, be a fool. I don't really care.
Apparently. I wonder if they host any fake moon landing web pages too?
Still no comment on this odd ball graph Tonnington? Just more coinkydink?
Still no comment on this odd ball graph Tonnington? Just more coinkydink?
It's called news. NASA news ran a story about two research groups who disagree about the strength and timing of the current solar cycle. Petros' article that he cut and pasted said time will tell, and I simply commented that time has told, and one of those groups was wrong.
I have no idea why this is difficult for you or Petros to grasp. Petros seemed to think I was disagreeing with NASA, and that this was somehow diminishing whatever credit I had in his eyes. Well, for one, I don't care what he thinks about me, and second, I wasn't disagreeing with NASA...
Some people need to step back and seriously read before they comment.
So you are trying to say NASA isn't an umbrella agency that farms out some of it's research under their banner and then compiles it and provides it to researchers and the public?
They are just a news agency that flippantly posts junk science, news articles or whatever makes their bum hum that day?
BTW the WTF is this?
They are just a news agency that flippantly posts junk science, news articles or whatever makes their bum hum that day?
BTW the WTF is this?
NASA: 2010 warmest year on record.
December 10, 2010
Raw Data here.
News coverage from Science:
The 2010 meteorological year, which ended on 30 November, was the warmest in NASA’s 130-year record, data posted by the agency today shows. Over the oceans as well as on land, the average global temperature for the 12-month period that began last December was 14.65˚C. That’s 0.65˚C warmer than the average global temperature between 1951 and 1980, a period scientists use as a basis for comparison.
The 2010 meteorological year was slightly warmer than the previous warmest year, the 2005 calendar year, when the average temperature was 14.53˚C.
—-
Meanwhile, satellite data from skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer’s website shows November’s global anomaly to be +.38 C.
Meanwhile, if you’ve been reading about how cold things are in the UK, take a look at NASA’s temp anomaly maps for November.
You are looking down at the poles, and the red areas indicate regions that are warmer than the base period (an average from 1951 to 1980).
Ginormous red. Little bitty cool spot over the north atlantic. Kind of puts news media spin in perspective.
December 10, 2010
Raw Data here.
News coverage from Science:
The 2010 meteorological year, which ended on 30 November, was the warmest in NASA’s 130-year record, data posted by the agency today shows. Over the oceans as well as on land, the average global temperature for the 12-month period that began last December was 14.65˚C. That’s 0.65˚C warmer than the average global temperature between 1951 and 1980, a period scientists use as a basis for comparison.
The 2010 meteorological year was slightly warmer than the previous warmest year, the 2005 calendar year, when the average temperature was 14.53˚C.
—-
Meanwhile, satellite data from skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer’s website shows November’s global anomaly to be +.38 C.
Meanwhile, if you’ve been reading about how cold things are in the UK, take a look at NASA’s temp anomaly maps for November.
You are looking down at the poles, and the red areas indicate regions that are warmer than the base period (an average from 1951 to 1980).
Ginormous red. Little bitty cool spot over the north atlantic. Kind of puts news media spin in perspective.
No. I'm saying that one of those groups was wrong, and when you say I disagree with NASA, I'm saying that I disagreed with that group mentioned in the news story that NASA posted.
Only a moron would read that as disagreeing with NASA...
Did you get into the Draino? Bad boy. Bad bad bad.
The oil industry wants your CO2 to extract more oil.
Marketing.
The oil industry wants your CO2 to extract more oil.
Saskatchewan Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and Storage Initiative
Saskatchewan presently has two successful commercial scale enhanced oil recovery projects at the Weyburn and Midale oilfields. Both of the projects purchase carbon dioxide from a coal gasification facility in North Dakota and inject the carbon dioxide into the oilfields. Significant economic benefit is accrued since the carbon dioxide increases oil production, and at the same time a significant environmental benefit is occurring in that the carbon dioxide is permanently stored underground in the oil reservoirs.
The Weyburn field has experienced a significant increase in oil production due to the injection of carbon dioxide. Together, these projects dispose of enough carbon dioxide to offset 100% of the carbon dioxide emissions from all of the homes in Saskatchewan. The capture of carbon dioxide, its use to enhance the recovery of crude oil, and its ultimate long-term storage deep underground collectively are an excellent example of an economic and environmental win-win situation.
The Saskatchewan Carbon Dioxide EOR and Storage Initiative will provide funding toward the replication of these successful and profitable multi-hundred million dollar EOR investments at other oilfields. This initiative will also assist SaskPower's proposed clean coal electric generating plant and TransCanada Energy's proposed polygeneration project by establishing a new market for carbon dioxide that would be captured from these proposed facilities and other potential sources of carbon dioxide.
The Saskatchewan Carbon Dioxide EOR and Storage Initiative has two distinct components:
Howard Loseth, P.Eng.
Director, Energy Development and Climate Change Branch
Ministry of Energy and Resources
300, 2100 - 11th Avenue
REGINA SK S4P 3Z8
Phone: 787-3379
Email: hloseth@ir.gov.sk.ca
Saskatchewan presently has two successful commercial scale enhanced oil recovery projects at the Weyburn and Midale oilfields. Both of the projects purchase carbon dioxide from a coal gasification facility in North Dakota and inject the carbon dioxide into the oilfields. Significant economic benefit is accrued since the carbon dioxide increases oil production, and at the same time a significant environmental benefit is occurring in that the carbon dioxide is permanently stored underground in the oil reservoirs.
The Weyburn field has experienced a significant increase in oil production due to the injection of carbon dioxide. Together, these projects dispose of enough carbon dioxide to offset 100% of the carbon dioxide emissions from all of the homes in Saskatchewan. The capture of carbon dioxide, its use to enhance the recovery of crude oil, and its ultimate long-term storage deep underground collectively are an excellent example of an economic and environmental win-win situation.
The Saskatchewan Carbon Dioxide EOR and Storage Initiative will provide funding toward the replication of these successful and profitable multi-hundred million dollar EOR investments at other oilfields. This initiative will also assist SaskPower's proposed clean coal electric generating plant and TransCanada Energy's proposed polygeneration project by establishing a new market for carbon dioxide that would be captured from these proposed facilities and other potential sources of carbon dioxide.
The Saskatchewan Carbon Dioxide EOR and Storage Initiative has two distinct components:
a. Internal evaluation phase: Preparation of engineering, economic, administrative, and legal information required to assess the different barriers to implementing carbon dioxide EOR in oil fields in Saskatchewan.
Engineering information will include parameters such as the thickness and extent of the reservoir, the quality of the oil, reservoir pressure, reservoir porosity and permeability, and current oil and water production rates. The engineering information can be used to forecast the potential increase in production that would result from implementing a carbon dioxide EOR project and the associated costs, revenues, and payback period associated with the investment.
Legal information will be prepared to assist in the assessment of the options that are available to encourage diverse mineral and working interest owners within an oil field to collaborate and co-operate (including sharing the costs) in the implementation of a carbon dioxide EOR project.
Legal information will be prepared to assist in the assessment of the options that are available to encourage diverse mineral and working interest owners within an oil field to collaborate and co-operate (including sharing the costs) in the implementation of a carbon dioxide EOR project.
b. Field pilot stage: Energy and Resources will work with industry and the federal government to jointly cost-share the design and implementation of new pilot projects in two or more Saskatchewan oil fields. The pilot projects would be undertaken to demonstrate the technical and economic potential of EOR in these reservoirs.
The pilot projects would include reservoir characterization studies, pilot project design, the drilling and injection of carbon dioxide in a small number of test wells with these smaller reservoirs for a suitable period of time, monitoring of performance of the EOR projects, and evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of proceeding with full scale EOR projects based on the results of the pilots.
For further information about the Saskatchewan Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and Storage Initiative please contact: The pilot projects would include reservoir characterization studies, pilot project design, the drilling and injection of carbon dioxide in a small number of test wells with these smaller reservoirs for a suitable period of time, monitoring of performance of the EOR projects, and evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of proceeding with full scale EOR projects based on the results of the pilots.
Howard Loseth, P.Eng.
Director, Energy Development and Climate Change Branch
Ministry of Energy and Resources
300, 2100 - 11th Avenue
REGINA SK S4P 3Z8
Phone: 787-3379
Email: hloseth@ir.gov.sk.ca