Skip to main content

View Diary: Shale oil showers brings gas fires (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Concern troll is very concerned (6+ / 0-)

    Where are the operating lights in this photo? Do they need to take a picture of the fire coming out of the ground using the IR spectrum?

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    Do you even bother to click on the links people post? Do you just spend time asking lots of questions to make it look like you're raising actual arguments? Is it possible people are being defensive because all you're doing is "raising questions" when the answers are right in front of your face? Do you care at all?

    Are you just wasting people's time with your concern trolling?

    "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

    by progdog on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 05:58:04 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  HR'able comment. Ad hom. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MGross

      Disagreement is not a proper basis to HR.  You should take back your donut.  

      Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

      by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:27:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Concern trolling is quite HRable. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LarryNM

        "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

        by progdog on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:32:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's all you've got? You disagree, so you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MGross

          throw out the concern troll tag?   Please.  Grow up.  I, too, question the premise of the diary and the accuracy of the statements made.  I am entitled to my opinion.  If you don't like it, you can say so, but you don't get to HR a statement just because you disagree.   Read the HR guidelines, and respect them, please.  

          Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

          by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:39:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You question the premise and the accuracy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LarryNM

            ...but you provide no evidence to support your reasoning.

            Unlike the diarist, who provided plenty.

            All of the "questions" may seem reasonable, but there is no actual argument. That is the definition of concern trolling. Look it up.

            "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

            by progdog on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:42:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I did. That's not what he did. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MGross
              A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

              Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

              by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:44:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  I ask questions because they are instrumental (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6412093, elwior

      in the search for truth.

      I'm not questioning claims that hydrocarbon flaring operations at oil production sites goes on extensively
      in North Dakota.

      What I am questioning is the claim that solely on the basis of visible spectra satellite imagery data...what is presently being depicted in photos in the diary....that a conclusion can be made that the visible light features in the photos depicted
      demonstrate a case that the light depicted was primarily/solely from flaring and not from overall petroleum exploration site lighting features----such exploration/production sites tend to be well lit.

      What I am trying to figure out is whether the group that is using NASA satellite data to make quantitative estimations of
      annual standard cubic feet of natural gas flared is using any visible spectrum NASA imagery at all.to make these claims.   I'd like to learn more about exactly what method developed by what model does that group makes their estimates of annual volumes of natural gas flared.   In the event that only IR methods and imagery is utilized, and not visible spectrum imagery.....I think that point needs to be clarified because doing so helps any user of the data and the projections of gas flaring it shows.    

      Any method of prediction of natural gas combustion from flaring based on satellite imagery and thus detection of electromagnetic radiation must depend on some type of a model that makes assumptions about heat release from open air combustion of natural gas (thus my question about IR data and not visible data) or release of light in the visible spectra.   Any model confronting the problem of
      light generation in petroleum exploration operations will have to address light generation from both natural gas combustion and from the extensive electric lighting present.

      When a user of a model makes use of the data generated by application of a model it is always an appropriate act of
      scientific and engineering stewardship to evaluate the model, whether model algorithm provides results which are accurate, able to be replicated and are otherwise scientifically defensible.

      I ask these questions because I've seen a lot of imagery from NASA's MODIS platforms on the Aqua and Terra satellite show active burning locations which always include forest fires, but will also sometime indicate industrial sources, like molten slag pits at steel mill sites.

      When discussing the products of visible spectrum satellite imagery data from NASA....I think a fair question of satellite data interpretation is a proper one to raise.   The diary cites the visible light pictures as the evidence of the existence of a claim that the light seen is from flaring and not from other types of industrial lighting commonly present at these sites.   That claim may or may not have anything to do with whatever model method is actually used by that group to quantify annual natural gas combustion from flaring.   My questioning is based on my experience that dramatic claims have to be explainable, and that is always part of the search for truth.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site