I find these two graphs fascinating. The first graph is the amount of crude oil stores in the US (not including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve). The Bakken boom began in 2007; the Eagle Ford came along a bit later; the Permian, one time a declining, aging field, came along even later. So, the US is puttering along, but then, look at that spike that occurred at the end of 2014 and in early 2015. The increase between 2007 and 2014 was subtle, not much more than background noise, and then suddenly, in November, 2014, and continuing until March, 2015, an unprecedented spike:
The second graph is the number of days of US crude oil supply, jumping from 22 days to 29 days, almost an entire full week of additional supply. Again, what is most fascinating is the sudden jump noted in the oval, occurring seven years after the North Dakota Bakken boom began:
You can see
the first graph without the annotations at this link.
***********************
Apple Page
Apple retains its ranking at #5 based on revenues.
Macrumors is reporting:
Fortune has released its annual Fortune 500 list of the top U.S. corporations based on gross revenue, which together accounted for $12.5 trillion in revenues, $945 billion in profits and $17 trillion in market value. Apple maintained the 5th spot in the rankings for the second consecutive year after steadily rising from 6th place in 2013, 17th place in 2012, 35th place in 2011 and 56th place in 2010.
Walmart, Exxon, Chevron, Berkshire Hathaway, Apple.
Apple recorded operating revenue of $182.79 billion during the 2014
fiscal year, a 7% year-over-year increase. Walmart, Exxon Mobil, Chevron
and Berkshire Hathaway topped the list with between $194.6 and $485.6
billion revenue, although it's worth noting that Apple finished ahead of
all four of those companies with $39.5 billion in profit and recently
posted two record-breaking quarters.
Global Warming
Wow, talk about incredible. A US government agency "fixing" the data.
The Daily Caller is reporting:All that work and we're talking 0.012 degrees.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a
solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the
hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.
New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since
the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and
inflating temperatures in more recent years.
“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from
NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support
the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their
study presenting newly adjusted climate data.
To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on
certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings
upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well.
Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the
largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for
0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.”
They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to
the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of
their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”
We used to to the same thing in college biology and chemistry when our experimental results did not meet our expectations -- it was called a fudge factor. It's quite incredible the NOAA would do this. If the original data had fit their story, would they have gone back and re-jiggered the data. If they had and the re-jiggered data did not fit their story, would they have published the study. LOL.
0.03 degrees; 0.064 degrees; and, then, the 0.012 degrees. Not reproducible. Not by a long shot. Nor statistically significant. Anthropogenic global warming is a cult or a religion; it is not science.
Regular readers can see through this. First, of all, this is all relative. If they're going to change data from sites in 2014, they need to change data from sites going all the way back to 1 million BC; probably not doing to happen.
What I find most comical: the researchers got
exactly the number they were looking for. If one knows what "number" one wants, it's not all that difficult to change the data until the number comes out exactly as "predicted." This study will be met with derision, except by Bill Nye, the science guy. And Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the First.
