"What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.
The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.
The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all."
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
"What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.
The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.
The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all."
Interesting stuff. But it also shows the reporter's lack of investigation. It's termed Global warming...but global warming can bring about another ice age. He should have done a lil DD on the topic. It is a major misconception that Global warming means a major heat wave. Global warming can cause an ice age real quick. And now with the Sun chilling out...it's even more likely.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The theory behind "Global Warming" leading to a "Global Cooling" is based on the idea that rapid heating causes massive ice melt, which leads to a huge influx of fresh water into the Atlantic, which could shut down the gulf stream current, which in turn leads to cooler temperatures. IMO it is NOT a major misconception that Global warming means a major heat wave because a warming trend is required FIRST before the cooling effect of "Global Warming" can take place.
If the sun goes into a "maunder minimum" type scenario, the current warming trend we are in may not bring "global" temperatures to a point where there is a massive enough ice melt to shut down the gulf stream.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't that be nice....if the sun were to calm down when it wasn't supposed to and effect the earths climate enough to give us all another few decades to get our emissions under control/understand our impact on the climate better.
Don't count on it though. A number of contemporaries call this junk science tantamount to making a weather forecast for a date years into the future. Some of the fundamentals may be right but it is prognostication as much as it is science.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I whish every body would shape up and listen to science we are wrecking the planet. It is obvious,no question about it.
Since there is no other option for us,what good does any political battle mean if we lose the earth?
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
We just need to make sure we stay on track with valid scientific data and not junk science.
The way I look at all this is im sick of the hysteria over global warming, then climate change, etc.
My opinion is stop with the fear mongering and profiteering off green business at the cost of the taxpayer and just do the right thing for doing the right thing. Clean up the planet because its the right thing to do, not because some eco activist is yelling from a redwood treehouse and throwing feces down on people. Too much politics involved.
We should be reducing emissions just because its the right thing to do, not because Al Gore is flying around in a private jet making millions off scaring people and he needs more attention.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We just need to make sure we stay on track with valid scientific data and not junk science.
please define junk science. is junk science something that doesn't fit into the Corporate profit model? cuz the th eonly "scientists" that say global warming is junk science are the ones tied to corporate profit models...
as tot eh idjits up in trees flinging feces? i would like you to find one single one of them that has published in a peer-reviewed journal...
"science" is self-policing just as all human endeavors are. in fact Albert Einstein said it very well.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found a good definition for you Glass. You know, junk science like what the tobacco companies used, or scientists being caught flawing global warming data when hackers cracked their email accounts and exposed them.
Junk science is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas.
Examples of special interests include:
The media may use junk science to produce sensational headlines and programming, the purpose of which is to generate increased readership and viewership. More readers and viewers mean more revenues from advertisement. The media may also use junk science to advance personal or organizationsl social and political agendas. Personal injury lawyers, sometimes referred to simply as trial lawyers (as in the American Association of Trial Lawyers or ATLA), may use junk science to extort settlements from deep-pocketed businesses or to bamboozle juries into awarding huge verdicts. Social and political activists may use junk science to achieve social and political change. Government regulators may use junk science to expand regulatory their authority, increase their budgets o advance the political agenda of elected officials. Businesses may use junk science to bad-mouth competitors’ products, make bogus claims about their own products, or to promote political or social change that would increase sales and profits. Politicians may use junk science to curry favor with special interest groups, to be politically correct or to advance their own personal political beliefs. Individual scientists may use junk science to achieve fame and fortune. Individuals who are ill (real or imagined) may use junk science to blame others for causing their illness. Individuals may also use junk science to seek fame and fortune.
CAUTION: Being wrong is not the same as being guilty of junk science.
The scientific method calls for trial-and-error until the truth is determined. More than likely, this means many trials and many errors. Scientists learn from their errors. So wrong science is part of the scientific method. (See Junk Science Judo, pp. 43-44)
Wrong science becomes junk science only when its obvious or easily-determined flaws are ignored and it is then used to advance some special interest.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
or scientists being caught flawing global warming data when hackers cracked their email accounts and exposed them.
the data that was flawed was offered as flawed in it's scientific form (i pointed this out to you at least half a dozen times now) the journalists that latched onto it are the ones that junked it up. let me repeat that so you can remember it this time. the scientists write honest papers, it's the journalists that select what they want you to know about the papers that have been confusing the issue. i am willing to bet that you have never read one singlr scientific paper as it was published by a scientist in your whole life. the tree rings were presented as tree ring data with severe flaws in them, i READ THAT PAPER in it's original form MYSELF. the guy specifically wrote in it hat he had to DEVIATE FROM THE TREE RING DATA TO MAKE IT WORK... it is not junk scinece, it is simply an info war being waged
beleive me, i read junk science papers all the time- they are written regularly, but it takes a bit of training to see the junk for what it is.. the global warming issue is not junk science, we are going to see what happens because of it because too many people do not wish to see the evidence right in front of their faces
event he hackers that claim they exposed something are twisting the truth and outright lying. what they exposed was in fact normal scientific argumentification and politicking. that's because scientists are people too...
there is only one "special inerest group" in the global warming problem... and i already stated it to you for the hundredth time. it is the oil co's.
oil co's have (finally) gained control of most of the oil on the planet and intend to use it up for their profit until there is no more, then and only then will they divert their capital to "alternative" energy sources that are going to be just as profitable to them or even more profitable to them because they "cost more"
simple economics cash, the more people you have to hire? the harder it is to make the bottom line look good, so we try to do more with less people and therefore less capital, the problem is that when you include fewer people in the paycheck category you have poorer and fewer "consumers"... can't run an economy without many "wealthy" consumers.
fact, we are using millions of years of accumulated oil "reserves" in a few centuries, by any measure of economics? that's just supid.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
here's a great example of the real "junk" we see in science:
Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA which led to discovery of DNA double helix. Her data, according to Francis Crick, were "the data we actually used"[2] to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA.[3] Furthermore, unpublished drafts of her papers (written just as she was arranging to leave King's College London) show that she had indeed determined the overall B-form of the DNA helix. However, her work was published third, in the series of three DNA Nature articles, led by the paper of Watson and Crick which only vaguely acknowledged her evidence in support of their hypothesis.[4]
After finishing her portion of the DNA work, Franklin led pioneering work on the tobacco mosaic and polio viruses. She died in 1958 at the age of 37 from complications arising from ovarian cancer.
without her work? watson and crick had nothing, in fact, there is huge dispute even to this day about whether she shoul dhave been included in the Nobel prize because she was not properly credited by them whne they published...
apparently watson and crick may have even stolen some of her work because they did not think she deserved teh respect that a male scinetist deserved
James Watson, in his book The Double Helix published 10 years after Franklin's death and after Watson had returned from Cambridge to Harvard.[93] In this, he denigrates her work and frequently refers to her in patronizing terms as "Rosy", a name she never used. Much later, at Cambridge, Francis Crick acknowledges, "I'm afraid we always used to adopt--let's say, a patronizing attitude towards her". And another Cambridge colleague, Peter Cavendish wrote in a letter, "Wilkins is supposed to be doing this work; Miss Franklin is evidently a fool".
Ironically, Franklin herself is said to have been "not immune to the sexism rampant in these circles; in a letter to her parents in January 1939, she called one lecturer 'very good, though female'".
i point this out to make the point that scientist are "just" people.. they do things for differnt reasons than say a large corporatin does, but to try to make them out to be attempting to "flaw" a WHOLE AREA OF SCIENCE FOR SOME ANTI-SOCIAL REASONING IS BEYOND SANE CASH.. they are not out to destroy civilation or the economy, that's paranoid bullchit.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
up until the Japanese Tsunami? I was a strong proponent of nuke power plants. I have changed my mind. We really aren't responsible enough to handle the job. I thougth we were better than we really are.
I predicted the week the meltdown actually happened that it was much worse than they were telling US and i was right. It was melting down even before i said it was worse than they were telling US... They were telling US that it had not melted down yet, but that there was a danger it could... and they KNEW it was already melted. when they told US it hadn't...
I propose to you that global warming is much much worse than they have told US too.. and we are going to fing out in very short order just how bad it really is..
i see widlfires and severe flooding right next to each other (in terms of a global scale) at the very same time... sheesh, you have to be blind to not see waht's going on...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only junk science there is,is the corporate lap dogs and right wing think tanks that promote them.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"i see widlfires and severe flooding right next to each other (in terms of a global scale) at the very same time... sheesh, you have to be blind to not see waht's going on..."
Blind?? It's been going on for billions of years Glass and you think that in the miliblip that we have been here and had the technology to even attempt to figure this out that this flood and fire are so unique??? Hell throw in a earthquake and an asteroid collision and now were talking. We can't even fathom the transformations the earth has undergone. Not even close to it. It's humanly impossible.
We are living on a changing planet that is amazingly complex. They have still yet to even figure out for sure that it was an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs and we are supposed to trust that they can tell us that it's getting warmer or colder because of the industrial revolution?? I don't think its graspable yet. Our data is too infantile.
The forecast should read like this.....It's either going to get hotter or colder and the water may rise or it may fall....mother earth will decide.
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I am going to get out there a little on this one. I am one of those that will admit that I am not sure what I believe. I will agree with, surfer, that our available data in not conclusive......or at least our ability to interpret it is not advanced enough to say one thing or the other.
At this point the climate issue is identical to "faith" in terms of religion. By that I mean, nobody can put forth an argument and have it soundly defeated by someone of the opposing view.....and it matters not which side offers up an argument. So people believe what they believe based on their own leanings and interpretations of the data/examples available to them
In another parallel with religion.......Certain behaviors should be done because it is the correct way to do things. For instance, loving your fellow man is a common theme for 95% of all religions.....cause it is the right thing to do. Stealing is condemned by nearly all religions ......cause it is the wrong thing to do. Even outside religion (shout out to Pagan!) most of these concepts are considered to be accepted morals on which society will either thrive or perish.
So it should be with Climate Change. Whether or not you believe in it is not really the point. Certain behaviours should be adopted because it just the responsible thing to do. So I am all for "Green" things.
What I am against is having governments forcing behaviour down a certain path. I know that the hole in my argument is that the government does this already in many areas and I am greatful that they do. For instance, my own example, stealing is against the law......I am glad that it is (thank you, government). However, the role that government plays and the extents to which it can go should be closely evaluated on an issue by issue basis. Once you give a government a certain power you are not going to get that power back......it will remain with the government.....and it will usually be abused. We are way to quick grant power to our governments.....particularly the Federal government.
If money needs to be funneled towards developing "green" tech........so be it. Do it. I can sign on to that. Just don't start legislating or implementing regs. If the automobile had never achieved advantage over the horse we would all still own saddles (actually I still do). The transition from horse to car was done through industrialist seeking profits....they developed an idea to the point that surpassed the utility of the horse.....and then it caught on, some people got rich, and thousands of jobs were created as a natural result. So it should be with all things "Green."
The surest way to EFF up the concept of going "green" and "sustainability" is to leave it in the hands politicians; no matter what side of the aisle they call home. Industrialist are not much better....but at least the majority of them are not incompetent. Their greed will always come at the expense of something, but will often have overwhelming "positives" for many.
All that being said.....pick up your trash, recycle what you can, and teach your kids to respect the planet as much as possible.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it should be with Climate Change. Whether or not you believe in it is not really the point. Certain behaviours should be adopted because it just the responsible thing to do. So I am all for "Green" things.
that's been my stand all along too.
if you read the scientific papers themselves and ignore the media hype? you will find that yo have in fact just stated the general scientific communities attitude as well.
scientists have egos just like "normal" people do. they do mean things to each other and they play games. to suggest that the scientific community has "forged" a worldwide conspiracy to stop the oil co's from making money is the height of ridicularity. There is solid scientific THEORY to show why and how global warming works, the end results are the only thing at dispute. That we are a amjor contributing factor can only be denied by ignorants.
CO2 was produced mostly by plants in the past and as the planet warmed up? CO2 went up, but we are now taking the ACCUMULTED (sequestered)CO2 from some several hundred million years and releasing it in a couple of centuries, thE consequences are becoming obvious.
as to the claim that we have always had floods right next to fires? no doubt, but we are not seeing little floods and fires next to each other.
this year we have the MOST tornadoes causing tHe most deaths, the largest wildfire ever seen in AZ and the season is not really started, we had the highest flooding on record in THE lower MS valley and now that is over and we see the flooding just getting going in the Dakotas... in toehr words we are seeing extremes right next to each other...
yes, we live on changing somewht unprdeictable planet, BUT we are the ones choosing to burn everything we can find like a bunch of pyromaniacs.. it really is that simple.
i watched people crawl out of the rubble in Alabama and thank God for being left alive. Well i would like to point out that at the very minimum God is speaking to them in clear words, change your ways, and God saved them just as much as God sent the damn tornado
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the automobile had never achieved advantage over the horse we would all still own saddles (actually I still do). The transition from horse to car was done through industrialist seeking profits....they developed an idea to the point that surpassed the utility of the horse.....and then it caught on, some people got rich, and thousands of jobs were created as a natural result. So it should be with all things "Green."
here's another example of Govt intervention.
when i was a kid? they put in these newfangled things called seatbelts which were a joke. the car co's fought like hell to keep them out of cars cuz they beleived it would be an admission that cars are dangerous...
now today we have mandatory seatbelts and airbags...
as crazy as i have driven allomylife? i've never deployed an airbag, but i know they've literally saved a hundred thousnad lives and who know how many people have been saved from being braindead or quadraplegic. the fact is? it has never been safer to drive in a car, in fact? it is now (statistically)safer to get in your car and go 60 to 100 miles every day of the year than it is to go into the hospital for one visit in three years.....
the cost of automobiles has skyrocketed because f safety features, and the Govt had to mandate them because if they did not? only the most expensive cars would have them and as we see in all mass-production? quantity decreases per unit cost...
we can "go green" in meaqningfull ways and it will not "cost" US as much as not going green in the long run. why put the environmental cost of not "going green" on our grandchildren and then ADD to that the cost the cost they will be forced to bear to GO GREEN? it makes absolutley no sense.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not shared in your good fortune in terms of never having deployed an airbag. In fact, my life has been saved by an airbag, but I would have died had been wearing the seatbelt.....airbag caught me a glancing blow on the left side of my face. It was enough to redirect my path from going out the center of the windshield. Instead I ended up balled up in the passenger side of the floor board. When all the flipping was done the top of the cab was about where the top of the dash should be on the driver's side.
I do agree whole heartedly with the following:
we can "go green" in meaqningfull ways and it will not "cost" US as much as not going green in the long run. why put the environmental cost of not "going green" on our grandchildren and then ADD to that the cost the cost they will be forced to bear to GO GREEN? it makes absolutley no sense.
I just have heartburn about government dictating and legislating certain aspects.....but your point is valid concerning that it sometimes can yield a desirable outcome in shortest amount of time......The government telling carmakers to offer them on all models is good. The government telling me that I have to use it or pay fine is bad (at least to me)....... Does that notion make me a hypocrite?......I dunno?
I am no political or constitutional scholar so I typically take a position based on how something makes me feel.
One seems like the cost of doing business in a particular industry and is applicable to all competitors of that industry in such a manner that they would all suffer the same potential negatives (or positives)......the other seems like they are taking away my ability to choose, cause in fact that is what they are doing (unless one just likes to pay fines)........and that, I suppose, is my hangup.
The world maybe a safer place by having seatbelts available in every car......but the world is at no greater risk if I choose not to wear one.
I hope some of that makes sense....
Its about the best my redneck logic can do at trying to illustrate how I perceive regulations...
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
heck i don't like speed limits or seatbelt laws, i don't think much of our whole drug law program...
i don't think we should be selling amphetamine candies to childern at the corner store either tho... Benzedrines were available at the corner store less than hundred years ago and our society was not collapsing any more than it is now with them illegal....cafffeine was on the list of dangerous drugs right along with cocaine, and they pulled it after a big fight about it...Unless i am mistaken? It is on the Mormon list of No-No's too...
in fact i personally hate most of the crap Govt tries to shove down our throats. I am redneck too, i just happen to be able to read, and type well enugh that you can sortof figger out what i am tying to say if you pay close attention
the 'problem" is it takes the human animal quite a few years to acquire some semblance of "wisdom" (for lack of better word)...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
as you can see? even the oil co's are suffering from the global warming phenomena.... We are seeing record after record being broken. Floodin of 500 year proportions affecting nuke power plants in NE, th emost and worst tornadoes ever, record snowfalls...
yes, the planet has alot of extremes, but we seem to be seeing them happen all at one time, i don't beleive that is a coincidence.....
as you can see? even tho Obama shut down deep water drilling? the oil boom in Texas has pushed Texas to teh number one job creator in the country... there is no shortage of oil exploration in the US until, now-maybe...
Worst Drought in More Than a Century Strikes Texas Oil Boom By Joe Carroll - Jun 13, 2011 3:49 PM CT
The worst Texas drought since record-keeping began 116 years ago may crimp an oil and natural- gas drilling boom as government officials ration water supplies crucial to energy exploration.
In the hardest-hit areas, water-management districts are warning residents and businesses to curtail usage from rivers, lakes and aquifers. The shortage is forcing oil companies to go farther afield to buy water from farmers, irrigation districts and municipalities, said Erasmo Yarrito Jr., the state’s overseer of water supplies from the Rio Grande River.
Concern over water usage is especially acute in southern Texas’s Eagle Ford Shale area because drilling there is more water-intensive than other regions, said Robert Mace, a deputy executive administrator of the Texas Water Development Board.
“It’s pretty dry down here and a lot of oil companies are looking for water,” Mace said.
The water crisis in Texas, the biggest oil- and gas- producing state in the U.S., highlights a continuing debate in North America and Europe over the impact on water supplies of a production technique called hydraulic fracturing. Environmental groups are concerned the so-called fracking method may pose a contamination threat, while farmers in arid regions like south Texas face growing competition for scarce water. Fracking-Led Boom
In fracking, drillers shoot high-pressure jets of sand- and chemical-infused water into the ground to crack rock and release trapped deposits of crude oil and gas. The technique has spurred a new onshore drilling boom from British Columbia to Poland as prospectors revisit geologic formations previously passed over, said Robert Ineson, senior director of global gas at IHS Inc. (IHS)’s Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
Along the Rio Grande River, where border towns such as Laredo supply workers and equipment for the drilling boom, most areas have received less than 2 inches (5 centimeters) of rain since Oct. 1, the National Weather Service said.
To compensate, Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) is recycling fracking fluids to reduce the amount of water needed for future drilling. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC) is replacing dirt roads leading to its wells with limestone to preserve water that otherwise would be used to keep down the dust.
Farmers, landowners, environmental activists and state oil industry regulators gathered on June 10 at the University of Texas Health Center in Laredo to discuss the potential impact of fracking on water, air and public health, one of several such meetings that have been held across the state this year. 13 Million Gallons
The Eagle Ford’s peculiar geology means it takes three to four times as much water to fracture as the Barnett Shale near Fort Worth, said Mace, of the state water board. Fracking a single Eagle Ford well requires as much as 13 million gallons of water, enough to supply the cooking, washing and drinking needs of 240 adults for an entire year, he said.
“This is not the drilling your grandparents knew in west Texas,” said Sharon Wilson, an organizer for Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project, which lobbies for tougher government regulation of oil drillers. “It’s a heavy industrial activity with massive amounts of water and chemicals.”
About 94 percent of Texas was in a state of severe, extreme or exceptional drought as of June 7, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor compiled by the U.S. Agriculture Department and the National Drought Mitigation Center. The October-through-May period was the state’s driest since record-keeping began in 1895, said Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon. Waiting For Rain
Municipal water departments, farmers, ranchers and oil drillers near Laredo are relying on water from two reservoirs and underground aquifers filled by last summer’s tropical storm season, said Yarrito, whose job title is Rio Grande Watermaster.
Unless storms bring more rain soon, “we’ll be in trouble,” said Sonny Hinojosa, general manager of Hidalgo Irrigation District No. 2 in San Juan, Texas. The drought has decimated crops, with about 79 percent of the state’s winter wheat, 72 percent of its oats and 36 percent of its corn classified as poor or very poor as of June 6, according to the Agriculture Department in Washington.
The Edwards Aquifer Authority, which oversees underground water supplies around San Antonio and along the northern edge of the Eagle Ford Shale, on June 2 declared a Stage 2 emergency requiring a 30 percent cut in water usage. Other water districts have imposed similar restrictions. No Relief Coming
There’s no relief in sight, according to today’s forecast from the National Weather Service. Temperatures across southern Texas will reach 108 degrees Fahrenheit (42 degrees Celsius) June 15 through June 19 and precipitation will remain below- normal through June 27.
Water consumption by Eagle Ford Shale drillers is forecast to explode during the next 25 years, Mace said. A study to be released later this summer by the Texas Water Development Board and the University of Texas’s Bureau of Economic Geology estimates fracking-water demand in the area will jump 10-fold by 2020, and double again by 2030, he said.
Since Petrohawk Energy Corp. (HK) drilled the first discovery in the Eagle Ford Shale in 2008, oil explorers have sought to gain footholds in the 20,000 square-mile (51,800 square-kilometer) formation. Exxon spent $34.9 billion last year to buy XTO Energy Inc. to capture fracking expertise and U.S. assets including Eagle Ford leases. Marathon Oil Corp. (MRO) agreed on June 1 to pay KKR & Co.-backed Hilcorp Resources Holding LP $3.5 billion for assets in the area.
posted
BTW? our cron crop here in the MS delta looks like it may be in trouble to me. there are ears on the corn but the plants are short... like 5 feet instead of 7... it's strange to see tassles on such short corn...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmm that oil news is interesting. fuel for the speculators.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
