Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Word up to some! :)

Gnight>>>>>>>>>>



Servers too, ya think?
Its not new

Quoting nymore:
Like I have asked please show us these magical controls.

The question was a general one. Any controls at all.

Quoting nymore:
I agree Rookie but try getting an environmental permit to mine R.E.E. here. Damn near impossible, why pollution. If I want Ham I have to harm the Pig.

Much less with wind and solar and other renewables than with oil and coal but point accepted: all mining has some consequences.

Quoting nymore:
I agree Rookie but try getting an environmental permit to mine R.E.E. here. Damn near impossible, why pollution. If I want Ham I have to harm the Pig.

Problem is if you want fossil fuel you have to feed the pig!

This prevents that!

.

Quoting Patrap:
On, er, Mr. Inhofe's relation to Energy Companies.




Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
SENATOR



$1,287,950

Sided with Dirty Energy interests in 100% of selected votes

Posted on Friday, December 16, 2011 8:31:14 PM by tutstar

The founder of an energy company that benefited from deals involving hundreds of millions in “stimulus” money made the maximum donation allowable to President Obama’s inauguration, WND has learned.

Peter L. Corsell, founder of GridPoint Inc., contributed $50,000 to the inauguration.

Corsell served as the Gridpoint’s chief executive officer from the company’s inception until transitioning to the position of non-executive chairman in October, 2010.

Yesterday, KleinOnline broke the story that an Obama adviser who played a key role in developing the energy provisions of the so-called stimulus bill serves on the boards of Gridpoint as well as several other companies that recently received government funds, including “stimulus” money.

TJ Glauthier served on Obama’s 2008 White House Transition Team. He is widely credited with helping to craft the energy provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the “stimulus.”


Do BP's big donations to Obama matter?
The president has received more in political contributions from BP than any other federal candidate in the last 20 years. Is that fact important?
posted on May 6, 2010, at 2:50 PM


Link




WASHINGTON - A major donor to President Obama discussed with White House officials a solar energy company that received a half-billion dollar federal loan and later went bankrupt, newly released emails show.

The emails released by a House committee appear to contradict repeated assurances by the Obama administration that the donor, George Kaiser, never talked about Solyndra Inc. with the White House.

Solyndra's name came up at a White House meeting with Kaiser last year at a time when the California company was seeking a second federal loan, after it had already received a $528 million loan in 2009, the emails show.

The second loan was not approved. Instead, an investment venture controlled by Kaiser made a private loan that resulted in the firm and other investors moving ahead of taxpayers in line for repayment in case of a default by Solyndra.

Video: White House subpoenaed over Solyndra
Solyndra warnings came from within gov't
FBI raids solar firm that got stimulus cash.


Link


The Pot and Kettle analogy, don't want to offend NEO.

Quoting Patrap:
So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
Blue sky's from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?

Funny you mention Pink Floyd.
Last month while driving from Tucson to Phoenix for work I had the pleasure of hearing Roger Waters expound on his life view with Howard Stern. Roger's Dad was a communist in Britain and completely against the war and actively disented until 1944 when
he could no longer in good conscience object any longer. Sad fact was he was killed shortly after in the conflict and that loss was one reason for Roger's
beliefs and actions. It is interesting what drives individuals in some cases. (He did't get along with the Headmaster at his school either as you might discern from the "CAN'T HAVE ANY PUDDDIN'")

GISS is out with the Feb temp anomaly (land only index) using the baseline of 1951-1980 it is 0.52 or the second coldest in 15 years. With La-Nina fading some warming may start to take place. We will have to see how the cold PDO effects El-Nino (3.4). La-Nina (3.4) still has a little fight left in her as it dropped slightly last week

When they come out with their maps which use a baseline of 1951-1980 it should be around 0.30 for the 250km map. (land and ocean)

I see many places in Northern Alaska, N. Canada and parts of Greenland are running below or much below normal while we in the east of the Rockies are running above to much above normal.

Quoting nymore:
I see many places in Northern Alaska, N. Canada and parts of Greenland are running below or much below normal while we in the east of the Rockies are running above to much above normal.

Correct but notice how much larger and more numerous the red dots are compared to the blue dots. Globally we are still to hot............ Not good since it was in the middle of winter up here in the Northern hemisphere.




This




prevents that.

Horsepower vs. MPG | Sightline Daily

.... From about 1975 through 1987, federal standards prompted massive and surprisingly rapid improvements in fuel economy. Cars designers focused on nimbleness and efficiency over raw power, and the fuel savings were enormous. ....



The numbers show that, as of 1975, the average new passenger vehicle burned 7.6 gallons of gas for every 100 miles driven. By 1987, that had fallen to 4.5 gallons—meaning that new cars used about 40 percent less gas than they did 12 years earlier.

By any measure, a 40 percent decline in gas consumption in just 12 years is quite an accomplishment! The fuel savings were the result of two simultaneous trends: the average car got lighter, and engineers tuned new car engines for efficiency rather than power and acceleration. In short, the auto industry—from boardroom to design shop to factory floor—focused its efforts on squeezing more miles out of less gasoline.

.... technological change can be incredibly rapid. We forget this all the time, and fall into the trap of believing that the way things are right now is how they’ll always be. But a simple change in policy (or a steeper change in prices or economic conditions) can foster rapid changes in our appetites and behaviors.

That’s exactly what happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s: we hit a crisis, Congress passed some new standards, and quite quickly the automotive industry reinvented itself, ratcheting up fuel economy at a pace many people thought would be impossible. ....

Quoting nymore:
GISS is out with the Feb temp anomaly using the baseline of 1951-1980 it is 0.52 or the second coldest in 15 years.

GISS GLOBAL Land-Ocean temperature anomaly for February is 0.40. GISS Tsurf (only land) is 0.51 and GISS Tocn (only ocean) is 0.26.

GISS GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index (L-OTI)

Quoting Xandra:

GISS GLOBAL Land-Ocean temperature anomaly for February is 0.40. GISS Tsurf (only land) is 0.51 and GISS Tocn (only ocean) is 0.26.

GISS GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index (L-OTI)

You are correct I used only land temp in the anomaly index. I also use 250km maps which are more accurate than the 1200km maps. I will fix the post to read land only and thank you for pointing it out.

Here is the 250km map for land-ocean 0.31C

Quoting Xandra:

GISS GLOBAL Land-Ocean temperature anomaly for February is 0.40. GISS Tsurf (only land) is 0.51 and GISS Tocn (only ocean) is 0.26.

GISS GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index (L-OTI)

Very disproportionate hot indeed!

Globally this:



prevents that.

Quoting nymore:
You are correct I used only land temp in the anomaly index. I also use 250km maps which are more accurate than the 1200km maps. I will fix the post to read land only and thank you for pointing it out.

Here is the 250km map for land-ocean

Still very disproportionate hot!

Globally this:




prevents that!

Quoting cyclonebuster:


Still very disproportionate hot!

Globally this:




prevents that!

When we compare Feb temp anomalies with the latest baseline it looks like this -0.08C.



And please stop spamming your Cherry picture and crazy pipe dream or this IGNORE USER will prevent that as you say.

Quoting nymore:
When we compare Feb temp anomalies with the latest baseline it looks like this -0.08C.



And please stop spamming your Cherry picture and crazy pipe dream or this IGNORE USER will prevent that as you say.

So you



a graph that has an infinitesimal amount of cooling. Never mind the warming trend continues unabated.

Quoting cyclonebuster:


So you



a graph that has an infinitesimal amount of cooling. Never mind the warming trend continues unabated.

It sure does



Notice the continued warming unabated LOL

Quoting nymore:

Here’s a couple of links especially for you. ;)

Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change

Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built

Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think

Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think

Quoting nymore:
It sure does



Notice the continued warming unabated LOL

It sure has show us where it has gone below 0.0 in the last 20 years?

You can't



that one can you?

Quoting nymore:
It sure does



Notice the continued warming unabated LOL

Those graphs very clearly demonstrate the the climate continues to warm. The weather is doing what weather does.

Quoting Xandra:

Here%u2019s a couple of links especially for you. ;)

Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change

Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built

Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think

Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think

I understand how it works and why. Although the smaller the scale the more accurate it is. Can I get close on a large scale? Yes. Can I get absolute precision on a much smaller scale? Absolutely

If I put points around the globe on the Equator, I can give you decent measurements for East and West but my measurements for North or South is at best a guess. Now add points for North and South my measurements become more accurate add more points more accurate.

Question say someone wants to build a house shaped like a rectangle and shows you some info on a piece of paper what is the minimum info required to build it.

Do you need 1, 2, 3, or 4 corners?
Do you need measurements?
Do you need square footage?
Do you need a scale on the page?
or could you combine some info to figure out the rest and what is the minimum info to get the answer.

Hint there is more than one way to do it but each requires different minimum amounts of info.

The trend for what the last 10,000 plus years has been warming. All caused by man? The trend for the last 4 billion plus years has been cooling. All caused by man? It is all where you start the measurement from.

Quoting nymore:
The trend for what the last 10,000 plus years has been warming. All caused by man? The trend for the last 4 billion plus years has been cooling. All caused by man? It is all where you start the measurement from.

It's all where you



the measurement from. Correct!

Quoting nymore:
I understand how it works and why. Although the smaller the scale the more accurate it is. Can I get close on a large scale? Yes. Can I get absolute precision on a much smaller scale? Absolutely

If I put points around the globe on the Equator, I can give you decent measurements for East and West but my measurements for North or South is at best a guess. Now add points for North and South my measurements become more accurate add more points more accurate.

Question say someone wants to build a house shaped like a rectangle and shows you some info on a piece of paper what is the minimum info required to build it.

Do you need 1, 2, 3, or 4 corners?
Do you need measurements?
Do you need square footage?
Do you need a scale on the page?
or could you combine some info to figure out the rest and what is the minimum info to get the answer.

Hint there is more than one way to do it but each requires different minimum amounts of info.

That is an extremely off-target analogy.

One thing I think that you need to note is that what is important wrt climate change isn't the "absolute temperature" to some arbitrary degree of precision. What's important is the change in temperature and the trend (warming, in this case).

In an earlier post you said, "I also use 250km maps which are more accurate than the 1200km maps." What do you mean by "more accurate" and what is your evidence for that claim?

Quoting nymore:
The trend for what the last 10,000 plus years has been warming. All caused by man?

Nope. Hardly any of it on a global scale until the last 150 years or so.

Quoting nymore:
The trend for the last 4 billion plus years has been cooling. All caused by man? It is all where you start the measurement from.

That's true. You start where it makes sense to start. Relevance and accuracy are the key determinants.

Quoting Birthmark:

That is an extremely off-target analogy.

One thing I think that you need to note is that what is important wrt climate change isn't the "absolute temperature" to some arbitrary degree of precision. What's important is the change in temperature and the trend (warming, in this case).

In an earlier post you said, "I also use 250km maps which are more accurate than the 1200km maps." What do you mean by "more accurate" and what is your evidence for that claim?

The 250km anomaly is 0.31C, the 1200km anomaly is 0.40 which is more correct and why? They both can not be correct. There is almost a 25% difference

Quoting nymore:
The 250km anomaly is 0.31C, the 1200km anomaly is 0.40 which is correct and why? They both can not be correct.

Of course they can! Starting with the fact that they are measuring at different resolutions. IOW, why would it be impossible for the 1200 km anomaly to be 0.40C whilst the 250 km anomaly is 0.31C?

If the uncertainty in the measurements is 0.05C or more, which seems likely enough, then the two anomalies are in agreement within the error bars.

So, yes they can both be correct.

Quoting Birthmark:

Of course they can! Starting with the fact that they are measuring at different resolutions. IOW, why would it be impossible for the 1200 km anomaly to be 0.40C whilst the 250 km anomaly is 0.31C?

If the uncertainty in the measurements is 0.05C or more, which seems likely enough, then the two anomalies are in agreement within the error bars.

So, yes they can both be correct.

One uses less of a guesstimate and what would happen if we add the 18% of the globe not even covered by the 1200km resolution. Both will give you a trend which is important but not the actual temp. the more points you use the better the resolution.

Quoting nymore:
One uses less of a guesstimate and what would happen if we add the 18% of the globe not even covered by the 1200km resolution. Both will give you a trend which is important but not the actual temp. the more points you use the better the resolution.

It will give you better resolution of the weather, without a doubt. However, I don't think it makes that much different when you are trying to ascertain whether the climate is changing so long as you have sufficient information to be representative.

Quoting Birthmark:

It will give you better resolution of the weather, without a doubt. However, I don't think it makes that much different when you are trying to ascertain whether the climate is changing so long as you have sufficient information to be representative.

But if I want to see how rapidly or slowly I get two different answers but you can get an answer as to whether it is warming or cooling that is about it. I understand you use what you have but it is far from perfect (term loosely used). When 18% of the globe is missing even when using a radius of 745 miles (1200km) it is at best an educated guess.

I am not sure where you live but pick a town 750 (approx 1200) miles away and see if you can get your temp anomaly from theirs. Now use a town that is 150 (approx 250km) miles away.

Quoting nymore:
But if I want to see how rapidly or slowly I get two different answers but you can get an answer as to whether it is warming or cooling that is about it. I understand you use what you have but it is far from perfect (term loosely used).

It doesn't need to be perfect, just useful and reasonably accurate.

Quoting nymore:
When 18% of the globe is missing even when using a radius of 745 miles (1200km) it is at best an educated guess.

If that made a substantive difference, then we would see a substantive difference in the rate of warming between the Earth-based and the satellite measurements. But we don't. The rate of warming is virtually the same across all data sets. The only explanation for that agreement is that the Earth-based measurements are doing a pretty good job of reflecting the actual situation.

There is always going to be room for improvement, but even if we achieved perfection there is no real reason to suppose that there would be any substantive change to the rate of warming observed.

Quoting nymore:
I am not sure where you live but pick a town 750 (approx 1200) miles away and see if you can get your temp anomaly from theirs. Now use a town that is 150 (approx 250km) miles away.

On any given day, I might. Over the course of a month, I probably could --within a margin of error. Over the course of thirty years, I almost certainly could, and within a fairly tight MoE.

Just because we can't know everything doesn't mean we can't know anything.

Quoting nymore:
Question say someone wants to build a house shaped like a rectangle and shows you some info on a piece of paper what is the minimum info required to build it.

Do you need 1, 2, 3, or 4 corners?
Do you need measurements?
Do you need square footage?
Do you need a scale on the page?
or could you combine some info to figure out the rest and what is the minimum info to get the answer.

Hint there is more than one way to do it but each requires different minimum amounts of info.

You take me back to my architectural drafting days, nymore.

Our first assignment was to design a beach house. We were given a minimum and maximum square feet it was to be built to. There had to be two bedrooms, an indoor storage room with outside access, a bathroom, a kitchen and a living room. Given this scant information, we had to design our own beach house. Complete with landscaping. ... I got an "A". ;-) BTW, there was no CAD, back in them days. ;-)

Are we going "cookie cutter" here or custom built? ;-)

Are we to take it that the building codes are known and will be adhered to for the local region it is to built?

Will it be built on site or are modular sections being brought in?

Are we using the regular crew or are we looking at local talent for construction?

The permits and inspections will also have to be priced into the total construction costs.

Depending on the percentage of completion they are wanting, you will need to also need know these:

What are the electrical requirements?

What are the plumbing requirements?

What are the materials to be used?

What are the heat/AC needs?

Carpet, tile, wood, linoleum floors?

What type of roof will it have and what type of shingles will be used?

How many rooms will it have?

What are the location and size of each room?

Do they want a garage? Attached or detached? What size? What building materials are to be used? Exposed interior studs or with finished walls?

What will the driveway be built of? How long and wide is the driveway?

You would need to know all the details as to cabinets, interior wall materials, paint, sinks, tubs, showers, lighting fixtures, light switches and wall outlets.

Will the house have solar panels installed? (I had to add that one ;-))

Have any special need considerations been made as to if the house is to built on the top of a mountain, hill, in a marshland or other obstacles to a "normal" build?

Will the house be built on a slab, pier and beam or on blocks and pads?

How many stories will it be?

Do they want it framed in, dried in, 80% complete, 90% complete or turn key?

We already know that the house is to be rectangular, so it will have 4 corners. The two sides will be of the same length and the front and back will be of the same length. The lengths of the sides will be the lengths of the front and the back. We also know that the corners will set on 90 degree angles. We can advance from here.

Should they give us square footage, then all we need is the length of one side and how many stories it will be. We are able to determine the other exterior wall lengths from this.

A home that is drawn to scale and includes a full schedule and notations only needs one question answered. You tell them how much it will cost and then ask when you get your money to start building. Do not forget to add the cost of permits and inspections into your cost.

Let us face the facts. The most useful information they can give you are all of the construction blueprints that are to scale and includes the following:

Door and window schedules.

Building materials to be used.

Electrical and plumbing schedules.

Appliance schedule.

Sinks, tubs and showers schedules.

Full notations and special notations.

Quoting LowerCal:
Horsepower vs. MPG | Sightline Daily

.... From about 1975 through 1987, federal standards prompted massive and surprisingly rapid improvements in fuel economy. Cars designers focused on nimbleness and efficiency over raw power, and the fuel savings were enormous. ....



The numbers show that, as of 1975, the average new passenger vehicle burned 7.6 gallons of gas for every 100 miles driven. By 1987, that had fallen to 4.5 gallons—meaning that new cars used about 40 percent less gas than they did 12 years earlier.

By any measure, a 40 percent decline in gas consumption in just 12 years is quite an accomplishment! The fuel savings were the result of two simultaneous trends: the average car got lighter, and engineers tuned new car engines for efficiency rather than power and acceleration. In short, the auto industry—from boardroom to design shop to factory floor—focused its efforts on squeezing more miles out of less gasoline.

.... technological change can be incredibly rapid. We forget this all the time, and fall into the trap of believing that the way things are right now is how they’ll always be. But a simple change in policy (or a steeper change in prices or economic conditions) can foster rapid changes in our appetites and behaviors.

That’s exactly what happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s: we hit a crisis, Congress passed some new standards, and quite quickly the automotive industry reinvented itself, ratcheting up fuel economy at a pace many people thought would be impossible. ....

For what it is worth, technically the increase is a not linear. Going by your figures, the increase has to be measured against a fixed number of miles: i.e. efficincy is how much gas is burned per miles. If you go 100 miles in a car that gets 10 mpg, you burn 10 gallons. If you double the efficiency (20 mpg), you save 5 gallons. If you start with a car that gets 20 mpg and double it, the respective figures are 5 gallons, 2.5 gallons or a savings of just 2.5 gallons.

Quoting iceagecoming:


More environmentalist nonsense, get a clue. Gaia really?
Last time I saw that was on the the back of a malfunctioning mercedes diesel wagon in Cambridge MA.
It also had a love your Mother sticker too!

Hey cricket, what is GAIA?

Quoting nymore:

I understand how it works and why.

No, I don't think you do and I don't think you have read what it says in the links I gave you.

Quoting nymore:

I am not sure where you live but pick a town 750 (approx 1200) miles away and see if you can get your temp anomaly from theirs. Now use a town that is 150 (approx 250km) miles away.

1200 km doesn't mean that the nearest station is 1200 km away. It means "every station within 1200 km of the centre of the sub-box".

Quoting nymore:
which is more correct and why?

So, which is more correct of the maps below?





My answer is: It's not that important to know because it's the trend that's important, not the absolute values.

The trend is upward.

Quoting iceagecoming:


More environmentalist nonsense, get a clue. Gaia really?
Last time I saw that was on the the back of a malfunctioning mercedes diesel wagon in Cambridge MA.
It also had a love your Mother sticker too!

Is it a fair assumption that you don't like "Mother Earth" either?

Quoting greentortuloni:


For what it is worth, technically the increase is a not linear. Going by your figures, the increase has to be measured against a fixed number of miles: i.e. efficincy is how much gas is burned per miles. If you go 100 miles in a car that gets 10 mpg, you burn 10 gallons. If you double the efficiency (20 mpg), you save 5 gallons. If you start with a car that gets 20 mpg and double it, the respective figures are 5 gallons, 2.5 gallons or a savings of just 2.5 gallons.

Thanks for pointing that out. What you say is true. The author's calculation of gas consumption per 100 miles is for the "average new passenger vehicle". I believe he's using that particular vehicle (heh) to illustrate his main point that given effective incentives (economic and/or policy) the response of technological change from corporate management, engineers and consumers can be rapid and effective.

Regarding the "It's all happened before..." meme:

Geologic record testifies to unprecedented changes in ocean chemistry, USC researcher says | 89.3 KPCC

Twenty-one authors, including researchers from USC and Pomona, surveyed what science knows about past incidents when huge amounts of carbon saturated the world's oceans. They found no analogue in past events for what's happening now.

....something called the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event wiped out more than half the planet's species. Martindale says an acidic ocean may have played a role. Recorded in layers of sediment and rock, geologic history testifies that corals died out, as some are starting to do now. "There's a gap in the rock record where you don't have corals and coral reefs for something like 300,000 years."

Martindale says what happens to coral today is well worth keeping a close eye on. Corals are keystone species; then, as now, part of the foundation for biological diversity in the sea. "If you lose your reefs, you lose your fishes that go along with the reefs, and you lose anything that needs a reef to spawn or to host their young, so there would have been some very dramatic ecosystem consequences of such an acidification event."

What the past says about the future has its limits. A key conclusion of the new paper is that none of the events examined, not the one Martindale studied, not one that happened 55 million years ago, are good enough analogs to what"s happening now. Oceans are already twice as acidic as they were 150 years ago. And that, say the authors of this paper, means we're moving into uncharted waters.

According to the Census Bureau the world population hit 7 billion today.

That a good thing, a bad thing, or a doesn't matter kind of thing?

RE Post 189

Can you please show me all these stations in the 1200km sub boxes for the arctic or antarctic or africa or greenland.

Northern hemisphere coverage even at 1200km is about 81%, coverage for the southern hemisphere is about 70%

Quoting LowerCal:
Is it a fair assumption that you don't like "Mother Earth" either?

Here is the car I am talking about, nice and economical.
The concept of love or like when referring to to planetary bodies is a bit odd. I do no harm, except in your view, travel all around it in a 747 like Al Gore, only I am working.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2749/4317498861_0c8 810eb40_z.jpg

Quoting RevElvis:
Even mild global warming could completely melt Greenland’s ice cap

From the link: "But new estimates, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, put the threshold at 1.6 C (2.9 F), in a range of 0.8-3.2 C (1.4-5.8 F), although this would have to be sustained for tens of thousands of years." -bold added

Interesting, but it doesn't sound like an immediate threat.

Quoting Birthmark:


From the link: "But new estimates, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, put the threshold at 1.6 C (2.9 F), in a range of 0.8-3.2 C (1.4-5.8 F), although this would have to be sustained for tens of thousands of years." -bold added

Interesting, but it doesn't sound like an immediate threat.

What is immediate is how quickly we push the global temperature rise. The faster and higher the rise, the sooner and faster the loss of the ice. Do we test the limit?

Current US Rig Count






Tonight's Graph's, brought to you by, FRESCA and Bill Maher

Quoting nymore:
RE Post 189

Can you please show me all these stations in the 1200km sub boxes for the arctic or antarctic or africa or greenland.

Northern hemisphere coverage even at 1200km is about 81%, coverage for the southern hemisphere is about 70%

Perhaps you should ask about the homogenization and extrapolation processes used for the same. Then ask how many stations are above 80N. Weak, plain and simple.

Did you happen to notice most of the images, or graphs, and data from some are all from similar imageshack accounts? Why,,,,, does the source not have enough color depth? It is easy enought to capture and link the pic. Just a picture, no photoshop right? The climate does not remember us taking pictures......

Um, gentlemen (I use the term loosely) if you will excuse me...

nymore
Just wanted to stop in and thank you posting the other day about rare earth metals. Sent me off into hours of interesting reading. Took some chemistry in HS and college, so I am familiar with the periodic table. Thing is, the chemistry I learned was just general and organic and it was a while back, so I had no idea these elements, the rare earth metals, were important in so many ways to life as we know it. Electronics, oil refining, medicine, even catalytic converters for engines and the batteries that run hybrid vehicles. Also of interest, how China has mined the bulk of the world supply since the 1980s.

So thank you, nymore!

And Patrap.
My brain has trouble comparing prices and the number of rigs, because oil's just getting harder to get to and some rigs don't produce a heckuva lot per day - which might explain some of the increase in number of rigs.
...

OK. I'll leave you to your brandy and cigars and exit blog left.
:)