Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
hugh oil news just released on the Bakken Shale (n.dakota/Montana). More oil than Saudi Arabia. Any future for ECCI there?.
North Dakota oil discovery called biggest in U.S.
Posted Apr 10 2008, 06:53 PM by Jon Markman
Filed under: Investing, Energy, oil, Bakken , North Dakota
Rating:
Watch out, Texas! Get back California, Louisiana and Alaska! North Dakota and Montana are on track to knock all of you off your high horses as the oil capital of the United States.
According to a government report published today that has stunned the energy biz, a thin layer of rock known as the Bakken Shale, located a couple of miles under the Badlands, holds up 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil, making it the single largest oil reservoir that federal scientists have ever assessed.
At today’s price of $110 per barrel, that puts the value at $475 billion, give or take a few bill, or more than enough to make people think ND stands for North Dallas. Or maybe that’s New Dhabi.
The U.S. Geological Survey only assessed the Bakken Shale in U.S. boundaries, so the full extent of the find, which stretches north into the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, will ultimately be larger. Already the estimate for “technically recoverable” oil – or that which is exploitable using current technology -- is 25 times higher than the last time the USGS surveyed the area, in 1995.
Around 105 million barrels of oil had been produced from the Bakken through the end of 2007, so the idea that energy producers may get 40 times that amount has brought a lot of attention to the area’s top drillers and leaseholders. Investors pushed stocks like EOG Resources and Continental Resources to all-time highs in the past two weeks in anticipation of the report’s publication. See my column today, "Dakota Oil: Persia on the Plains," for more investment angles.
The USGS said in in its press release that its new Bakken estimate is larger than all of its other oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation it has ever assessed. It said a "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest continuous oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an estimate of 1 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil.
Government geologists said they worked with North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independents, universities and other experts on the project. To hear a podcast of the USGS scientists Brenda Pierce and Rich Pollastro discussing their study, click here.
Thanks lexi for update. Hope the momentum continues through the coming week. In reading past news releases by NSMG management they come across very sincere and follow through on their projected promises - eg. they would open some new offices in spring and here we are with their new office in Atlanta area.
Manchild1
Thanks for the response. If you imagine at last one contract has been signed would not that news have been made official at least by if not on the date of contract to the share holders. The fact that it has not been made official, to me means there is no contract yet - but they (ecci) are in a holding stage just like all of us (shareholders), to hear final confirmation before official announcement which, like you said, could be forthcoming soon.
stervc,
I have read all your posts and you present a very positive case. You say they (ecci) are actually there at the shale site working. They also said they passed the test phase with flying colors. So what are they (ecci) actually doing there now if it is not contract or test work. Also, do you have your own estimate of when an actually contract(s) would be signed - end of april or june or when. I know nothing is set in stone but your gut feeling. Thanks,
manchild
Great comments LJ to a simple/complicated subject.
speaking about glaciers falling into the sea - this one was ready to go 3/25/2008 and reason given is climate change. Your right - this could explain the sea temps being kept down temporarily.
Huge Iceberg Breaks Away, Antarctic Ice Shelf 'Hangs By A Thread'
ScienceDaily (Mar. 25, 2008) — British Antarctic Survey has captured dramatic satellite images of an Antarctic ice shelf that looks set to be the latest to break out from the Antarctic Peninsula. A large part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula is now supported only by a thin strip of ice hanging between two islands. It is another identifiable impact of climate change on the Antarctic environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
Earth & Climate
Global Warming
Climate
Ice Ages
Snow and Avalanches
Oceanography
Geography
Reference
Antarctic ice sheet
Ice shelf
Larsen Ice Shelf
Ice sheet
Scientists monitoring satellite images of the Wilkins Ice Shelf spotted that a huge (41 by 2.5 km) km2 berg the size of the Isle of Man appears to have broken away in recent days -- it is still on the move.
Glaciologist Ted Scambos from the University of Colorado alerted colleagues Professor David Vaughan and Andrew Fleming of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) that the ice shelf looked at risk. After checking daily satellite pictures, BAS sent a Twin Otter aircraft on a reconnaissance mission to check out the extent of the breakout.
Professor Vaughan, who in 1993 predicted that the northern part of Wilkins Ice Shelf was likely to be lost within 30 years if climate warming on the Peninsula were to continue at the same rate, says, "Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened. I didn't expect to see things happen this quickly. The ice shelf is hanging by a thread -- we'll know in the next few days or weeks what its fate will be."
Jim Elliott was onboard the BAS Twin Otter to capture video of the breakout for Vaughan and colleagues. He says, "I've never seen anything like this before -- it was awesome. We flew along the main crack and observed the sheer scale of movement from the breakage. Big hefty chunks of ice, the size of small houses, look as though they've been thrown around like rubble -- it's like an explosion."
The breakout is the latest drama in a region of Antarctica that has experienced unprecedented warming over the last 50 years. Several ice shelves have retreated in the past 30 years - six of them collapsing completely (Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and the Jones Ice Shelf.)
Professor Vaughan continues, "Climate warming in the Antarctic Peninsula has pushed the limit of viability for ice shelves further south -- setting some of them that used to be stable on a course of retreat and eventual loss. The Wilkins breakout won't have any effect on sea-level because it is floating already, but it is another indication of the impact that climate change is having on the region." Ted Scambos of the University of Colorado says,
"We believe the Wilkins has been in place for at least a few hundred years. But warm air and exposure to ocean waves are causing a break-up."
The Wilkins Ice Shelf covered an area of 16,000km2 (the size of Northern Ireland). Having been stable for most of the last century it began retreating in the 1990s. A major breakout occurred in 1998 when 1000km2 of ice was lost in a few months.
Satellite images processed at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center revealed that the retreat began on February 28 when a large (41 by 2.5 km) iceberg calved away from the ice shelf's south-western front. The edge of the shelf proceeded to crumble and disintegrate in a pattern that has become characteristic of climate-caused ice shelf retreats throughout the northern Peninsula, leaving a sky-blue patch spreading across the ocean surface compose of hundreds of large blocks of exposed old glacier ice. By 8 March, the ice shelf had lost just over 570 km2, and the patch of disintegrated Antarctic ice had spread over 1400km2. As of mid-March, only a narrow strip of shelf ice was protecting several thousand kilometres of potential further break-up.
The recent break out leaves a thin strip of ice between Charcot and Latady islands on the Antarctic Peninsula.
Climate warming has increased the volume of summer meltwater on glaciers, which has weakened ice shelves. Sea ice, which protects ice shelves from ocean swell, has reduced also as a result of warming temperatures.
The collapse of the 3250 km2 Larsen B Ice Shelf took place in 2002. During the past 40 years the average summer temperatures in this region of the north-east Peninsula has been 2.2°C. The western Antarctic Peninsula has showed the biggest increase in temperatures (primarily in winter) observed anywhere on Earth over the past half-century.
The Antarctic Peninsula is an area of rapid climate change and has warmed faster than anywhere else in the Southern Hemisphere over the past half century. Climate records from the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula show that temperatures in this region have risen by nearly 3°C during the last 50 years -- several times the global average and only matched in Alaska.
Background info
Ice sheet -- is the huge mass of ice, up to 4 km thick, that covers Antarctica's bedrock. It flows from the centre of the continent towards the coast where it feeds ice shelves.
Ice shelf -- is the floating extension of the grounded ice sheet. It is composed of freshwater ice that originally fell as snow, either in situ or inland and brought to the ice shelf by glaciers. As they are already floating any disintegration (like Larsen B) will have no impact on sea level. Sea level will rise only if the ice held back by the ice shelf flows more quickly into the sea.
This discovery follows the recent UNEP report that the world's glaciers are continuing to melt away. Data from 30 reference glaciers in nine mountain ranges show that between the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 the average rate of melting and thinning has more than doubled.
It's obvious scientists have their differences with him. Some support others say he is full of hypocrisy. That he takes the original weather model and just throws in a bunch of other factors. You decide. Me personally - global warming is real and is affecting a whole lot of things, one especially being the weather.
Emanuel 2008: Global warming and hurricanes
By ryanm
A new peer-reviewed paper has been published in an American Meteorology Society journal that raises many more questions on the linkages between hurricane activity and global warming. Eric Berger at the Houston Chronicle (SciGuy) did the leg-work and is the first (and only) mainstream media outlet to report the findings of Emanuel et al. (2008) and get reaction from other scientists in the climate/hurricanes community.
Emanuel employs a downscaling approach to the IPCC model scenarios using synthetic tropical cyclone seedlings to judge the impact of a warming world on future storm activity metrics (frequency, power dissipation). The ability to use historical reanalysis products to fairly accurately reproduce past activity lends credibility to Emanuel’s technique, especially for future activity. Of course there are many caveats concerning model downscaling efforts using IPCC scenarios which have been discussed extensively at CA.
From SciGuy’s blog:
“The results surprised me,” Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes but what that role is remains far from certain.”
In the new paper, Emanuel and his co-authors project activity nearly two centuries hence, finding an overall drop in the number of hurricanes around the world, while the intensity of storms in some regions does rise. For example, with Atlantic hurricanes, two of the seven model simulations Emanuel ran suggested that the overall intensity of storms would decline. Five models suggested a modest increase.
Dr. Curry from Georgia Tech University also is quoted,
“The issue probably will not be resolved until better computer models are developed…By publishing his new paper, and by the virtue of his high profile, Emanuel could be a catalyst for further agreement in the field of hurricanes and global warming …
Kerry Emanuel has provided a link on his homepage for the BAMS 2008 Article and while a little technical, the paper is a good primer on the current state of the “debate” and presents an even-handed examination of his findings. I encourage all to read it and post their own reviews for consumption by the gallery.
Flashback to July 31, 2005:
Press Release
This entry is filed under Hurricane. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
30 Responses to “Emanuel 2008: Global warming and hurricanes”
1 CharlieIliff says:
April 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
There’s hope for science, yet. Hats off to a man who continues to examine his own work and publishes even surprising results.
2 Sam Urbinto says:
April 11th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
That’s actually a link to the (it says) Front page story from the Huston Chronicle.
The blog is at
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2008/04/hurricanes_and_3.html
Somebody ( IANVS ) there asks about responses from other leading hurrican climate scientists other than Judith. Cool!
3 John Goetz says:
April 11th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Someone really should write Emanuel a letter and ask him to tone his conclusions down a bit.
4 Andrew says:
April 11th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Interesting! Isn’t this the same guy who claimed to find increasing destructiveness in Atlantic Hurricanes in the first place?
BTW, somewhat off topic, but have you heard about Briggs’ work on hurricane trends?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/04/08/another-hurricane-update/#more-317
5 Sam Urbinto says:
April 11th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Oh, now we have quite the bruahahaa between this story and the posts here. Might the tide be turning?
Interesting.
6 Judith Curry says:
April 11th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
here are some excerpts from the review i sent to eric berger,
The motivation for Emanuel’s paper is that
climate model simulations generally have resolution that is too coarse to
actually resolve the tropical cyclones, in particular the intensity of the
strongest storms. Some of the higher resolution simulations (e.g. Oouchi et al.
2006; Bengtsson et al. 2007) do a credible job of simulating tropical cyclones:
they show an overall increase in intensity, increased fraction of major
hurricanes, and little change in total number of tropical cyclones. Personally,
I think the Oouchi and Bengtsson papers are the most reliable analyses of what
we might expect in a warmer climate, although these studies are by no means yet
regarded as definitive.
Because most climate models have resolution that is far too coarse to simulate
tropical cyclones (such as the runs for the IPCC), there have been numerous
attempts to identify proxy variables for tropical cyclones from the coarse model
fields: the recent papers looking at wind shear, potential intensity, stability
are examples of this. I have found these studies unconvincing for several
reasons, but most notably that I don’t think the coarse resolution models do an
adequate job of getting the tropical atmospheric dynamics correct to justify
doing these proxy studies, and our understanding of genesis and intensification
is too incomplete to credibly do such proxy studies.
Emanuel’s new paper adds a different twist: he develops proxies by developing a
large number of synthetic tracks from the coarse resolution model fields.
Synthetic tracks are routinely used by catastrophe modelers in risk analysis,
but haven’t been used previously in the context of climate model hurricane
proxies. Emanuel’s production of synthetic tracks requires a very large number
of assumptions, many of which are made with little credible defense . The
results are compared with historical data and other model simulations (the
comparisons with observations aren’t very convincing). Projections are then
made out to 2200. There are so many assumptions in what has been done (at least
a few of which that seem to me to be incorrect), that I don’t find the results
to have much credibility.
The significance of this paper in the debate on hurricanes and global warming is the change in emanuel’s position; emanuel is arguably the most prominent figure in this debate. The lesson to be learned is that one paper doesn’t really make a difference (we get the windshield wiper effect described by Andrew Revkin), and that assessments by a group of scientists are very important since individual scientists tend to place too much emphasis on their latest paper.
The bottom line is that i have seen nothing published in the last 12 months that has moved the argument away from the the IPCC summary, which i quote below:
“There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone
activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of
tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased
intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data
quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical
cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate
the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. . . Based on a
range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and
hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more
heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less
confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones.
The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in
some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period.”
7 Andrew says:
April 11th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Based on a
range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and
hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more
heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs.
I’m sorry, but is anyone else bothered by the jump from “based on models” to “likely”? No? Must just be us deniers. Other than this, I think the IPCC’s assessment, which Judith qouted above, is fair. I think many would be surprised at the level of unsure-ness expressed here, given the certainty in public discourse.
8 old construction worker says:
April 11th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Well Judy how about this.
“The Forecasting Models Are Unreliable.Complex forecasting methods are only accurate when there is little uncertainty about the data and the situation (in this case: how the climate system works), and causal variables can be forecast accurately. These conditions do not apply to climate forecasting. For example, a simple model that projected the effects of Pacific Ocean currents (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) by extrapolating past data into the future made more accurate three-month forecasts than 11 complex models. Every model performed poorly when forecasting further ahead.
The Forecasters Themselves Are Unreliable. Political considerations influence all stages of the IPCC process. For example, chapter by chapter drafts of the Fourth Assessment Report “Summary for Policymakers” were released months in advance of the full report, and the final version of the report was expressly written to reflect the language negotiated by political appointees to the IPCC. The conclusion of the audit is that there is no scientific forecast supporting the widespread belief in dangerous human-caused “global warming.” In fact, it has yet to be demonstrated that long-term forecasting of climate is possible.”
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308
9 Ryan Maue says:
April 11th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Judy: I don’t understand why Kerry is changing his position and what caused him so much surprise, especially, as you point out, the assumptions necessary to make any credible conclusions from the UN IPCC scenarios. I like the novel technique of dropping nascent seedlings in the stream and watching them develop. I first saw results of his work in Greece at Elsner’s TC summit. He had a bunch of Category 5 tracks in the Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf, which was coincidently the same time as Gonu. So, I was immediately impressed with the technique.
Is this perhaps more of a cumulative response to all the data issues, which have arisen AFTER the highly-publicized series of papers were published in 2005? What hasn’t been discussed on here much is Emanuel’s most recent J. Climate paper which deconvolves PDI into its components, using Kossin’s satellite derived intensities. This paper also is not too supportive of a link between historical hurricane intensity and warming SSTs.
So, am I right in interpreting Kerry’s change of stance as the following: Since the future scenarios of hurricane intensity/frequency changes are not entirely robust or convincing enough, therefore the claims made about hurricane climatology changes in the past are therefore called into question?
I confused about how this paper jives with any of the previous “slam dunk” papers that claim links between TCs and AGW like all of Elsner’s work, Greg Holland’s, Michael Mann’s, and the bunch of other cross-pollination papers.
10 hswiseman says:
April 11th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I have been as snarky as anyone here about Emanuel’s findings, as I thought he was running a rigged game with a dubiously adjusted data set and self-fulfilling metrics. The triumphant certainty of his public comments was also pretty annoying. That being said, he obviously read Kossin. Knapp et. al. and went back to his research. Perhaps this was with a view towards falsifying Kossin (nothing wrong with that) by running some novel modeling. When the modeling didn’t support his own prior research in its entirety, he didn’t bury the work. He published. While I am loathe to congratulate people for doing exactly what they are supposed to do, I hereby retract anything I have previously posted that could be interpretated as an ad hominem or character slur. I too am man enough to repudiate a mistaken prior judgement. (I am sure that Dr. Emanuel is breathing a sigh of relief now that all is forgiven).
It sounds like his approach is form of model-tuning where you keep turning the knobs until the backcast works. If multiple versions of the settings replicate the backcast, you run them all and look at ensembles. This seemed to make Dr. Curry a little unhappy judging from her commentary, but I am not sure it is any different from what is being done with the GCM’s. If you have enough factors and resolution built into the model to capture reality, and you manage to get the dials set right, (even if it is by experimentation rather than proving out each individual degree of freedom in the model), the result might be meaningful if the model as assembled has forecasting skill. Even in the best case scenario,however, the error bars get large, as any model initiation errors will compound quickly.
11 Harry Eagar says:
April 11th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I thought that was a reasonably good (B-) piece of newspapering, except that it isn’t correct that hurricane data before 1970 aren’t very reliable. They aren’t even a little bit reliable. Sheesh.
12 Janet S says:
April 11th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Perhaps brain fossilization is setting in.
13 Philip Mulholland says:
April 12th, 2008 at 12:07 am
By Chris Mooney:-
The 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season: A Post-Mortem An Oddly Quiet Year for Hurricanes
14 Gaelan Clark says:
April 12th, 2008 at 5:46 am
Dr. Curry, pray tell the difference between the many assumptions that Dr. Emmanuel has made and the many assumptions that go into the models the IPCC relies upon. Why are you so encouraged to hang your hat on the assumptions of the models that the IPCC chooses to rely upon? It really seems a bit of hypocrisy, does it not?
15 John N-G says:
April 12th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Gaelin - The Emanuel technique is based on the IPCC models, so it includes all the assumptions therein except the hurricane-specific one that disturbances in the coarse models can be associated with details of hurricane characteristics. It also adds several additional assumptions, most importantly that changes in the climatology of initial disturbances are unimportant. Speaking for myself, the newest Emanuel work seems consistent with the IPCC report, and it’s a matter of personal taste whether one regards it as strong evidence that mostly supports what IPCC said or weak evidence that mostly supports what IPCC said, so no hypocrisy is present in Dr. Curry’s position.
16 John Goetz says:
April 12th, 2008 at 7:11 am
The New York Times “Dot Earth” posted a piece on the paper. There is an almost overt admission in this post that the science is not settled.
17 paminator says:
April 12th, 2008 at 7:35 am
The last two pages of this paper discuss the dramatic effects of assumptions made concerning moisture’s role in hurricane formation, intensity and duration. In fact, Figures 8b and 10 in the paper show the difference in hurricane frequency by basin for two different assumptions about water vapor. One shows a slight decrease, while the latter shows a strong increase. At this point it still looks to be an educated guess. It sure would be easier to model weather and climate if we didn’t have all that water vapor to keep track of…
18 Marginalized Action Dinosaur » Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming’s impact says:
April 12th, 2008 at 9:05 am
[…] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2994#comments […]
19 Francois Ouellette says:
April 12th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Tango, tango!
Couldn’t we all see this coming? I find this all really pathetic. Climate science is a joke.
Snipomatic time, Steve…
20 Bruce says:
April 12th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Judith
There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone
activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970
Doesn’t the ACE index show 1971 to 1994 as “below normal”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NOAA_ACE_index_1950-2004_RGB.svg
21 hswiseman says:
April 12th, 2008 at 10:48 am
After reading the article, instead of merely the news report, my previous post is a pretty gross oversimplicifation of the Emaneul technique used. A lot of creative work went into the model before the tuning begins. There are plenty of nits to pick, but this is an interesting piece of work. Ignoring the African wave train and hanging fronts/stalled troughs in Western Atl. is a shortcoming that could have been overcome using a distribution model similar to the one used in track determination, or adding something like the Madden-Julian Oscillation into the development/intensity stew. I also think that PDO/AMO relationship impacts intensity more than ENSO.
22 yorick says:
April 12th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Shorter IPCC response. “it’s our story, and we are sticking with it! We need the intense hurricanes for rhetorical reasons. Look at the cover art of AIT if you need proof of that. For that reason, no matter how ill-founded our assertion that Hurricane intesity increases are actually in the offing, we are sticking with it. If we didn’t, how can we possibly frighten the rubes?”
23 Tony Edwards says:
April 12th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Over on Dot earth, I was rather amused/amazed to read the reply quoted from Dr Emmanuel, to whit “The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet.”
Given the first sentence, I think it is obvious that both is the answer, he said it himself. Certainly (b) agrees with his initial statement. However, looking at
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2471 shows that, while there is an apparent increase in the ACE values, I would hardly call it a big increase.
24 Andrew says:
April 12th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Tony, Emmanuel is relying on his own work on some destructiveness index, not ACE. Search for:
Emmanuel, 2005a: Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones
over the past 30 years. Nature, 436, 686–688.
25 Harry Eagar says:
April 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am
So, Phillip, I clickd over to Mooney’s piece, where he says the UK Met prediction was better than the others. The prediction was for 7 to 13.
Huh?
Given that the historical range starts, I imagine, around 7 (I don’t remember any year with so few myself) and the upper limit is around 25, that’s not a prediction. It’s a disguised way of saying ‘We have no idea.’
26 ryanm says:
April 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
#25 Mooney’s book seems out of date right about now. This is the type of subject that needs a thorough review by someone that has a background in climatology and tropical cyclone research. As a journalist with a vested interest in promoting global warming and hurricanes (by selling a book and giving paid lectures), Mooney exemplifies the prototypical liberal idealism, especially in his Daily Green blogs, which breathlessly attribute “weather” to climate change. Usually the posts end with the following disclaimer: of course one such event (tornado, hurricane, etc) on its own cannot be attributed to global warming, but it is consistent with what we expect to occur under a global warming scenario.
This sets up an “informational cascade” which infects many scientific fields. Most journalists are flat out unable to grasp the subject of climate change because they are just not educated enough in the sciences to do anything else but follow the herd.
27 Judith Curry says:
April 12th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Andy Revkin over at dotearth has an additional quote from emanuel. I guess my own perception of Emanuel’s stance on the issue comes from presentations at various meetings and personal discussions with him, as well as from his published papers. He had a high level of confidence in his PDI/SST analysis, with an implied extrapolation to the future. Based upon his recent paper, he is now stating there is much uncertainty in terms of what to expect in the future in terms of hurricane activity. I would say Emanuel’s most recent statements are closer to the IPCC than some of his previous statements.
Emanuel changed his mind previously in summer 2005, originally he was coauthor on a Roger Pielke paper about hurricanes and global warming that said there was no link. His then current research caused him to change his mind.
Scientists changing their mind based on new evidence is a good thing. But the media amplification of Emanuel’s stance following his 2005 paper makes this change of stance significant in the public dialogue on this issue.
With regards to the specifics of emanuel’s study. Yes you take all the uncertainties inherent in climate model simulations, which are particularly high for hurricanes since they are small and poorly resolved by climate models, and then he makes a host of additional assumptions on top of the ones already made in the climate models. These additional assumptions increase the uncertainty of the analysis further.
In terms of the journalists doing the most serious job of understanding the hurricane issue (which is very complicated), kudos go to chris mooney, eric berger, and andy revkin. Mooney’s book is still a good analysis, and his final chapter certainly leaves room for alot of uncertainty, so this book remains a good resource for people trying to figure this all out.
28 bender says:
April 12th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I must say: it is satisying to see climate uncertainty regularly making it into the news and onto the agenda. It’s a problem, not a strategy.
29 Judith Curry says:
April 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Ryan, a number of scientists have attempted a review such as you suggest.
My mixing politics and science paper in BAMS (2006)
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf
My congressional testimony last summer (2007)
http://www.eas.gatech.edu/static/pdf/Curry_Energy.pdf
Roger Pielke Jr. et al (2005)
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/pielkeetalBAMS05.pdf
Marshall Shepherd wrote a good summary paper:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2007/jms0701.pdf
And there may be others? Any summary written by an individual scientist will bring their own personal scientific perspective, although i tried pretty hard in my testimony to present the range ideas (you can judge for yourself whether i was successful). If you were to take any other central character in this scientific debate, they probably would have written significantly different papers.
Assessments are in principle better than reviews by a single person or self selected group. But an assessment of sorts was attempted as part of the CCSP Synthesis and Assessment report 3-2 Weather Extremes in a Changing Climate, which may not turn out so great based on comments i heard from some of the participants (there were some pretty contentious meetings so I hear), but we’ll see. The report should be available to the public sometime this summer.
The Mooney book was really quite good in my opinion, and scientists on both sides of the debate seemed to like it. This book was more on the sociology of the science and scientists than a very detailed scientific discussion, but I think it is of substantial value in clarifying the issues to the public.
The bottom line is that the hurricane/global warming issue is a rapidly evolving and not very mature area of scientific research, and personally i think we need to improve the theoretical foundations as well as the improve the data sets and models in order to make significant progress on this.
30 Fran Manns says:
April 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Pleistocene history shows cooling compressed ‘climate zones’ toward the mid latitudes hence the 100 km long 100m high cemented seif dunes of the Saudi Desert. As a geologist, I infer from this that intense weather is the result of steep climate gradients. Winter beaches have high steep profiles and summer beaches are wide and fine. Google the Saudi desert for an awesome display of out-of-equilibrium dunes.
Another aside: I observed a hurricane on Intellicast run the channel south of Cuba split the Gulf of Mexico and hit New Orleans directly. It stayed over warm water for the entire path; it never once made landfall before New Orleans; it reached category 5. And yet with all the time, and communication in the world, people refused to move. I call that immaturity, not bad science. It became an AGW myth.
In generic terms thats true. But without a hurricane ECCI could move on contractual agreements - thats the difference.
is this a harbinger of things to come soon?
Lexi,
Based on your formula we talked about and the recent news releases for ECCI the stock is dirt cheap and could explode. On the other hand if no contracts could drop lower i will average buy down. They have a very strong and respectable product. Other articles on investorshub ecci site show that in that Texas area shale site a lot of big guns are investing not millions but billions of dollars and they all need this purifying system - read 4/9/08 news release below. Current pps is .0022. I bought a 1/2 mil between thurs/fri to start. 07 had a high around .10 and 06 .25. Maybe something you want to look at. At some point i believe this will hit the bit jackpot.
manchild 1
Ecoloclean Industries Focuses Resources to Texas Oil and Gas Fields
Wednesday 04/09/2008 9:50 AM ET - PrimeNewswire
Ecoloclean Industries, Inc. (Pink Sheets:ECCI) announced this morning that additional resources and investments will focus exclusively on Texas locations. Royis Ward, Chairman and CEO of Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., is certain that moving additional resources will provide the best return for the E-C WaterPure System(tm), the Company, technology, and investors.
According to Mr. Ward, "We have already announced our strategy to accelerate acceptance and contract acquisitions for ECCI in Texas. There has been a great deal of excitement about all of the potential applications and uses for our E-C WaterPure System(tm). Now is the time for us to move from successful practical application testing to successful returns for our Company. Currently, we are in discussions with leading companies in the industry and believe a contract will be forthcoming. We are committing all possible resources, people and financial reserves to this important strategy. We are moving one of our team members to the field to be on the ground full-time and we are investing more in marketing and communication materials to realize our strategy."
As has been previously reported, the choice of the Barnett Shale, as the focal point of the expansion and launch of Ecoloclean Industries and the E-C WaterPure System(tm) is due in part to the size of the field, and the use of the hydraulic fracturing process. Discovered in 1981, the Barnett Shale (field) encompasses five thousand square miles, across 18 counties near Dallas / Ft. Worth. This is one of the largest natural gas deposits in the United States, but to extract the gas at volumes that are economical and efficient, production companies must use the hydraulic fracturing process. The process utilizes millions of gallons of water for each well. Of the water pumped into the wells, approximately 80 percent of the water returns to the surface as waste. Historically, the recovered water is discarded in disposal wells due to its saline content. The cost of this current form of wastewater disposal is in excess of $1.2 billion per year to the industry.
The gas industry in partnership with communities, institutions, and regulatory agencies, has become more aggressive about testing and employing measures to conserve and recycle water. The ongoing drought over the past few years has required communities to rely more heavily on the aquifer beneath the Barnett Shale. The scale of the drought and the water required for industry has made water conservation essential to the health of the communities.
In the Barnett Field, there are currently 7,000 gas wells operating and additional 4,350-permitted locations. The market for the E-C WaterPure System(tm) E-C technology fits very well with the fracturing of both new wells, and older wells that can be re-fractured multiple times and produce for many years.
lexi,
Tomorrow, i will post on hurricane board we communicated on before regarding unrelated stocks. When you see my post get back to me at your convenience {spelling?}.
Manchild1
I think thats great. A profit is a profit no matter what your entry point is. For me i hav been average cost buying since NSMG was at .025.. There are other hurricane stocks now that have great entry points as they will move also. I can spend .06 for a share here but if i see my .06 can give me a better return on other cane entry points that are a steal right now i would be wise to do that. I got NSMG covered for now - GO NSMG.
And yet you, I, others were positive by not expecting prev years highs but factorng in the fallen differences and basing our min/max expectations on those. Good call Lexi, NYPD and others. For those who waited - they missed .04/.05 train cause it left town. May be some backtracking to .05's but do not expect much. KUDOS to those that are in. KUDOS to those that are are still planning to get - this could double, triple, or better either on momentum or canes. Finished buying NSMG for now and now buying ECCI cause it has great lows now.
New to ECCI. Bought about 1/2 mil last 24 hrs between around .0022 and .0027. Would like to buy more. Any seasoned vets have a projected min/max estimates for 08 cane season to guide me. Thanks,
Manchild
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog
The forecasters cited several reasons for their forecast of an active season:
1) Above-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the eastern subtropical Atlantic and cooler-than-normal SSTs in the South Atlantic have weakened the Bermuda-Azores High. This has resulted in lower surface wind speeds over the tropical Atlantic, and these weak trade winds are expected to persist into hurricane season. Weak trade winds reduce the amount of evaporative cooling of the ocean, resulting in warmer SSTs and lower surface pressures during hurricane season. Hurricane like to form in an environment with low surface pressures and high SSTs.
2) Hurricane activity in the Atlantic is lowest during El Niño years and highest during La Niña or neutral years. The current strong La Niña event has begun weakening noticeably in the past few weeks. However, there is probably not time for a full-fledged El Niño event to replace it by hurricane season, and it is expected that we will have weak La Niña or neutral conditions this hurricane season. None of the computer models are forecasting a switch over to El Niño conditions this year (Figure 1). Keep in mind, though, that the accuracy of these long range models is poor, particularly for forecasts made in March and April.
manchild
thanks for updates - ctrade - looks like a very interesting projection shaping up - certainly one to be watched.
manchild
Agreed: GOM looks warmer. However, overall map - 2008 a little cooler than 2007 but not by much.
Everthing NYPD said are excellent points. The only thing i would add is if there is a momentum play because of the approaching cane seaon but no canes yet, then you might be inclined to sell if you just want to break even or better yet you still made a profit. Then wait for the lows again to get back in.
Lexi thanks for MACD pointers. I am computer programmer so it looks like i have some technical meat to chew on and not to forget - spit out the bones lest i gag. Will digest and get back with you. Thanks again for you very insightful perspectives.
you defined proc (price rate of change; can you define macd; i think you misunderstand me about wegi. i do not plan to buy now at all. i would wait till the winter for it's lows and then buy if the drop was a sure bet for an early 09 rise.
you lose me on these macd and proc keywords. i would not buy wegi now, i was looking at it's potential after buying it at it's winter lows.
Interesting. WEGI and NSMG will be ones i'm watching very close this winter for it's lows. WEGI seems to get out of the gate early in the year for a great sell and then turn around and pick up more NSMG for the longer term play. Just thinking long term - seems the only way to profit.
Thanks for the update. I'm learning also and partials definitely would be the safer way to handle. Partial sell for the gain and then have partial hold so you don't miss a big play if one comes along. WEGI has also caught my interest. It has average .07, .08 for a while now but was at .01x during the winter of 07. Seems like that is a good profit maker if you buy low in winter and hold. Any thoughts.
Lexi,
Very clear thinking. So if 08 ends with a high of .20 than going into 09 your range would be for the buy .02 and sell .10. Now here is a key question. Suppose you reach your stated high of .15 let's say mid May. Would you sell or would you hold for higher return during official cane season(June foward) If you held out in .07 you would have been a loser. But had a big cane hit in the right place you could be a big winner. How would you play it?
'05 - .25 to 3.20
'06 - .09 to .60
'07 - .07 to .31
'08 - .04 to ?
Great personal thoughts. Now when you say at least triple - you mean from the current buy price. In other words we should at least see .15 going into cane season just on hype alone and no canes.
manchild1
Sounds positive Lexi. Curious to know your basis for such optimism. To be honest, after last year it's anybody's guess. Mother nature holds all the cards and does not show her hand till she's ready. From an historic avg we are overdue for a big hand. What will be the wildcard this year. Last year we had several cat 5's but hit desolate areas in Mexico. This year could be just the opposite and cat 5's hit very populated areas. You just don't know and thats what makes it so exciting and challenging and learning to play the game even if your hand loses. You stick with with it and learn to play the game you can also be a big winner. Right now i think i'm about 1/2 way between the losing and winning.
be patient lexi - i think we'll see .04 buy dips a few more times over the next week or more. i'm not through buying yet but have to wait on that next thursday paycheck and hope i can get a bunch more .04's.
They do play games somtimes but your aboard at .04. i,ve been avg buying since .025 in the winter till now. I'll stop my avg buys when buy is over .045.. Would consider a sell at .10 or higher.
i,m with scottrade but assuming it works pretty much the same. If you were in q to sell at the limit price of .04. The bid when it hit .04 sold a partial amount but before it could sell all bid price moved either up or down from .04. Sometimes i have to chase the bid. eg if i am buying 1000 shars at .04 and 500 sell at that bid but the other 500 has not being bought because the bid moved lets say to 038. I would immediately modify my balance of 500 to buy at .038 and hepefully its bought before bid price changes again. These brokers are good at having you also chase the bid price up if you get desperate to buy. If the bid went up lets to .042 and i still had a balace of 500 i wanted to buy i would modify my buy to .042 and go for it if i want. Chasing the bid can be really hetic when stock bid is moving quickly quickly up or down. Of course if you cannot access your account when stock is moving than obviously you are quite limited about what you can do.
read my next post. this one was a blank
My sails are up and hopefully we're not blown back to shore again. But its still early but remember last year the peak came in april/may and then the wind died out with no canes. This year could be the worst in history or calmer than last year. Oh the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat. The tension builds for those in play.
Thanks for the update lexi and great to see you back on the board for 2008.
dump 'WHAT' on the newbies?
GOODFREE - I believe you were correct and i acknowledged that in my post to puits.
i think we all remember the sub penny values you ranted and raved about all last year and your batting avg was 0. There may be some newbes aboard but they can check your record. Personally i bought in the winter lows so i am profiting right now.
I think you guys are right. i checked scotttrade and the only day they were blank on the low was 12/24/07. 12/23 had .02 as low. The blank was because they only showed to the hundred th place .xx therefore. .004 would not be displayed - explains the blank.Oh, that that would happen again. i'm going to be looking for this winter. You can bet on that. Good luck, guys. Looking to buy today at .04. buy right now is .042 - close.
goodfree - believed you meant to say .04 not .004 for 12/24/07 or else you read chart wrong. Stock charts show low was .04 day before Christmans 07. lowerst of 07 was i believe .02 very briefly.
Thanks for the compliment - actually it was orignal. Seriously, i think if you can buy in the .04's you could double or more come cane season.
you sound a little sarcastic . Correction is a good thing when you can handle it.