For future reference.....save:
Al Gore TED talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/243
About this Talk
In Al Gore's brand-new slideshow (premiering exclusively on TED.com), he presents evidence that the pace of climate change may be even worse than scientists were recently predicting, and challenges us to act with a sense of "generational mission" -- the kind of feeling that brought forth the civil rights movement -- to set it right. Gore's stirring presentation is followed by a brief Q&A in which he is asked for his verdict on the current political candidates' climate policies and on what role he himself might play in future.
About Al Gore
Once the US Vice President, then star of An Inconvenient Truth, now Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore... Read full bio »
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Global Warming: A Technical Guide For The Layperson, by DocNavy
Here is Doc's compilation of articles and information sources about global warming and climate change. In summary form this provides an excellent starting point for anyone wanting to learn more about the subject. Thanks Doc. Also, for anyone caring to get in on the debate over the causes of global warming and climate change, see here and here.
Peter
DocNavy
Message #1 - 09/20/07 02:17 PM
Greetings! Here for your perusal are a number of articles, and websites that explain Global Warming. As it is a complex subject that is EASILY spun in many directions, I have tried to pull together a few resources that help explain it in easy terms. All of these sites contain referenced material, if you wish to go more in depth.
If anyone has more information that they'd like to include, please post it. Please make sure that your posts contain active links, and the material can be understood by anyone.
Doc
*Disclaimer* A number of sites I list could be classified as "Skeptic", but even those sites endeavor to show accurate scientific data. The terms "AGW" and "GW" Stand for "Anthropogenic Global Warming", and ""Global Warming" respectively.
*NEW!* What does John Coleman, FOUNDER of The Weather Channel, think of AGW? HERE (Thanks GeoPete)
*NEW!* An interview with REID BRYSON, one of modern climatology's founding scientists about what he thinks of AGW, HERE.
*NEW!* Senator Inhofe's paper (Including speeches) on Global Warming. Previously ONLY AVAILABLE to policymakers, and Media Heads, HERE.
*Revised* A decent referenced primer that covers most everything related to AGW, HERE.
An easily read investigative article on the foundations and history of AGW, HERE.
*NEW!* Are CO2 Levels HIGHER than they have ever been? Is the Earth moving into an UNPRECEDENTED high in Global Temperature? Find out, HERE.
A somewhat brash, though still good article on what might be causing GW, HERE.
An engaging academic DEBATE between Pro-AGW authorities and "Skeptics".
*UPDATED* A transcript of "An Inconvenient Truth" and a LINK to the Video, accompanied by a LINK (Pt.1), LINK (Pt.2) to Pacific Research Institute's documentary about AIT's presentation of scientific "Facts".
*NEW!* Lord Monckton's paper outlining 35 "Inconsistencies" of AIT, HERE.
LINK to "The great Global Warming Swindle" Documentary that is a response to "An Inconvenient Truth."
An interesting article on the historical Climate Change Crises claims, HERE.
An interactive explanation of what "The Greenhouse Effect" is, HERE.
An explanation of what "Carbon Sequestering" or a "Carbon Sink" is, HERE.
The "Hockey Stick", a peer reviewed paper on exactly what it is, HERE.
A peer reviewed paper on the science of Climate Change, HERE.
*Revised* A referenced article explaining some of the more esoteric and confusing mathematical expressions often cited in IPCC TAR Report used to express actual warming, HERE.
Transcript of the Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Commerce Committee on 1 May 2001 on Global Warming and The Kyoto Protocol.
A peer reviewed paper explaining Climate Change, The Kyoto Protocol, it's results and how it effects the World, HERE.
A peer reviewed paper discussing the effect of a warmer, CO2 enhanced World on Human Health, HERE. --==One of my personal FAVORITE reads!!==--
*NEW!* A companion paper to the one above, submitted in the Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons. Now you know what the Doctors know. HERE. Dated FALL 2007.
*NEW!* An outstanding and easily understood article on Water Vapor and it's relationship to the Greenhouse Effect, HERE. (Thanks DietDew)
An article from the WASHINGTON POST about the "Fuzzy Math" used by mainstream media about Climate Change, HERE.
An excellent site explaining what thermal inversions, and Photochemical Smog are, HERE. (Thanks LtDan)
A DEVASTATING documentary on the attitudes and motivations behind the modern Eco/Enviro movement, and the disparity between what is seen in the media and what is done in real life, HERE.
*NEW!* The OFFICIAL report from the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works about what is really happening to Alaskan Polar Bears, HERE.
*NEW!* IS THERE A SCIENTIFIC "CONSENSUS" on Global Warming?? The OFFICIAL report from the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works dated 20 DECEMBER 2007, HERE. (**Updated 22 FEB 08**)
**UPDATED!!** 07APR08
Peter
DocNavy
Message #1 - 09/20/07 02:17 PM
Greetings! Here for your perusal are a number of articles, and websites that explain Global Warming. As it is a complex subject that is EASILY spun in many directions, I have tried to pull together a few resources that help explain it in easy terms. All of these sites contain referenced material, if you wish to go more in depth.
If anyone has more information that they'd like to include, please post it. Please make sure that your posts contain active links, and the material can be understood by anyone.
Doc
*Disclaimer* A number of sites I list could be classified as "Skeptic", but even those sites endeavor to show accurate scientific data. The terms "AGW" and "GW" Stand for "Anthropogenic Global Warming", and ""Global Warming" respectively.
*NEW!* What does John Coleman, FOUNDER of The Weather Channel, think of AGW? HERE (Thanks GeoPete)
*NEW!* An interview with REID BRYSON, one of modern climatology's founding scientists about what he thinks of AGW, HERE.
*NEW!* Senator Inhofe's paper (Including speeches) on Global Warming. Previously ONLY AVAILABLE to policymakers, and Media Heads, HERE.
*Revised* A decent referenced primer that covers most everything related to AGW, HERE.
An easily read investigative article on the foundations and history of AGW, HERE.
*NEW!* Are CO2 Levels HIGHER than they have ever been? Is the Earth moving into an UNPRECEDENTED high in Global Temperature? Find out, HERE.
A somewhat brash, though still good article on what might be causing GW, HERE.
An engaging academic DEBATE between Pro-AGW authorities and "Skeptics".
*UPDATED* A transcript of "An Inconvenient Truth" and a LINK to the Video, accompanied by a LINK (Pt.1), LINK (Pt.2) to Pacific Research Institute's documentary about AIT's presentation of scientific "Facts".
*NEW!* Lord Monckton's paper outlining 35 "Inconsistencies" of AIT, HERE.
LINK to "The great Global Warming Swindle" Documentary that is a response to "An Inconvenient Truth."
An interesting article on the historical Climate Change Crises claims, HERE.
An interactive explanation of what "The Greenhouse Effect" is, HERE.
An explanation of what "Carbon Sequestering" or a "Carbon Sink" is, HERE.
The "Hockey Stick", a peer reviewed paper on exactly what it is, HERE.
A peer reviewed paper on the science of Climate Change, HERE.
*Revised* A referenced article explaining some of the more esoteric and confusing mathematical expressions often cited in IPCC TAR Report used to express actual warming, HERE.
Transcript of the Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Commerce Committee on 1 May 2001 on Global Warming and The Kyoto Protocol.
A peer reviewed paper explaining Climate Change, The Kyoto Protocol, it's results and how it effects the World, HERE.
A peer reviewed paper discussing the effect of a warmer, CO2 enhanced World on Human Health, HERE. --==One of my personal FAVORITE reads!!==--
*NEW!* A companion paper to the one above, submitted in the Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons. Now you know what the Doctors know. HERE. Dated FALL 2007.
*NEW!* An outstanding and easily understood article on Water Vapor and it's relationship to the Greenhouse Effect, HERE. (Thanks DietDew)
An article from the WASHINGTON POST about the "Fuzzy Math" used by mainstream media about Climate Change, HERE.
An excellent site explaining what thermal inversions, and Photochemical Smog are, HERE. (Thanks LtDan)
A DEVASTATING documentary on the attitudes and motivations behind the modern Eco/Enviro movement, and the disparity between what is seen in the media and what is done in real life, HERE.
*NEW!* The OFFICIAL report from the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works about what is really happening to Alaskan Polar Bears, HERE.
*NEW!* IS THERE A SCIENTIFIC "CONSENSUS" on Global Warming?? The OFFICIAL report from the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works dated 20 DECEMBER 2007, HERE. (**Updated 22 FEB 08**)
**UPDATED!!** 07APR08
Thursday, April 10, 2008
GE Not Getting Message About Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming
I've brought up the subject of General Electric (GE) and it's efforts promoting the concept of man-caused global warming and why they think we must do something about it. "Something" like buy fluorescent light bulbs, (which GE makes and sells), to "clean coal" technology, to solar panels, to wind turbines, to nuclear energy......all things GE makes and sells.
To add to the suspicion of their motives, they own MSNBC, NBC and Newsweek Magazine. These are all major news outlets through which they promote their corporate agenda.....by going "green", they hope to profit. They don't care whether man is causing global warming or not.....as long as they can make a profit. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working. Their stock price, which underperformed the S&P 500 for the past 5 years, reflects that. People are not buying into the global warming myth. The article below illustrates the point.
Peter
source:
Little fund says GE's 'junk science' hurts business
By Jack Markowitz FOR THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW Thursday, April 10, 2008
General Electric Co.'s stock is a "dog," says Steven J. Milloy, and his opinion goes down from there. He accuses what is possibly America's most admired company of promoting "junk science" -- in this case, the view that human beings cause global warming -- mainly to get environmentalists off its back and to further its own business interests.
But not even all its business interests, says Milloy. Just the fraction that serves its feel-good Earth-saving markets, which it dubs "Ecomagination."
Much larger businesses will be hurt in the long run, Milloy asserts. He sees the entire U.S. and world economies damaged by the waste of billions on a false consensus -- that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, planes, power plants, essentially the entire modern standard of living, are catastrophic for the planet.
"Scientific consensus? There is no consensus," Milloy said by phone from the Potomac, Md., office of a most unusual mutual fund. The Free Enterprise Action Fund has assets of only $11.5 million -- small but hopefully with a big voice.
story continues below
document.write('');
The fund wants GE, and other "establishment" corporations it owns smallish pieces of, to quit appeasing anti-business leftists by catering to the carbon dioxide phobia. Free enterprise is actively promoting the enemy, it says, pleading for more government regulations, including a GE favorite, the trading of "carbon credits." General prosperity, freedom and even a better environment are at risk, especially with a left-leaning administration apt to be voted in, according to lawyer Milloy, 49, and fellow fund leader, Thomas J. Borelli, 52, a Ph.D. scientist.
They're bringing a proposal to GE's annual meeting -- to either show the company's own evidence of a man-warmed world or quit imperiling the economy.
Chance of passage is zilch, Milloy admits. Similar resolutions have been shot down by wide margins before. Institutional investors have no interest in fighting a prestigious titan like GE. Or else they also see "green" as a growth market.
And within sensible limits it is, say the dissidents. Supplying products that are fuel-efficient and benefit consumers is "good business." But GE "goes beyond the bounds." It actively lobbies Congress and rallies other companies for tougher regulations, which are bound to "raise energy costs and reduce energy availability." It's the destructive 1990s Kyoto Protocol all over again.
This argument and GE's denial are laid out in the proxy statement for the annual meeting April 23 at the Bayfront Convention Center in Erie, the lakeside city of GE's locomotive works. The company earned $22.2 billion last year, or $2.17 a share, on $173 billion in sales. Chairman Jeffrey R. Immelt's letter to 607,000 shareholders conceded that GE stock hasn't even outperformed the S&P 500 index the past five years.
But it's no dog to him. "I continue to buy GE stock in the open market," wrote the $19 million-a-year CEO, "just like you do."
Retired business editor Jack Markowitz writes Sundays and Thursdays. He can be reached at jmarkowitz@tribweb.com.
To add to the suspicion of their motives, they own MSNBC, NBC and Newsweek Magazine. These are all major news outlets through which they promote their corporate agenda.....by going "green", they hope to profit. They don't care whether man is causing global warming or not.....as long as they can make a profit. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working. Their stock price, which underperformed the S&P 500 for the past 5 years, reflects that. People are not buying into the global warming myth. The article below illustrates the point.
Peter
source:
Little fund says GE's 'junk science' hurts business
By Jack Markowitz FOR THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW Thursday, April 10, 2008
General Electric Co.'s stock is a "dog," says Steven J. Milloy, and his opinion goes down from there. He accuses what is possibly America's most admired company of promoting "junk science" -- in this case, the view that human beings cause global warming -- mainly to get environmentalists off its back and to further its own business interests.
But not even all its business interests, says Milloy. Just the fraction that serves its feel-good Earth-saving markets, which it dubs "Ecomagination."
Much larger businesses will be hurt in the long run, Milloy asserts. He sees the entire U.S. and world economies damaged by the waste of billions on a false consensus -- that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, planes, power plants, essentially the entire modern standard of living, are catastrophic for the planet.
"Scientific consensus? There is no consensus," Milloy said by phone from the Potomac, Md., office of a most unusual mutual fund. The Free Enterprise Action Fund has assets of only $11.5 million -- small but hopefully with a big voice.
story continues below
document.write('');
The fund wants GE, and other "establishment" corporations it owns smallish pieces of, to quit appeasing anti-business leftists by catering to the carbon dioxide phobia. Free enterprise is actively promoting the enemy, it says, pleading for more government regulations, including a GE favorite, the trading of "carbon credits." General prosperity, freedom and even a better environment are at risk, especially with a left-leaning administration apt to be voted in, according to lawyer Milloy, 49, and fellow fund leader, Thomas J. Borelli, 52, a Ph.D. scientist.
They're bringing a proposal to GE's annual meeting -- to either show the company's own evidence of a man-warmed world or quit imperiling the economy.
Chance of passage is zilch, Milloy admits. Similar resolutions have been shot down by wide margins before. Institutional investors have no interest in fighting a prestigious titan like GE. Or else they also see "green" as a growth market.
And within sensible limits it is, say the dissidents. Supplying products that are fuel-efficient and benefit consumers is "good business." But GE "goes beyond the bounds." It actively lobbies Congress and rallies other companies for tougher regulations, which are bound to "raise energy costs and reduce energy availability." It's the destructive 1990s Kyoto Protocol all over again.
This argument and GE's denial are laid out in the proxy statement for the annual meeting April 23 at the Bayfront Convention Center in Erie, the lakeside city of GE's locomotive works. The company earned $22.2 billion last year, or $2.17 a share, on $173 billion in sales. Chairman Jeffrey R. Immelt's letter to 607,000 shareholders conceded that GE stock hasn't even outperformed the S&P 500 index the past five years.
But it's no dog to him. "I continue to buy GE stock in the open market," wrote the $19 million-a-year CEO, "just like you do."
Retired business editor Jack Markowitz writes Sundays and Thursdays. He can be reached at jmarkowitz@tribweb.com.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Natural Gas, Marcellus Shale Play in Pennsylvania
The following article about a new natural gas exploration and production "play" in Pennsylvania and neighboring States, is a good example of how rising prices can increase the amount of oil and gas found and produced. Apparently there is a real boom going on. One of the reasons why producing gas from shale is economically attractive is because the layer of shale in the subsurface is often thick and widespread. This means it is easy to find. The rock also tends to be very impermeable and lacking in porosity (that is open space between rock particles). 
“It’s a modern-day gold rush in our own backyard,” Mr. Gregoire said.
Not just his backyard either — a frenzy unlike any seen in decades is unfolding here in rural Pennsylvania, and it eventually could encompass a huge chunk of the East, stretching from upstate New York to eastern Ohio and as far south as West Virginia. Companies are risking big money on a bet that this area could produce billions of dollars worth of natural gas.
A layer of rock here called the Marcellus Shale has been known for more than a century to contain gas, but it was generally not seen as economical to extract. Now, improved recovery technology, sharply higher natural gas prices and strong drilling results in a similar shale formation in north Texas are changing the calculus. A result is that a part of the country where energy supplies were long thought to be largely tapped out is suddenly ripe for gas prospecting.
Pennsylvania, where the Marcellus Shale appears to be thickest, is the heart of the action so far. Leasing agents from Texas and Oklahoma are knocking on doors, leaving voice mail messages and playing host at catered buffets to woo dairy farmers and retirees. They are rifling through stacks of dusty deeds in courthouse basements to see who has underground mineral rights to the deepest gas formations.
Thomas B. Murphy, a Pennsylvania State University educator who runs a program to instruct landowners on their rights, estimated that more than 20 oil and gas companies will invest $700 million this year developing the Marcellus Shale. Up to one half of that will be invested in Pennsylvania, he estimated.
The cost to companies for leasing mineral rights jumped from $300 an acre in mid-February to $2,100 now. “It shows you the pace this is going,” Mr. Murphy said. “I would call it breakneck.”
Dale A. Tice, a lawyer representing landowners in lease negotiations, said companies were on a “feeding frenzy.
A natural gas drilling site on a farm in Hickory, outside Pittsburgh, that seeks to extract gas from 600 feet below the surface.
Industry experts say in the last three years companies like Anadarko Petroleum, Chesapeake Energy and Cabot Oil and Gas have leased up to two million acres for drilling in the region, half of that in the last nine months.
Whether their bets will pay off is by no means a sure thing.
Researchers at Penn State and the State University of New York at Fredonia estimate that the Marcellus has 50 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, roughly twice the amount of natural gas consumed in the United States last year. But government estimates of the amount of gas recoverable from the Marcellus are relatively modest.
Early test results have encouraged companies to keep drilling, but most are holding details of their test wells close to the vest.
The company that has done the most work is Range Resources of Fort Worth, which says it plans to invest at least $426 million in the Appalachia region this year.
The company has reported promising results from the first 12 wells that it has drilled horizontally, the technique considered by most experts to be the most effective in the Marcellus. The most recent six have each produced more than three million cubic feet of production a day in recent months, and company executives say that is better than the average for wells recovering natural gas in the Barnett Shale in north Texas.
“The Marcellus is important to Range and it could be important to the country but it really is still early,” said Rodney L. Waller, a senior vice president at Range. “I can build you a scenario where it can be significantly better than the Barnett but it’s a function of economics.”
Energy experts say the Marcellus, along with other smaller shale formations being developed around the country, is coming under scrutiny at an opportune moment, just when conventional domestic natural gas production and imports from Canada are diminishing. With easy-to-find gas fields in decline, the country will need to explore in deeper waters in the Gulf of Mexico and penetrate deeper under the surface on land.
If all goes well, the Marcellus could help moderate the steep climb in natural gas prices and reduce possible future dependence on natural gas from the Middle East, which is beginning to arrive at coastal terminals in liquefied form.
Natural gas in the Marcellus and other shale formations is sometimes found as deep as 9,000 feet below the ground, a geological and engineering challenge not to be underestimated. The shales are sedimentary rock deposits formed from the mud of shallow seas several hundred million years ago. Gas can be found trapped within shale deposits, although it is too early to know exactly how much gas will be retrievable.
The gas from all the shales combined “is a game changer,” said Robert W. Esser, an oil and gas expert at Cambridge Energy Research Associates. He estimated that shale produced four billion cubic feet of gas a day on average last year, or about 7 percent of national production, and that shale gas production would increase to nine billion cubic feet a day by 2012, or about 15 percent of expected national production.
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority estimates that developing New York’s portion of the Marcellus could roughly double the amount of natural gas now produced in New York. Currently that is about 55 billion cubic feet a year, providing for 5 percent of the state’s needs.
The Marcellus has suddenly become attractive in large part because natural gas prices have spiked in the last several years and the geologically similar Barnett Shale has been an industry sensation.
By using horizontal drilling techniques, oil and gas companies have been able to draw natural gas from underneath the city of Fort Worth, even from below schools, churches and airports. The companies have perfected hydraulic fracturing techniques, pumping water and sand into well bores to fracture shale and release gas from its pores.
Production in the Barnett has exploded from a trickle five years ago to over three billion cubic feet a day, and energy experts say that number could more than double by 2015. Shale gas development in other parts of Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas has also shown promise.
But no formation compares in size to the Marcellus. It is deeply entrenched in wooded and mountainous countryside and expensive to reach. But the reserve is also within short pipeline distance from some of the nation’s most energy-hungry cities.
Still, not everyone here is happy about all the leasing and drilling. At meetings with the companies, landowners have asked questions about potential hazards to water and woodlands.
Keith Eckel, 61, a grain farmer with 700 acres in northeastern Pennsylvania, said he had not decided whether to let the companies drill on his property. “Farmers have taken care of this land all their lives and don’t want to see it destroyed,” he said.
But many farmers and retirees in rural Pennsylvania appear excited that their lives are about to change.
“Now I can retire,” said Robert Deiseroth, a 63-year-old farmer and auctioneer from the town of Hickory, who recently received a $16,000 royalty check from Range Resources that he hopes will be repeated month after month. “This was a godsend for me. If it weren’t for this I would have to sell off some of my land to get some money for retirement.”
Mr. Deiseroth has put new windows in his house, bought a new fishing boat and plans to build a new garage. His 89-year-old father and 90-year-old mother, who live nearby, just got a $20,000 monthly check. His father has replaced the golf cart he drove around his farm with a Kubota utility vehicle, while his mother has bought a flat-screen television.
“When Range came in a lot of people didn’t like it,” Mr. Deiseroth said, “But things changed when they started getting their checks.”
Engineers have solved those problems primarily through the processes of "horizontal drilling" and "fracing" or fracturing the rock under ground by pumping fluid down the well bore and into the rock formation under high pressure. This is immediately followed with "sand" grains suspended in the fluid that goes into the induced fractures and keeps them open. This creates artificial porosity and permeability. It is an expensive and highly technical operation, but once perfected, as it seems to be, the results and the accompanying high value of the gas produced make it all worthwhile. This is a major development which can be very good for the area, and America's economy in general. It is a good time to be a working petroleum geologist and engineer.
Peter
April 8, 2008
There’s Gas in Those Hills
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
HUGHESVILLE, Pa. — At first, Raymond Gregoire did not want to listen to the raspy voice on his answering machine offering him money for rights to drill on his land. They want to ruin my land, he thought. But he called back anyway a week later to hear more.
By the end of February, he had a contract in hand for $62,000, and he pulled together a group of 75 neighbors who signed $3 million in deals.
There’s Gas in Those Hills
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
HUGHESVILLE, Pa. — At first, Raymond Gregoire did not want to listen to the raspy voice on his answering machine offering him money for rights to drill on his land. They want to ruin my land, he thought. But he called back anyway a week later to hear more.
By the end of February, he had a contract in hand for $62,000, and he pulled together a group of 75 neighbors who signed $3 million in deals.
“It’s a modern-day gold rush in our own backyard,” Mr. Gregoire said.
Not just his backyard either — a frenzy unlike any seen in decades is unfolding here in rural Pennsylvania, and it eventually could encompass a huge chunk of the East, stretching from upstate New York to eastern Ohio and as far south as West Virginia. Companies are risking big money on a bet that this area could produce billions of dollars worth of natural gas.
A layer of rock here called the Marcellus Shale has been known for more than a century to contain gas, but it was generally not seen as economical to extract. Now, improved recovery technology, sharply higher natural gas prices and strong drilling results in a similar shale formation in north Texas are changing the calculus. A result is that a part of the country where energy supplies were long thought to be largely tapped out is suddenly ripe for gas prospecting.
Pennsylvania, where the Marcellus Shale appears to be thickest, is the heart of the action so far. Leasing agents from Texas and Oklahoma are knocking on doors, leaving voice mail messages and playing host at catered buffets to woo dairy farmers and retirees. They are rifling through stacks of dusty deeds in courthouse basements to see who has underground mineral rights to the deepest gas formations.
Thomas B. Murphy, a Pennsylvania State University educator who runs a program to instruct landowners on their rights, estimated that more than 20 oil and gas companies will invest $700 million this year developing the Marcellus Shale. Up to one half of that will be invested in Pennsylvania, he estimated.
The cost to companies for leasing mineral rights jumped from $300 an acre in mid-February to $2,100 now. “It shows you the pace this is going,” Mr. Murphy said. “I would call it breakneck.”
Dale A. Tice, a lawyer representing landowners in lease negotiations, said companies were on a “feeding frenzy.
A natural gas drilling site on a farm in Hickory, outside Pittsburgh, that seeks to extract gas from 600 feet below the surface.Industry experts say in the last three years companies like Anadarko Petroleum, Chesapeake Energy and Cabot Oil and Gas have leased up to two million acres for drilling in the region, half of that in the last nine months.
Whether their bets will pay off is by no means a sure thing.
Researchers at Penn State and the State University of New York at Fredonia estimate that the Marcellus has 50 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, roughly twice the amount of natural gas consumed in the United States last year. But government estimates of the amount of gas recoverable from the Marcellus are relatively modest.
Early test results have encouraged companies to keep drilling, but most are holding details of their test wells close to the vest.
The company that has done the most work is Range Resources of Fort Worth, which says it plans to invest at least $426 million in the Appalachia region this year.
The company has reported promising results from the first 12 wells that it has drilled horizontally, the technique considered by most experts to be the most effective in the Marcellus. The most recent six have each produced more than three million cubic feet of production a day in recent months, and company executives say that is better than the average for wells recovering natural gas in the Barnett Shale in north Texas.
“The Marcellus is important to Range and it could be important to the country but it really is still early,” said Rodney L. Waller, a senior vice president at Range. “I can build you a scenario where it can be significantly better than the Barnett but it’s a function of economics.”
Energy experts say the Marcellus, along with other smaller shale formations being developed around the country, is coming under scrutiny at an opportune moment, just when conventional domestic natural gas production and imports from Canada are diminishing. With easy-to-find gas fields in decline, the country will need to explore in deeper waters in the Gulf of Mexico and penetrate deeper under the surface on land.
If all goes well, the Marcellus could help moderate the steep climb in natural gas prices and reduce possible future dependence on natural gas from the Middle East, which is beginning to arrive at coastal terminals in liquefied form.
Natural gas in the Marcellus and other shale formations is sometimes found as deep as 9,000 feet below the ground, a geological and engineering challenge not to be underestimated. The shales are sedimentary rock deposits formed from the mud of shallow seas several hundred million years ago. Gas can be found trapped within shale deposits, although it is too early to know exactly how much gas will be retrievable.
The gas from all the shales combined “is a game changer,” said Robert W. Esser, an oil and gas expert at Cambridge Energy Research Associates. He estimated that shale produced four billion cubic feet of gas a day on average last year, or about 7 percent of national production, and that shale gas production would increase to nine billion cubic feet a day by 2012, or about 15 percent of expected national production.
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority estimates that developing New York’s portion of the Marcellus could roughly double the amount of natural gas now produced in New York. Currently that is about 55 billion cubic feet a year, providing for 5 percent of the state’s needs.
The Marcellus has suddenly become attractive in large part because natural gas prices have spiked in the last several years and the geologically similar Barnett Shale has been an industry sensation.
By using horizontal drilling techniques, oil and gas companies have been able to draw natural gas from underneath the city of Fort Worth, even from below schools, churches and airports. The companies have perfected hydraulic fracturing techniques, pumping water and sand into well bores to fracture shale and release gas from its pores.
Production in the Barnett has exploded from a trickle five years ago to over three billion cubic feet a day, and energy experts say that number could more than double by 2015. Shale gas development in other parts of Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas has also shown promise.
But no formation compares in size to the Marcellus. It is deeply entrenched in wooded and mountainous countryside and expensive to reach. But the reserve is also within short pipeline distance from some of the nation’s most energy-hungry cities.
Still, not everyone here is happy about all the leasing and drilling. At meetings with the companies, landowners have asked questions about potential hazards to water and woodlands.
Keith Eckel, 61, a grain farmer with 700 acres in northeastern Pennsylvania, said he had not decided whether to let the companies drill on his property. “Farmers have taken care of this land all their lives and don’t want to see it destroyed,” he said.
But many farmers and retirees in rural Pennsylvania appear excited that their lives are about to change.
“Now I can retire,” said Robert Deiseroth, a 63-year-old farmer and auctioneer from the town of Hickory, who recently received a $16,000 royalty check from Range Resources that he hopes will be repeated month after month. “This was a godsend for me. If it weren’t for this I would have to sell off some of my land to get some money for retirement.”
Mr. Deiseroth has put new windows in his house, bought a new fishing boat and plans to build a new garage. His 89-year-old father and 90-year-old mother, who live nearby, just got a $20,000 monthly check. His father has replaced the golf cart he drove around his farm with a Kubota utility vehicle, while his mother has bought a flat-screen television.
“When Range came in a lot of people didn’t like it,” Mr. Deiseroth said, “But things changed when they started getting their checks.”
Chris Horner and "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming"
Chris Horner is a very enthusiastic and well-informed "skeptic" of the myth of man-caused global warming. I intend to get his book. In the mean time, look at the following videos. They are informative and entertaining.
Peter
GeoPete
Message #1 - 04/08/08 01:35 AM
There are some who see socialism as being an undesirable form of government, or as a way of living. There are many who see environmentalism in general, and the huge movement behind the idea of man-caused global warming as a vehicle for the socialization, or control of the entire world. Read the following, consider what is said and make up your own minds. GP
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Global Warming Equals Socialism
Click to view imagePhilip V. Brennan has an article today at NewsmaxClick to view image in which he quotes from a new book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming":
...author Christopher C. Horner explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and U.N. globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true.
"Global warming is the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life." As Horner explains, "if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could 'solve' it . . . no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government."
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and EnvironmentalismClick to view image
GeoPete
Message #2 - 04/08/08 01:46 AM
Here are some short videos of Chris Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming", he is filmed discussing his book and answering some questions. GP
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 1/4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=z04XMXc7zJg
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 2/4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L6kG-tFDthk
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 3/4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XAzcsYluUSM
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 4/4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=08guZIdYY88
Peter
GeoPete
Message #1 - 04/08/08 01:35 AM
There are some who see socialism as being an undesirable form of government, or as a way of living. There are many who see environmentalism in general, and the huge movement behind the idea of man-caused global warming as a vehicle for the socialization, or control of the entire world. Read the following, consider what is said and make up your own minds. GP
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Global Warming Equals Socialism
Click to view imagePhilip V. Brennan has an article today at NewsmaxClick to view image in which he quotes from a new book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming":
...author Christopher C. Horner explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and U.N. globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true.
"Global warming is the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life." As Horner explains, "if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could 'solve' it . . . no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government."
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and EnvironmentalismClick to view image
GeoPete
Message #2 - 04/08/08 01:46 AM
Here are some short videos of Chris Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming", he is filmed discussing his book and answering some questions. GP
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 1/4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=z04XMXc7zJg
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 2/4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L6kG-tFDthk
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 3/4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XAzcsYluUSM
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: Part 4/4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=08guZIdYY88
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Fallacies Of Global Warming
The following is a good article summarizing some of the more glaring misconceptions about global warming and climate change.
Peter
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/agwfallacies.pdf
Peter
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/agwfallacies.pdf
Glaciers and Sea Ice: Melting Or Growing?
Here is a link to a good website which deals with the issue of glaciers and sea ice. Are they melting or expanding? We've been bombarded with pictures of melting glaciers and rising sea levels. We're told we're headed for catastrophe because of global warming. Is any of this true? Check out this website: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
For example:
Here's a (partial) list of the specific glaciers that are growing:
NORWAY Ålfotbreen Glacier Briksdalsbreen Glacier Nigardsbreen Glacier Hardangerjøkulen Glacier Hansebreen Glacier Jostefonn Glacier Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier, which has steadily increased in mass since the 1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)
Norway's glaciers growing at record pace. The face of the Briksdal glacier, an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe, is growing by an average 7.2 inches (18 centimeters) per day. (From the Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende.) See http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.htmlClick here to see mass balance of Norwegian glaciers: http://www.nve.no/ Choose "English" (at top of the page), choose "Water," then "Hydrology," then "Glaciers and Snow" from the menu. You'll see a list of all significant glaciers in Norway. (Thanks to Leif-K. Hansen for this info.)
CANADA Helm Glacier Place Glacier
FRANCE Mt. Blanc
ECUADOR Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
SWITZERLAND Silvretta Glacier
KIRGHIZTAN Abramov
RUSSIA Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. See below)
GREENLAND See Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! The BBC recently ran a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade, say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.
One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a transcript of the documentary, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml
NEW ZEALANDAll 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where theygained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27 May 2003) Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend - New Zealand's two best-known glaciers are still on the march - 31 Jan 07 - See Franz Josef Glacier
SOUTH AMERICA - Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in Patagonia) is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation, 30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile, is the world's third largest reserve of fresh water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perito_Moreno_Glacier - Chile's Pio XI Glacier (the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere) is also growing.
UNITED STATES - Colorado (scroll down to see AP article) - Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier* and Mt. Shuksan) (scroll down to see photo of Mt. Baker) - California (Mount Shasta - scroll down for info) - Montana (scroll down for info) - Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard). (scroll down to see article on Hubbard Glacier)
Antarctic ice grows to record levels 13 Sep 07 - While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting,See Antarctic ice grows to record levels..
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back19 Feb 08 - A Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.See Most snow cover since 1966..
Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier Advancing Three Feet Per Day 25 Jun 07 - See Crater Glacier..
Mount St. Helens glacier (Crater Glacier) growing 50 feet per year September 20, 2004 - See Mount St. Helens
Glaciers growing on California's Mount Shasta! 12 Oct 03 - See Mount Shasta Glaciers Growing
Geologists Unexpectedly Find 100 Glaciers in Colorado 7 Oct 01 See Colorado Glaciers Growing
Washington's Nisqually Glacier is GrowingSee Nisqually Glacier
Glaciers in Montana's Glacier Park on the verge of growing 5 Oct 2002. See Glacier Park
Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thickerSee Antarctic Icecap Growing ThickerSee construction crane buried in the Antarctic Ice Sheet
* * *
Himalayan Glaciers Not ShrinkingGlacial Experts Question Theory of Global Warming15 Feb 07 - See Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking..Many people have asked why some glaciers in South America are melting. I think it is perfectly understandable. Remember, we have had two of the strongest El Ninos on record during the past 21 years. During an El Nino, a narrow band of the Pacific Ocean warms by as much as 14 degrees. This band of warm water travels east essentially along the equator until it slams into South America.
It seems logical that the increased rainfall caused by El Nino, plus the warmer winds blowing across the warmer water, could hasten glacial melt. But let me say it again. I do not believe that this is caused by humans, I think it is caused by the El Nino phenomenon, which is caused by underwater volcanism, which is increasing due to the ice-age cycle.
With this said, let me point out many glaciers in South America remain stable, and some - including the Pio XI Glacier and the Perito Moreno Glacier - are growing. The Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere. The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Patagonia.
I find it curious that news reports do not mention these two glaciers.
* * *
Contrary to previous reports, Arctic ice did not thin during the 1990s, say researchers at the Department of Oceanography at Göteborg University in Göteborg, Sweden. http://www.envirotruth.org/images/ice-in-90s.pdf
.. Alaska Glacier Surges -17 Mar 06 See McGinnis Glacier ..Look at what's happening on Mt. Baker, in Washington State. (Mt. Baker is near Mt. Shukson, where glaciers are now growing.)
This is a photo of my friend Jim Terrell taken onMt. Baker, Washington. Jim is more than six feettall. See the black line about six feet above his head?That's where the snow from the winter of 1998/99stopped melting. Above that, is snow that nevermelted from the winter of 1999/2000. Why isn'tthe media reporting this sort of thing?..Click here to read this in Espanol: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/articulos-3/PorHielo.html
Thanks to Eduardo Ferreyra, who translated this material into Spanish for the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology.)
Photo by Mazz Terrell19 July 2000
..See also Growing_Glaciers See also Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker and Antarctic Icecap Growing Thicker
For example:
Here's a (partial) list of the specific glaciers that are growing:
NORWAY Ålfotbreen Glacier Briksdalsbreen Glacier Nigardsbreen Glacier Hardangerjøkulen Glacier Hansebreen Glacier Jostefonn Glacier Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier, which has steadily increased in mass since the 1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)
Norway's glaciers growing at record pace. The face of the Briksdal glacier, an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe, is growing by an average 7.2 inches (18 centimeters) per day. (From the Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende.) See http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.htmlClick here to see mass balance of Norwegian glaciers: http://www.nve.no/ Choose "English" (at top of the page), choose "Water," then "Hydrology," then "Glaciers and Snow" from the menu. You'll see a list of all significant glaciers in Norway. (Thanks to Leif-K. Hansen for this info.)
CANADA Helm Glacier Place Glacier
FRANCE Mt. Blanc
ECUADOR Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
SWITZERLAND Silvretta Glacier
KIRGHIZTAN Abramov
RUSSIA Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. See below)
GREENLAND See Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! The BBC recently ran a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade, say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.
One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a transcript of the documentary, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml
NEW ZEALANDAll 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where theygained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27 May 2003) Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend - New Zealand's two best-known glaciers are still on the march - 31 Jan 07 - See Franz Josef Glacier
SOUTH AMERICA - Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in Patagonia) is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation, 30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile, is the world's third largest reserve of fresh water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perito_Moreno_Glacier - Chile's Pio XI Glacier (the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere) is also growing.
UNITED STATES - Colorado (scroll down to see AP article) - Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier* and Mt. Shuksan) (scroll down to see photo of Mt. Baker) - California (Mount Shasta - scroll down for info) - Montana (scroll down for info) - Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard). (scroll down to see article on Hubbard Glacier)
Antarctic ice grows to record levels 13 Sep 07 - While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting,See Antarctic ice grows to record levels..
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back19 Feb 08 - A Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.See Most snow cover since 1966..
Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier Advancing Three Feet Per Day 25 Jun 07 - See Crater Glacier..
Mount St. Helens glacier (Crater Glacier) growing 50 feet per year September 20, 2004 - See Mount St. Helens
Glaciers growing on California's Mount Shasta! 12 Oct 03 - See Mount Shasta Glaciers Growing
Geologists Unexpectedly Find 100 Glaciers in Colorado 7 Oct 01 See Colorado Glaciers Growing
Washington's Nisqually Glacier is GrowingSee Nisqually Glacier
Glaciers in Montana's Glacier Park on the verge of growing 5 Oct 2002. See Glacier Park
Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thickerSee Antarctic Icecap Growing ThickerSee construction crane buried in the Antarctic Ice Sheet
* * *
Himalayan Glaciers Not ShrinkingGlacial Experts Question Theory of Global Warming15 Feb 07 - See Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking..Many people have asked why some glaciers in South America are melting. I think it is perfectly understandable. Remember, we have had two of the strongest El Ninos on record during the past 21 years. During an El Nino, a narrow band of the Pacific Ocean warms by as much as 14 degrees. This band of warm water travels east essentially along the equator until it slams into South America.
It seems logical that the increased rainfall caused by El Nino, plus the warmer winds blowing across the warmer water, could hasten glacial melt. But let me say it again. I do not believe that this is caused by humans, I think it is caused by the El Nino phenomenon, which is caused by underwater volcanism, which is increasing due to the ice-age cycle.
With this said, let me point out many glaciers in South America remain stable, and some - including the Pio XI Glacier and the Perito Moreno Glacier - are growing. The Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere. The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Patagonia.
I find it curious that news reports do not mention these two glaciers.
* * *
Contrary to previous reports, Arctic ice did not thin during the 1990s, say researchers at the Department of Oceanography at Göteborg University in Göteborg, Sweden. http://www.envirotruth.org/images/ice-in-90s.pdf
.. Alaska Glacier Surges -17 Mar 06 See McGinnis Glacier ..Look at what's happening on Mt. Baker, in Washington State. (Mt. Baker is near Mt. Shukson, where glaciers are now growing.)
This is a photo of my friend Jim Terrell taken onMt. Baker, Washington. Jim is more than six feettall. See the black line about six feet above his head?That's where the snow from the winter of 1998/99stopped melting. Above that, is snow that nevermelted from the winter of 1999/2000. Why isn'tthe media reporting this sort of thing?..Click here to read this in Espanol: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/articulos-3/PorHielo.html
Thanks to Eduardo Ferreyra, who translated this material into Spanish for the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology.)
Photo by Mazz Terrell19 July 2000
..See also Growing_Glaciers See also Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker and Antarctic Icecap Growing Thicker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)