EIA’s Electric Power Monthly – August 2017 Edition with data for June

A Guest Post by Islandboy


The EIA released the latest edition of their Electric Power Monthly on August 24th, with data for June 2017. With all the data for the first half of 2017 now available the half year performance of the various sectors can be assessed. As reported on the web site utilitydive.com “Coal tops gas as leading generation source in first half of 2017“. PV Magazine on their news web page chose to highlight that, “Renewables generate (almost) as much U.S. power as nuclear during H1 2017“. The highlights of the first half of 2017 include (See the YTD row of Table 2 below for data):

• Coal generated slightly more than Natural Gas
• Nuclear generated slightly more than All Renewables
• Conventional hydro generated slightly more than Wind and Solar combined
• Non-Hydro Renewables generated more than conventional hydroelectric
• Carbon neutral and zero emission sources combined generated more than either gas or coal

Table 1 below shows the percentage change of the selected sources between 2017 and 2016 year to date (YTD), with the year on year change between June 2017 and June 2016 below (YOY).

Table 1: Percentage change between 2017 and 2016

Table 2 below shows the percentage contribution to the generation mix of the selected sources for the month of June and year to date

Table 2: Percentage contribution to the generation mix

In June all dispatchable base load generators, that is Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear powered plants, continued to ramp up production to deal with the increase in demand as the peak, mid-summer demand period draws closer. As a result, despite generating some 5,700 Gwh more than it did in May, the percentage contribution from Nuclear declined to 18.84% from 19.09% in May. Another result of the increase in the total amount generated was that despite a slight increase in the absolute contribution from Solar (500 GWh), the percentage contribution declined to 2.47%, down from 2.58% in May. The contribution from All Renewables at 17.7% fell below the 18.8% contribution from Nuclear as Wind and Hydro continued to decline and the slight increase in Solar failed to prevent the increase in output by Nuclear from outstripping All Renewables. The continued decline in the contribution from Wind also meant that, the combined contribution from Wind and Solar declined to 7.9% from 9.5% in May and the contribution from Non-Hydro Renewables fell to 9% from 10.8%. The contribution of zero emission and carbon neutral sources, that is, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, landfill gas and other biomass fell from 39.87% to 36.5%.

The graph below helps to illustrate how the changes in absolute production affect the percentage contribution from the various sources.


The graph below shows the total monthly generation at utility scale facilities by year versus the contribution from solar. The left hand scale is for the total generation, while the right hand scale is for solar output and has been deliberately set to exaggerate the solar output as a means of assessing its potential to make a meaningful contribution to the midsummer peak. This year it looks like solar will take care of about nine percent of the additional peak mid summer demand, that is nine percent of the approximately 100,000 GWh difference between the spring/autumn lows and the mid summer peak.


The more pronounced ramp up of solar output in 2017 now appears to be a result of the unusually large increase in capacity in the second half of 2016 and is probably not just weather related since, in June the national output increased, while there was a decline in the output of the reference site in Victorville, California that I compared it to in last month’s report.

The graph below shows the monthly capacity additions for 2017 to date. In June more than 84 percent of capacity additions were Natural Gas. Solar and Wind added 7.8 percent and 6.6 percent respectively. Landfill Gas made a contribution of 0.17 percent and Other Waste Biomass made up 0.52 percent. Batteries made up 0.07 percent. I have added a line to indicate the total new capacity added each month to give an idea of what the absolute amounts were added from each source. In June the total capacity added was 2,701.3 MW.


For those looking for a new Open Thread Non-Petroleum, comments not related to Oil or Natural Gas can be in response to this “Non-Petroleum” post.

This entry was posted in Electric Power Monthly and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

615 Responses to EIA’s Electric Power Monthly – August 2017 Edition with data for June

  1. HuntingtonBeach says:

    Cummins unveils electric Class 7 tractor; plans for “revolutionary” heavy-duty diesel in 2022

    “The electric Class 7 demonstrator is fitted with a 140 kWh battery pack; the weight of the electric powertrain is roughly equal to that of the removed engine, aftertreatment, transmission and fuel tank. The tractor day cab has a gross vehicle weight rating limit of 75,000 pounds. The concept truck has a range of about 100 miles (161 km) on a single charge for city driving. The range is extendable to 300 miles (483 km) with additional battery packs. Cummins said that the powertrain and truck will enable it to learn more about the potential electrification holds for larger vehicles.”


    If Cummins is this invested in electrification. I won’t count out long range EV trucks as undo able.

    • OldMacDonald aka KGB Nazi Trumpster Troll says:

      Beat ya to it, posted this yesterday. LOL

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        Make sure Ms. Johnson gives you a gold star on your forehead before class is over today

  2. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    Pseudo-Safe Spaces and Status-Quo-Engineered Snow Flakes

    “Mike, perhaps it’s about creating a safe space within POB of a particular ‘transitional narrative’, and where POB’s thoughful ignore buttons can help function as an aid in this endeavor– a safe space within a safe space.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    “Perhaps you’re right Caelan and I’ll take that advice. I will say that I’m not a troll, and that ‘transitional narratives’ often don’t turn out as people might hope. It is always best to remain somewhat sceptical in these so-called visions of the future. Reality makes for a hard landing after chasing a dream.” ~ Mike Sutherland

    Hi Mike,
    Agreed and especially with narratives and activities that are nested too much in ‘safe spaces’. That’s why I put the snowflake animation.
    That’s also in part why I posted this comment, with a point being that the status-quo is not safe because of the very fact that it is a kind of separate space but that pretends it’s everyone’s and makes extreme efforts at laying claim to that pretense.

    A plutocracy is nearly a ‘monoculture’, and we here should know the problems of monocultures…
    A ‘safe space’ is under the watchful eye of CCTV and assorted security cameras and guards…
    A separate/safe space is the realm within one’s smart phone as they walk down the urban sidewalks, less aware of their real/less mediated surrounds…

    Another point or concern is that some of those at POB and elsewhere may (have) internalize(d) the ideology of this ‘status-quo safe/seperate space’ and are therefore not really questioning it adequately, if at all.

    Maybe the concept of the safe space and the snowflakes within it need further examination from broader perspectives…

    Maybe a safe space could even be metaphorized as an engineer or scientist or other specialist.

    So if we all are to become snowflakes in our safe containerizations, what does this suggest about our individual and collective vulnerabilities/fragilities, such as to such concerns like anthropogenic global warming?

  3. The result of coal and gas fired power plants and of course oil for transportation can be seen in Houston


    • islandboy says:

      Hi Matt, I’m a litlle confused by your posting this story since I remember having an exchange with you in which IIRC you were expressing doubts about Australia’s renewable efforts. Is it that you think the political influence wielded by the FF interests in Australia will stymie any efforts to go renewable? They seem to have succeeded in making a royal mess of things thus far. I would have thought that if you believe in man made global warming you would want to go all in on renewables ASAP.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Islandboy,

        An interesting chart would be to look at wind plus solar output and compare to total utility output (like the chart you do for solar but replace solar with wind plus solar).

        I imagine you have all the data in a spreadsheet so it might be an easy chart to create, it might show that wind and solar complement each other over the seasonal cycle, or not, but the info would be interesting either way.

        • islandboy says:

          Done. Unfortunately the comment editor does not allow us to replace images so the incorrectly labelled right hand side y-axis will have to stay. It should have read “W&S GWh”

          • Nick G says:

            And the legend is showing 2018 and 2019 curves.

            I suspect that the wind contribution, which is lower in summer, is overpowering the solar portion.

            • islandboy says:

              Right you are! I also did one comparing monthly wind output by year and wind is definitely more erratic than solar. The peak output from wind was 25,600 GWh in March 2017 compared to a peak so far of 8,800 estimated total solar for June 2017 so peak wind output is currently three times as large as peak solar output. What jumped out at me in Table 1, was the difference in growth rates between solar and wind, 55.3% YTD and 73.7% YOY for utility scale solar versus 15.6% YTD and 19.1% YOY for wind!

              If solar grows at anything close to the rate it has grown over the last decade, it should be contributing about 40,000 GWh per month during the sumer months by sometime between 2021 and 2022. Owners of FF powered generators cannot be happily looking forward to that.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Thanks Islandboy,

                A problem with wind and solar seems to be that there may eventually be plenty in summer, but maybe not enough in winter, based on data that we have to date. This could be solved by overbuilding wind and solar and perhaps thermal storage, but it points to the potential need for nuclear backup (if we want to eventually eliminate fossil fuels), or we could use batteries, fuel cells, vehicle to grid, etc. We should also develop nuclear power that shuts down safely with no power and perhaps uses fuel and produces by products that are difficult to use in weapons. I am not really familiar with the research, but it seems unwise to close this off as a possible option to use in combination with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro.

                • Nick G says:

                  there may eventually be plenty in summer, but maybe not enough in winter

                  Wind on average is slightly stronger in winter, so if wind and solar are built out in a balanced fashion then winter generation would be roughly ok. It looks like solar may get cheaper, faster, compared to wind. If so, then the question would be which is cheaper: wind (with a variety of options, such as overbuilding, DSM, better forecasting, etc., etc), or solar plus long-term storage (thermal, H2, ammonia, methanol, etc., etc)? The answer to that would tell you the optimal solution.

                  We can guess about the optimal solutions, but costs are likely to fall in the next couple of decades, with the rates of decline varying dramatically and unpredictably between various options. The one thing that’s clear is that there are solutions that are “good enough”.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Nick,

                    The charts for the past 4 years suggest wind is strong in the spring, but not so much at the winter peak in January. Solar can take care of the summer peak when it is built out by a factor of 5 or so and this would likely mean that wind output would be too high in spring if there is enough in winter, that’s ok electric rates will just be lower in spring. maybe some of the hydro can be saved for fall and winter. It would seem winter will be the place we may run short especially as more people convert to heat pumps, though better buildings with passive solar and maybe thermal storage might help. Also higher electric rates in winter may encourage people to set their thermostats lower.

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  This could be solved by overbuilding wind and solar and perhaps thermal storage, but it points to the potential need for nuclear backup (if we want to eventually eliminate fossil fuels), or we could use batteries, fuel cells, vehicle to grid, etc. We should also develop nuclear power that shuts down safely with no power and perhaps uses fuel and produces by products that are difficult to use in weapons.

                  My main objections to nuclear are based mostly on the economics. And it looks like utilities in Florida, my adopted home state, seem to agree. Nuclear makes less and less economic sense and solar and wind with large scale battery backup seem to be the most likely winners.


                  Florida Energy Company Abandons Nuclear Power Plant in Favor of Solar Farms
                  The announcement could be another nail in the coffin for American nuclear power.

                  Nuclear power is not doing well in the United States. Recently, nuclear reactor manufacturer Westinghouse declared bankruptcy, and nuclear plants under construction in South Carolina and Georgia that were planning to use Westinghouse reactors now have uncertain futures. Just this Tuesday, Duke Energy Florida announced it is ending its nuclear plant project and replacing it with solar farms.

                  Duke Energy’s project, the Levy nuclear plant, was first proposed in 2008, but quickly ran into problems and was postponed. Duke Energy spent the next few years running analyses and doing preparatory work, but construction never moved forward. After Westinghouse declared bankruptcy, the project became untenable and Duke Energy decided to switch gears.

                  Instead, the company is planning to build a 700 megawatt solar plant over the next 4 years. This won’t completely replace the proposed 2.2 gigawatt Levy plant, but it will benefit from the fact that there are fewer regulatory hoops to jump through for solar power as opposed to nuclear. Duke Energy, which is planning on pumping $6 billion into new solar panels, storage batteries, and grid infrastructure, could also conceivably build addition solar plants after the first one is complete.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Fred,

                    I guess the question is, is the battery or other types of backup cheaper than nuclear backup? I do not know the answer, my basic point is to keep all options on the table, perhaps with some research, lower cost nuclear options could be developed. Batteries are pretty expensive and hydro and pumped hydro may also be pretty expensive and locations are limited and there is often environmental damage (also the case for nuclear) all externalities should be considered when evaluating cost.

                  • JN2 says:

                    Fred/Dennis, re cheap nuclear:

                    – Arizona PV + storage $45/MWh
                    – Australia CSP + storage $62/MWh
                    – UK’s Hinkley Point nuke now at $130/MWh

                    Storage in the solar cases is measured in hours, not days or weeks. So the question becomes how much extra storage do you need and how much does it cost?

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi JN2,

                    The problem with solar may be in winter, perhaps transmission lines running from the Northern to Southern hemisphere can solve this problem, but generally the days are shorter in the winter at higher latitudes.

                    Imagine for a moment a World with only wind and solar power. Would batteries be cheaper than nuclear for backup?

                    I don’t have the answer, but England and Scotland have pretty short days in the winter.

                  • Nick G says:


                    Batteries make sense for short term variations (daily, aka diurnal). Nobody thinks they make sense to cover a week long lull in wind output in the winter.

                    Let me say that again:

                    No one (who’s seriously involved in analyzing and planning grid management strategies) is proposing batteries for long-term storage or backup.

                    The serious proposals are for things with much, much, much lower capital costs, like “wind-gas”.

                  • islandboy says:

                    Dennis, below is a screenshot of a web page from the web site http://www.gaisma.com showing some basic information and solar energy and surface meteorology for Jacksonville, Florida. The same web page shows the longest day at over fourteen hours and the shortest day at over ten hours.

                    With over 2.5 kwh/m2/day available in December a 10kW system should generate in the region of 25 kWh per day. It would probably be less costly in Florida to overbuild solar than to use the nuclear option. One problem with overbuilding solar is that the same 10kW system in Jacksonville would generate about 60 kWh per day in May and still be generating more than 50 kWh in August.

                    It would appear to me that overbuilding solar in Florida to be able to generate most of the required power in winter, would result in significant excess production in the summer months. Creative ways would need to be found to put that energy to good use. Make hay when the sun shines! (or maybe as Nick suggests, make sun-gas)

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Nick,

                    The question becomes which has lower cost?

                    So far “wind gas” is merely a concept, nobody does this at utility scale (1000 MW installation or larger) so costs are speculative.

                    I am not advocating for nuclear, I just think flexibility is the best approach to eliminate fossil fuel use as quickly as is feasible.

                    In theory a widely dispersed wind and solar supply tied together with a high voltage grid (preferably DC, but AC will work just less efficiently) that is overbuilt by 3 times average load over a large area (say Eurasia, or North America) will require very little backup, perhaps batteries, fuel cells, vehicle to grid, wind gas and pumped hydro and hydro will get the job done with no nuclear power needed. A couple of small nuclear plants just in case might be good to have, but demand pricing may be adequate.

                    The problem needs further study.

                  • Nick G says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    In general, we’re in agreement. There’s a need for a wide variety of technologies, management approaches and energy sources. Supply diversity is good, R&D is good, incentivizing all of these is good.

                    One quibble: wind-gas doesn’t depend on new technology, and costs are pretty well known: both electrolytic H2 and underground storage of H2 and CH4 are old, and proven at scale (electrolytic H2 accounts for 4% of industrial hydrogen production). Engineering cheap generation with H2 or NH3 is pretty old and well tested, and scaling it up is relatively trivial (CH4 is, of course, extremely well tested at scale).

                    The only question is whether it will be relatively cheap, or just reasonably affordable.

                    And, one more time: the study that showed that 3x overbuilding was optimal didn’t test all the possible scenarios, due to limits on computing resources. They tested batteries for both short and long-term storage, and they tested wind-gas for both short and long-term storage, but they didn’t test the combination of batteries for short term, and wind-gas for long-term storage. That’s the optimal combination, and it would sharply reduce the need for over-building.

                  • Dennis coyne says:

                    Hi islandboy

                    It may work in Florida at higher latitudes not so much.

                  • Dennis coyne says:

                    Hi Nick

                    Unless you have a peer reviewed study to back up your caim orI believe your claim is simple speculation.

                    Can you provide any links to 1000 MW wind gas facilities and their cost per kWhr?

                    I think you are speculating.

                  • Nick G says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    I think what you really mean to say is ” Nick, that seems a little general – could you point us to something quantitative, from a good source?”

                    Because what I’ve written isn’t what I’d call speculation – it’s more like simple extrapolation, as is commonly done in engineering planning studies. If you’ve built a dozen 100k bpd refineries, is it speculation to suggest that it would be straightforward to build a 500k bpd refinery, and that the costs can be estimated pretty well (with a greater risk of over-estimation than under-estimation, given economies of scale and manufacturing learning effects)?

                    But, yeah, I can see why you’d want more detail. I’ll see what I can dig up that would be most on point (there’s a lot).

                    Eulengspiegel – if you’re reading this, got anything easily available on “wind-gas”?

                  • Ulenspiegel says:

                    “Eulengspiegel – if you’re reading this, got anything easily available on “wind-gas”?”

                    Unfortunately, I have no hard data.

                    Last year there was for some time cost estimates for wind-gas on a serious German site, but it was revoved later.

                    They calculated with 6000 FLH of the reactor, with 5 cent/kWh for electricity, that one kWh methane would cost around 12 cents, i.e. they assumed 7 cents for the hardware.

                    I still have to find which costs the Fraunhofer groups used for P2G in their simulations for a 100% RE scenario.

                    Greenpeace calculated 2015 with 4000 EUR/kW generation capacity. With 8% and 8000 hours this gives 4 cent for hardware.

                    They expect >15% cost degression with each doublingof capacity. Quite optimistic. 🙂


                • Hickory says:

                  For now, I think we should focus on overbuilding wind and solar, primarily siting production in the most cost-effective locations.
                  We can keep using plenty of fossil fuel in the winter (even coal), and for select purposes for a few decades while we sort things out.

                  • Nick G says:

                    I agree. Though, we don’t need to worry about overbuilding for another 15 or 20 years – at this point we’re just building.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    The research takes time, the research should be done, technological breakthroughs don’t happen “just in time”.

                    So yes build wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro while doing research on batteries, wave, tidal, and nuclear. Don’t eliminate possibilities without further research.

                  • Nick G says:

                    I agree, Dennis.

                    In fact, I think our experience with wind & solar has shown us that we should go beyond R&D to actual building, to really make new things work.

                    Supply diversity is a very good thing.

                  • Hickory says:

                    Completely agree Dennis and Nick.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Hey Matt, according to your link over at the oily side of POB, it seems a tad ironic, that Mama Nature, might have seen fit to destroy a half million of those nice shiny new gas guzziling SUVs and PUs that Texans seem to be so fond of driving around in…


      I wonder if when all those vehicles are going to be replaced the bounce in sales and GDP will be considered as a sign of renewed economic prosperity? Then we will have the increase in GDP from all that home renovation. The future looks bright indeed!

      • Fred Magyar says:

        And the appropriate cartoon…

      • Mike says:

        Mr. Magyar, there are people displaced from their homes by the tens of thousands in Texas right now. Many are sick, feel lost and are without hope. It is a very bad situation.

        Anybody feeling the need to “politicize” a natural disaster like that which has just occurred in Texas is a sorry son of a bitch. A particularly stupid, sorry son of a bitch, I might add, when living in Florida, subject to it’s own share of natural disasters and plum full of its own SUV’s and pickups, totally reliant on Texas and Louisiana for of ALL of its hydrocarbon needs, I might add.

        Good luck next week, sir; yet another natural disaster may be headed for a neighborhood near you. In Texas we wish no ill will, nor harm towards anyone facing what we have just gone thru the past week; there is no lesson to teach, no criticism to bestow on others after the fact, no stupid, insensitive points to make from the recliner, while others suffer a great distance away. Lets hope that Georgia has something like a “Peach Navy” to come hep you folks, if you need it. If you have any gasoline shortages the next several weeks in Florida, bare with us; we’ll be back up and running wide open in no time.

        God Bless Texas.

        • HuntingtonBeach says:

          No state “politicize” a natural disaster more than Texas during hurricane Sandy.

          AP FACT CHECK: Texas GOP misstates Sandy aid package

          WASHINGTON — Texas Republicans now clamoring for federal money to aid their flood-stricken state overwhelmingly opposed a disaster relief package after Superstorm Sandy hit the East Coast in 2012. They insisted then — and have repeated in recent days — that the legislation was packed with wasteful spending.

          While the $50.7 billion package had non-Sandy money, it wasn’t as stuffed with pork-barrel spending as Sen. Ted Cruz and other Republicans have maintained.

          CHRISTIE, firing back Wednesday on CNN: “I see Senator Cruz and it’s disgusting to me that he stands in a recovery center with victims standing behind him … still repeating the same reprehensible lies about what happened in Sandy, and it’s unacceptable to me. Absolutely unacceptable.”


          Texas(climate change denier) is to the United States as a bank robber is to a bank.

          Pay back is a bitch !

        • Fred Magyar says:

          No worries Mike, my contempt for the assholes who drive those big shiny SUVs and gas guzzling PUs in Florida equals my contempt for those Texans who don’t give a rat’s ass about the the disadvantaged living near Houston. And I sure as hell don’t need you to tell me about what can and will happen in Florida probably sooner rather than later. I’ve been on the front lines providing assistance to locals during more than a few local disasters. If you really want to impress me then talk to me about how we are going to get off fossil fuels altogether! And spare me the sob stories about all the good people in the oil business whose only goal is to help their fellow countrymen! Let me know how much the Koch brothers are donating to the relief and rebuilding efforts and finding ways to help people kick their fossil fuel addiction…

          • Mike says:

            Fred, why on earth would I need to impress you? I am actually trying to embarrass you, show people what a hypocrite you are for “being on the front lines for ‘locals’ during natural disasters,” while at the same time chiding homeless Texans, living in shelters, because they drive pickup trucks and use fossil fuels. You have to admit, that’s pretty stupid. What’s next? We caused this horrible hurricane because, as your buddy says, Texas is a climate change denier state and “paybacks are a bitch?” LOL.

            I took, take, offense to your ignorant comment about Texas and wanted you to be very clear why I believe you were out of line. Regretfully it seemed to go over your head and now you are even trying to politicize that I have called you a sorry son of a bitch…I don’t know the Koch boys, never met ’em. I think they make soft drinks and I try and stay away from that stuff. We’ll all be getting off our fossil fuel addiction soon enough, even hypocrites like yourself.

            Good luck next week, sir. I hope the next one misses you altogether and everyone in Florida is safe.

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              “while at the same time chiding homeless Texans, living in shelters, because they drive pickup trucks and use fossil fuels. You have to admit, that’s pretty stupid.”

              Texan denial of climate change is as stupid as smoking cigarettes and crying woe as me, I have lung cancer.

              Stupid is as stupid does


              “I don’t know the Koch boys, never met ’em”

              Please, let me help introduce the misinformation campaign they are playing on your beloved Texas

              “Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

              The Koch Brothers have sent at least $100,343,292 directly to 84 groups denying climate change science since 1997.

              The Koch brothers continue to finance campaigns to make Americans doubt the seriousness of global warming, increasingly hiding money through nonprofits like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.”


              Denial is not a river in Egypt, it’s a hurricane in Texas

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Stupid? This, is STUPID!


              Houston calls itself “the city with no limits” to convey the promise of boundless opportunity. But it also is the largest U.S. city to have no zoning laws, part of a hands-off approach to urban planning that may have contributed to catastrophic flooding from Hurricane Harvey and left thousands of residents in harm’s way.

              Growth that is virtually unchecked, including in flood-prone areas, has diminished the land’s already-limited natural ability to absorb water, according to environmentalists and experts in land use and natural disasters. And the city’s drainage system — a network of reservoirs, bayous and, as a last resort, roads that hold and drain water — was not designed to handle the massive storms that are increasingly common.

            • Javier says:

              One of the major problems with Houston flooding is subsidence from groundwater extraction. At 7 inches at downtown, and 10 inches at the bay area it makes sea level rise a small addition and creates a huge risk to storm surges.

              The needs of a growing population for water, food and energy put a lot more strain, creating all sort of problems and a long string of consequences. Blaming people as Fred does is not useful. As subsidence cannot be reverted the solutions should concentrate on relocation and whatever must remain there should be better protected from flooding, because it will happen again, whatever we do with our energy policies.


    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      If there was a god. The message couldn’t be any clearer for the globe warming deniers.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        And I’m betting that a large number of those God fearing Texan Christians will deny their Lord and Saviour long before they accept the realities of Climate Science. Then again who knows, maybe when the next 1000 year flooding event hits them within the next decade they might start to wake up…


        Trump team politicizes superstorm Harvey by attacking scientists for doing their job
        By rejecting science, EPA and Trump ensure we’ll see many more Harveys and be unprepared for all of them.

        For several days, climate scientists have been explaining how global warming, while not the “cause” of superstorm Harvey, has worsened it. But on Tuesday, the EPA rejected those explanations, Reuters reported. “EPA is focused on the safety of those affected by Hurricane Harvey and providing emergency response support — not engaging in attempts to politicize an ongoing tragedy,” agency spokeswoman Liz Bowman said.

        JOE ROMM
        AUG 30, 2017, 4:55 PM

        • Boomer II says:

          The EPA may not want to discuss it, but it will come up in cities assessing future weather patterns and their impact on damage.

      • Javier says:

        If there was a god. The message couldn’t be any clearer for the globe warming deniers.

        And so the Church of the Global Warming spreads its message, taking advantage of the natives ignorance of natural phenomena. It must be Global Warming that is angry with us for our fossil fuel sins.

        If we hadn’t enough with spiritual religions, now we have to deal with secular ones. Same bullshit.

        • notanoilman says:

          Night-shift Javier doesn’t appear to know what secular means.


        • Survivalist says:

          Harvey is the third 500-year flood to hit the Houston area in the past three years.


          Your bullshit arguments are a joke. Take it down a couple 1000 with the comments and go take a maths class.

          • Javier says:

            Your argument is the bullshit one. NOAA keeps track of precipitation records in the USA for each time period, and the most recent one is from 1982.

            Texas is a state that holds no less of 5 such records:

            15-min, 3.95 inch, Galveston TX, 1871
            2-hr, 15.0 inch, Woodward Ranch (D’Hanis) TX, 1935
            2.75-hr, 22.0 inch, Woodward Ranch (D’Hanis) TX, 1935
            18-hr, 36.4 inch, Thrall TX, 1921
            24-hr, 43.0 inch, Alvin TX, 1979


            By conveniently forgetting the past, the Church of Global Warming is capable of claiming that the end is nigh. As any Church, it is based in lies. The Christians have been waiting the second coming and the Apocalypse for 2000 years. That’s about the time you guys can expect to wait for the warmaggedon before the next glaciation arrives.

            • Survivalist says:

              My argument? And what do you suppose my argument is doc? Not exactly captain of the debate club are you? Perhaps you could articulate what you perceive my argument to be? You’re a mathematically illiterate PhD who thinks he knows how to identify climate trends. I don’t think you know what the word ‘trend’ means. You’re an embarrassment to science.

              • Javier says:

                An embarrassment to science are the scientists that are ignoring the evidence in favor of an alarmist climate activism that is going to seriously erode the credibility of science with the general public once the alarmism turns out to be unfounded.

                You are not even worth defining. At least I am not going to bother. You even think you are debating my arguments, when you are just cult-following your AGW church.

                • Survivalist says:

                  “Javier has also resorted to another denier favorite: computing a “trend” based on a time span that’s way to short. Way too short. Ten years, from 2007 to 2016. And, in classic fashion, he omits to estimate any uncertainty with that “trend.”

                  Let’s do the math for him.

                  Using September average sea ice extent from NSIDC, and using only the data from 2007 through 2016, the estimated trend by linear regression is +18 thousand km^2 per year. Upward!!! But, the “margin of error” (95% confidence interval) for that figure is somewhere between +142 thousand km^2/yr and -105 thousand km^2/yr. Downward 🙁

                  Apparently that’s the best he could do, despite cherry-picking an extreme starting point. Of course he follows this keen trend analysis with what I can only call “mathturbation” to support a claim of trend change … and rather crude mathturbation, in my opinion.”


                  You’re a laugh Doc. What second rate dump gave you your PhD, Trump university?

                  • Javier says:

                    Go do the statistics tests on your flood claims and then come back to report.

                  • Survivalist says:

                    A 500-year flood isn’t necessarily something that happens once every five hundred years. Rather, a 500-year flood is an event that has a 1 in 500 chance of occurring in any given year. For a 500-year flood, there is a 0.2 percent chance of having a flood of that magnitude occurring.
                    Practically speaking, that means you can have multiple 500-year flood events happen essentially back-to-back. Indeed, that appears to be happening in Houston right now, with the flooding in 2015, 2016 and today.
                    The term is applied to a local area, not to the United States as a whole. So when meteorologists say the Houston is experiencing a 500-year flood, they mean there is a 1 in 500 chance of it happening in any given year in Houston.
                    You really should take a maths class at night school or something. One is drawn to wonder how you managed a PhD in biological sciences with such weak maths skills.


                  • Javier says:

                    I know perfectly well what a claim of three 500-year flood events in three years in a big area amounts to:

                    Why do 100-years events happen so often?

                    You are the one that appears to be struggling with the concept.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            German scientists from the Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar und Marine Research (AWI).produced this study published in Nature Communications. If you are not at least somewhat alarmed by the implications you are by definition delusional.


            Arctic Ocean sea ice cover during the penultimate glacial and the last interglacial

            29 August 2017
            Coinciding with global warming, Arctic sea ice has rapidly decreased during the last four decades and climate scenarios suggest that sea ice may completely disappear during summer within the next about 50–100 years. Here we produce Arctic sea ice biomarker proxy records for the penultimate glacial (Marine Isotope Stage 6) and the subsequent last interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage 5e). The latter is a time interval when the high latitudes were significantly warmer than today. We document that even under such warmer climate conditions, sea ice existed in the central Arctic Ocean during summer, whereas sea ice was significantly reduced along the Barents Sea continental margin influenced by Atlantic Water inflow. Our proxy reconstruction of the last interglacial sea ice cover is supported by climate simulations, although some proxy data/model inconsistencies still exist. During late Marine Isotope Stage 6, polynya-type conditions occurred off the major ice sheets along the northern Barents and East Siberian continental margins, contradicting a giant Marine Isotope Stage 6 ice shelf that covered the entire Arctic Ocean.

            • Javier says:


              I have to read it with more detail, thanks for the link. However the interpretation appears to be the opposite that you give it.

              “the results of our model simulations only support a pronounced reduction in summer sea ice concentration for the LIG-125 and LIG-130 runs (in both time slice as well as transient runs; Figs. 8 and 9), but also indicate that sea ice was still present in the central Arctic Ocean even under climatic conditions significantly warmer than today (Fig. 4).”

              If the study is correct, that supports what I have been saying all along. Despite the reduction observed in the period 1979-2007, Arctic sea ice isn’t going to disappear any time soon. Even the significantly warmer Eemian Arctic had summer sea ice.

              So my problem is not with the science, but with the prediction that summer Arctic sea ice is going to disappear. Right now we can’t tell as the observations can be fitted to many hypotheses. The spiral of death hypothesis has already been falsified by 10 years of no melting, but we will have to wait until 2030-2040 to distinguish between the IPCC predictions and the AMO hypothesis. If the AMO hypothesis is correct, as the data seems to support since 2007 because it is the only one that contemplates multidecadal trend changes, then I calculate an Arctic ice free by 2200. That is assuming global warming is going to continue until then. Based on other evidence global warming could end by 2100 at the latest, so Arctic sea ice is probably not going to disappear during this interglacial.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Source for your chart?

                • Javier says:

                  Hi Dennis,

                  The background is a National Climate Assessment figure here:
                  based on data from a Stroeve et al., 2012 article here:

                  Arctic sea ice data since 1935 to 1979 is from the reconstruction published by Cea Piron & Cano Pasalodos in 2016 as indicated.

                  The bibliography for the AMO model I have posted numerous times, twice in the last non-oil thread.

                  AMO model was determined by fitting non-detrended AMO data inverted to Arctic sea ice. Just the opposite of this figure I have shown several times.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:


                    Over the period from 1979 to 2016 when we have the best data the “not detrended AMO”, (aka North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature) is not statistically significant when NH Sea Ice extent is regressed against NH Land Temp and N Atlantic SST.

                    A pretty chart does not create statistical significance.

                  • Javier says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    AMO is a North Atlantic sea surface temperature index, so it is equivalent to North Atlantic SST. NH land Temp is of little importance for ice melting.

                  • notanoilman says:

                    Geees! I always used to think ice melted quicker when the environment it was in was warmer. It always seems to melt quicker in the room than in the fridge. Strange!


                  • Javier says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    There is correlation between AMO and September sea ice extent. R = -0.59

                    The correlation is slightly worse when the extent is below 5 million km2, perhaps because weather has more influence when there is little ice.

                    Obviously correlation does not imply causation, but since we talk water temperatures and ice, it is certainly plausible.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    I used GISTEMP NH land temp and North Atlantic SST (or AMO not detrended as you like to name it), when both are included in a regression vs Sept sea ice extent minimum, the AMO detrended is not statistically significant.

                    Why would northern hemisphere land temperatures be relevant? A lot of the water that flows into the Arctic is from rivers in the Northern hemisphere and the land temperature likely affects the temperature of that water. Only a small part of the North Atlantic water flows into the Arctic, most of the warmer North Atlantic water flows towards Europe then heads south. Perhaps that is why the North Altlantic SST is less important than you believe for Northern hemisphere sea ice extent. The empirical evidence does not support your hypothesis.

                  • Javier says:

                    The empirical evidence does not support your hypothesis.

                    Not my hypothesis. It is Miles et al., 2014 hypothesis, and their paper is full of evidence going back centuries.

                    You criticize the hypothesis yet you refuse to read it. Not a very scientific position.

                    A signal of persistent Atlantic multidecadal variability in Arctic sea ice
                    M.W. Miles et al. 2014. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 463–469.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    Yes I read that paper. The data is not for the Arctic Sea ice as a whole and the older data is not very good and I don’t have access to the data set.

                    Over the period when we have good data (1979-2016) the hypothesis that the September sea ice minimum correlates with North Atlantic Sea Surface temperatures is not supported by the data.

                    There is an alternative hypothesis that Northern hemisphere sea ice extent is determined by Northern hemisphere land temperatures.

                    When these two competing ypotheses are tested by doing a simple linear regression of annual North Atlantic SST and annual Northern Hemisphere land temperature vs Sept NH Sea Ice extent, the NH land temperature is statistically significant at the 90% confidence level (t stat more than 2) and N Atlantic SST is not significant (t stat less than 2).

                    So perhaps Miles et al are wrong. As you like to point out, just because something has been published does not make it correct.

                    The AMO is significant for Global Land Ocean temperature and Global land temperatures, but for NH Sea ice extent it seems to be a second order effect relative to NH land temperature.

                    I also considered NH SST and NH Land Temp vs NH sea ice extent.

                    Surprisingly NH Land temp was statistically significant and NH SST was not.

            • Javier says:

              Also, from the same authors there was this other article on sea ice this year using the same proxies.

              Stein, Ruediger, et al. “Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific‐Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean).” Journal of Quaternary Science 32.3 (2017): 362-379.

              It has this figure of Holocene sea ice condition at core ARA2B-1A located at 73°N in Chukchi Sea. While it is unclear to me where the present situation lies in that figure, it is very clear that we have now a significant seasonal ice-cover, as winter ice gets to the other side of the Behring Strait every winter. As it can be seen, Arctic sea ice there was significantly reduced (non-seasonal) up to 4.5 Kyr ago.

              It is clear that we are nowhere near Holocene Climate Optimum conditions, nor are we ever going to reach them again within this interglacial.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Javier,

                It’s a good thing you know better than the experts. Current temperatures are above HCO average global temperatures (which were on average about 0.35 C above the 1961-1990 mean temperature.) It is unlikely we will see the average temperature of the past 30 years of 0.64 C above the 1961-1990 mean decrease by 0.3 C over the next 4000 years.

                So your assumption that we will not see less ice than during the HCO may well be incorrect based on the science currently known.

                Note that the simple CASA model (Carbon, Amo, enSo, and Aerosol) includes several hypotheses and uses the Global temperature data from 1871 to 2011 and linear regression to determine the relative strengths of these various effects using statistics.

                The assertion that the carbon in the atmosphere has little effect is not borne out by the data.

                The TCR for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is about 2.1 C for this simple model using global land ocean temperature, if we use global land only temperature we can roughly estimate ECS (as the thermal lag of the ocean is reduced by excluding sea surface temperature aka SST).

                For the CASA land model the TCR is 3.16 C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and the rate of increase (using a linear trend) in global land temperature over the past 30 years from both model and data is about 2.75 C per 100 years. Note that I tried including total solar irradiance in the land model and it did not show statistical significance at the 90% confidence level (t stat less than 2) while all other independent variables (C, AMO, ENSO, and Aerosols) had t stats for the regression of 4.55 or higher (C-17.5, AMO-7.4, SOI-4.55, Aero-5.24, TSI-1.77). R squared was 0.900 for the CASA land model.

                • Javier says:

                  Hi Dennis,

                  Current temperatures are above HCO average global temperatures

                  No they are not.
                  I dealt with this issue at length in my article:
                  Instead of copying the entire section here, if you are interested you can follow the link and run a search for “The issue of Holocene temperatures” that will get you to the relevant section. Bibliography is linked in an annex at the end of the article.

                  You are just using a controversial article to adopt the wrong position in this issue. Plenty of articles show different.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    You will need to present another peer reviewed article that gives a Global estimate of HCO temperatures. The Marcott paper is not controversial in mainstream science.

                    Blog pieces don’t count.

                  • Javier says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    All these papers contradict aspects of the Marcott et al., 2013 article:

                    “Berke, M.A. et al. 2012. A mid-Holocene thermal maximum at the end of the African Humid Period. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 351, 95-104.

                    Gagan, M.K. et al. 1998. Temperature and surface-ocean water balance of the mid-Holocene tropical western Pacific. Science 279, 5353, 1014-1018.

                    Holmgren, K. et al. 2003. Persistent millennial-scale climatic variability over the past 25,000 years in Southern Africa. Quaternary Science Reviews 22, 21, 2311-2326.

                    Koch, J. et al. 2014. Alpine glaciers and permanent ice and snow patches in western Canada approach their smallest sizes since the mid-Holocene, consistent with global trends. The Holocene 24,12, 1639-1648.

                    Kullman, L. 2001. 20th century climate warming and tree-limit rise in the southern Scandes of Sweden. Ambio: A journal of the Human Environment 30, 2, 72-80.

                    Leduc, G. et al. 2010. Holocene and Eemian sea surface temperature trends as revealed by alkenone and Mg/Ca paleothermometry. Quaternary Science Reviews, 29, 7, 989-1004.

                    MacDonald, G.M. et al. 2000. Holocene treeline history and climate change across northern Eurasia. Quaternary Research 53, 3, 302-311.

                    Pisaric, M.F.J. et al. 2003. Holocene treeline dynamics in the mountains of northeastern British Columbia, Canada, inferred from fossil pollen and stomata. The Holocene 13, 2, 161-173.

                    Porter, S.C. 2000. Onset of neoglaciation in the Southern Hemisphere. Journal of Quaternary Science 15, 4, 395-408.

                    Renssen, H. et al. 2012. Global characterization of the Holocene thermal maximum. Quaternary Science Reviews 48, 7-19.

                    Rosenthal, Y. et al. 2013. Pacific ocean heat content during the past 10,000 years. Science, 342, 6158, 617-621.

                    Shevenell, A.E. et al. 2011. Holocene Southern Ocean surface temperature variability west of the Antarctic Peninsula. Nature 470, 7333, 250-254.

                    Stott, L. et al. 2004. Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch. Nature 431, 7004, 56-59.

                    Thompson, L.G. et al. 2006. Abrupt tropical climate change: Past and present. PNAS 103, 10536-10543.

                    Thouret, J.-C. et al. 1996. Paleoenvironmental changes and glacial stades of the last 50,000 years in the Cordillera Central, Colombia. Quaternary Research 46, 1, 1-18.

                    Tinner, W. et al. 1996. Treeline fluctuations recorded for 12,500 years by soil profiles, pollen, and plant macrofossils in the Central Swiss Alps. Arctic and Alpine Research 28, 2, 131-147.

                    Werne, J.P. et al. 2000. Climate‐induced variations in productivity and planktonic ecosystem structure from the Younger Dryas to Holocene in the Cariaco Basin, Venezuela. Paleoceanography 15, 1, 19-29.”

                    The list is by no means exhaustive. I wonder what their authors think of Marcott et al., 2013 saying something different. I have read all of them. I know you have read at least the Rosenthal article and it caused you a good impression. So why don’t you ask yourself: If sea surface temperatures change less than land surface temperatures, and tropical temperatures change less than mid-high latitude temperatures, how is it possible that Marcott et al. are correct with a change of only 0.7°C when Rosenthal et al. find changes of 1.5-2°C? The answer is simple. Marcott et al. assortment of proxies is biased. An issue dealt in depth by Steve McIntyre.

                  • Hightrekker says:

                    Climate Deniers, You’re Climate Deniers–Deal with It

                    The Freuds wrote the playbook, and you’re following it to the letter


                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    Other than Marcott et al 2013, there is no other Global estimate of Holocene temperature during the HCO.

                    Yes some papers have questioned Marcott’s estimate, mostly whether there estimate for the HCO is too high for Global temperature, due to seasonal biases in the proxies.

                    The Steve MacIntyre nonsense is mostly about the recent part of the Marcott estimate for the past 350 years.

                    Not an important part of the work, the important part is up to about 1000 BP, there are plenty of other studies that have covered the past 1600 years.

                  • Javier says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    That there is only one published article reconstructing global temperatures doesn’t mean that it is correct or that we should stick with it. It is indeed an indication that the task is very difficult (we are not even sure what the global average temperature is now), and therefore little confidence should be placed in the work.

                    Steve McIntyre has put forward evidence that there are serious problems with Marcott et al., 2013 proxy assortment. He is not the only one. Stating that confidence on the older parts of the assortment should not be affected is a little disingenuous.

                    Rud Istvan demonstrated scientific misconduct by comparing Marcott’s thesis with Marcott’s article here:

                    The authors had to state that the results that gave rise to the blade were not to be trusted to end the controversy. In most cases something like this would have cause Science journal to request a formal correction or retract, but not in this case.

                    So what is not to like from Marcott et al., 2013? I don’t think much credibility can be attached to that work.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    The original paper said the more recent estimates were not robust. The criticisms made by bloggers were much ado about nothing in my opinion.

                    So you seem to agree there is not another global estimate of temperature during the HCO. Yes you might be correct that the estimate is not perfect (I would be surprised if this was not the case).

                    Your claim that there are many peer reviewed estimates of Global temperature during the HCO that are different from the Marcott at al estimate seems to be incorrect.

                    When you have a peer reviewed paper with a different estimate, let me know.

                    In the mean time, an article in Science trumps blog posts in my view.

                    Is the Pacific Ocean the Globe? Not on my planet. 🙂

                  • Javier says:


                    The global average is just the add up of the zonal averages, and there are plenty of disagreements with each and everyone of the zonal averages of Marcott et al., in the literature that I have posted.

                    If the zonal averages are wrong, it is very unlikely that the global average can be right. Your excuse of not having another global average is just that.

                    If the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool changed by more than 1.5°C there is no way in hell the entire planet could have changed by only 0.7°C. They contradict each other.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    Sure it can, one area can cool while another warms. It is the Global average we are interested in.

                    Yes it is a tricky business to try to get all the different proxies to line up and the Marcott estimate does not resolve at better that 100 year intervals due to smoothing of the estimate by their monte carlo procedure.

                    There is a great deal of uncertainty in these estimates, Marcott et al 2013 is just the best global temperature estimate we have for dates earlier than 1500 BP in my opinion. The peer reviewed literature in most cases suggests that the Marcott estimate for the HCO global temperature is if anything too high rather than too warm.

                  • Javier says:

                    Sure it can, one area can cool while another warms.

                    No it can’t. We know very well that the tropics change their temperature less than the global average, while the poles change their temperatures more than the global average. The global average change is between the tropical change and the polar change. Under no circumstance could the global average change less than the tropical average. That would mean that the tropics were changing their temperature more than the poles, and that is physically impossible, as the Earth’s meridional temperature gradient is steeper the colder the planet is.

                • Hightrekker says:

                  Hint– This has nothing to do with climate change or facts.

                • Dennis coyne says:

                  Those papers do not give averages for entire tropical zones over the entire globe for the entire Holocene.

                  A couple of warm areas over a few years in some parts of the tropics is not enough.

              • Hightrekker says:

                The physics doesn’t care

                The age of paid debate is over , the age of costs is here.

                • Dennis coyne says:

                  Those papers do not give averages for entire tropical zones over the entire globe for the entire Holocene.

                  A couple of warm areas over a few years in some parts of the tropics is not enough.

                  Also we have two papers with different results in 2013.

                  Perhaps SST changed more in the tropics during the HCO in the area studied by Rosenthal et al.
                  There is a lot of uncertainty in the proxy data.

                  Using more of the data tends to reduce the uncertainty.
                  Marcott et al chose a very extensive set of data.

  4. OFM says:


    It’s impossible for me to even guess how much the efficiency of solar cells can be improved as a PRACTICAL matter, but it sounds like this new cell tech can be manufactured on existing equipment, with some modifications.

    If it can be commercialized and mass marketed, the sky’s the limit, in terms of cutting back on the purchase and use of coal and gas as generating fuels.

    I keep hoping to run across some good data on how much the ever increasing use of wind and solar electricity affects the price of coal and gas, but so far I haven’t found it.

    But my opinion is that the loss of market share is enough that the actual market prices of both coal and gas have declined significantly, as predicted by elementary level economic theory.

    It’s possible, maybe even likely, that we are collectively saving enough DIRECTLY, as a society, on the purchase of gas and coal for ALL purposes combined, to more than offset what we spend on subsidizing wind and solar electricity.Let’s not forget that we use gas to manufacture all sorts of industrial chemicals, such as nitrate fertilizers, and for heating our homes, etc.

    And of course coal is still a critical input in the manufacture of steel, which is still the most important metal, economically.

    If I can come up with proof for this speculation, it will be a KILLER argument for subsidizing the wind and solar industries, because EVERYBODY benefits, whereas the only losers are the owners and employees of the coal and gas industries.

    This is the sort of argument that can make environmentalists out of big R Republicans, who will of course brag about ingenuity and the power of the markets, while conveniently forgetting about the fact that nearly all of them opposed the subsidies that allowed the wind and solar industries to grow up decades sooner than otherwise.

    And there’s THIS , which might be even better.


    PSC ‘s are probably going to be cheaper, once scaled up, and their energy payback period is less than a year.

    But with the so called balance of system costs being greater than the cost of the actual cells, it’s hard to say which type of cell will dominate in the end.
    I’m not seeing much, so far, on the life expectancy of PSC’s.

    • sunnnv says:

      OFM: “…but it sounds like this new cell tech can be manufactured on existing equipment, with some modifications.”

      Abstract of the DOI in “More information” of the article link you posted: “… Here, we show that dual-junction III–V//Si devices with mechanically stacked, independently operated III–V and Si cells…”

      III-V refers to compound semiconductors, they further mention GaInP (gallium indium phosphide) and GaAS (gallium arsenide). Semiconductor guys have kept using the old periodic table notation, so group III are the elements to the left of the carbon column, group V just to the right. Combined, they make semiconductors.

      Silicon is the 2nd most abundant element in the earth’s crust, indium is sub-parts-per-million, and is only available as a byproduct of zine and copper ores. Gallium is not as rare, but same story with availability.

      Silicon is mechanically fairly strong, and easily reduced from quartzite or certain sands.
      It it fairly easy to grow into ingots or mono-crystals.

      GaAs is mechanically brittle, and the complicated crystal growth means a GaAs wafer is 100x – 1000x more expensive than silicon. Nope, can’t use existing silicon PV equipment. GaAs cells have their junctions formed by CVD (Chemical Vapor Deposition) or ion implant.

      Because they talk of mechanically stacked solar cells, that means the GaAs part has to be thick enough (e.g. expensive) to be self supporting. GaAs could be grown by CVD on the silicon wafer, but because of crystal lattice mismatch, will be too defective to be efficient.

      This paper is essentially academic logrolling, and efficiency record bragging.
      The last part of the abstract gives the game up:
      “… However, techno-economic analysis reveals an order-of-magnitude disparity between the costs for III–V//Si tandem cells and conventional Si solar cells, which can be reduced if research advances in low-cost III–V growth techniques and new substrate materials are successful.”

      Unless you can make the stuff way cheaper, it doesn’t matter so much about the efficiency.
      Silicon solar modules are available with efficiencies in the 15-22 % range, as efficient as gasoline engines, with free fuel. A U.S. house is typically 30 kWh/day electricity usage (which could decreased greatly). At 20 % capacity factor, and AirMass 1.5 standard spectrum of 1 kW of light/square meter, most any house with an unshaded roof can power itself.
      24 hours/day * .2 (capacity factor) = 4.8 hours/day full sun.
      30 kWh/day / 4.8 hours/day = 6.25 kW PV power
      take a cheap 15% module, that means 150 watts/square meter.
      6.25 kW / 150 W/m^2 = 41.6 m^2
      Call that 4 meters x 10.42 meters, that’s 13.12 feet x 34.19 feet covered by modules.
      How big is your roof?
      Or maybe you’d like a gazebo or carport or a shady spot for some horses?

      re Perovskites: They are very moisture sensitive and somewhat temperature sensitive in terms of their crystalline structure (which changes the bandgap thus efficiency). No long term stability has been demonstrated yet, whereas there are old crystalline silicon modules (30-40 years) that are still working fairly well.

      The study also uses old comparison Life Cycle Analysis data published in 2010 for silicon modules, which have improved greatly since then.

      The study your posted link quotes is open-access, you may wish to browse it, seems fairly well written (though I noticed a few mistakes).

      • OFM says:

        HI Sunnnv,

        Thanks for your highly informative reply. I’m as lost as a kid in the woods when it comes to the actual details of solar cell manufacture and operation, and know only what I read in the popular press about how well they work and last.

        Every once in a while I post a comment similar to yours, in that mine is based on real knowledge, thus enabling me to point out the nut case arguments made in favor of vertical farming and that sort of foolishness.

        It’s not that vertical farming can’t WORK, technically. It’s just that except in a few special cases, it’s entirely uneconomic at this time, and likely to remain uneconomic,except for a few niche products in niche physical localities that can be sold at premium and super premium prices direct from producer to consumer.

        It looks as if perovskite cells are overhyped for now at least. Maybe they WILL be a better deal than silicon at some future time,maybe not.

  5. OFM says:

    I’ve been saying the same thing, all along , for a LONG time now.

    “The public debate around climate change is no longer about science—it’s about values, culture, and ideology”

    Our environmental problems are as much or more about CULTURE WAR as anything, at least in terms of finding solutions to them.

    It behooves people who are well informed environmentally to think a little about whether they can win over more voters to the environmental camp by backing off on making fun of the culture of the conservative faction of the people of the USA.

    Political solidarity, as manifested in group identity politics, trumps plain old facts, when it comes to the way people VOTE.

    There are ways to win the culture war, or simply side step it, if we are willing to exploit them.

    I spent a couple of hours this afternoon at the Red Hill Farm Country Club, which consists of a daily gathering about two pm of six or so redneck old country boys, all of them retired farmers, factory hands, construction guys, with only one of us, namely yours truly, possessed of any scientific education worth mentioning. I’m the only university graduate in the lot.

    These guys all own guns, but they give them about the same amount of thought as they do their lawnmowers, or their fishing poles, they’re not gun nuts. Some of them go rabbit hunting once or twice a year. They honor their religious culture more in the breach than in actual observation, being confirmed sinners, and they are about as ignorant of the larger world as an illiterate Chinese peasant. They mostly vote Republican of course.

    Now HERE’s something to think about.

    The conversation turned to our various health issues, of which we have plenty, all of us being older guys.

    So I point out that any doctor or nurse will tell you that a good third of our health problems are associated with eating a crappy diet, with tons of salt and sugar, lots of highly processed foods, etc, and that’s HALF of why we are all worried about diabetes, strokes, heart attacks, and so forth.

    And then I point out that those same doctors and nurses will tell you that ANOTHER third our epidemic health troubles have to do with a lack of regular exercise.

    And ya know WHAT? Every body agreed with me, with the rest of the guys pointing out that our own mothers and fathers and grandparents mostly all lived into their eighties and nineties, excepting the ones who died in accidents, with hardly any problems at all of the sort that are plaguing US. And this is true of course. The tombstones out on the hill right across from my farm prove it. Our old folks lived simpler lives, they got LOTS of exercise, TOO MUCH in most cases, actually, and they ate simpler, wholesome foods, produced on their own farms for the most part, and cooked at home.

    But start talking about the government TELLING you what you ought to eat, and right away you start hearing about goddamned democrats wanting to run your life for you, or shut down your farm, or force you to pay thousands extra for a new car, or give away your tax money to immigrants and people overseas, or pay some atheist to put a cross in a jar of piss and call it art, or collect your guns, etc etc etc.

    There’s a TON of common ground, which is ripe for exploitation, if the nose in the air holier than thou environmentalist camp is willing to give up the condescension and ill considered humor.

    If you guys who make fun of such people were to talk about women the way you talk about conservatives or religious people, you couldn’t get a date in a whore house with a roll of hundred dollar bills.

    Ya want to win elections ? Or show each other how smart you are?

    • Hightrekker says:

      Don’t want to win elections.
      The neural pathways are seared into the meme infested hosts by those cultural parasites.
      Reformist politics is dead— your not turning this industrial economy around.
      The Titanic has a destiny to fill.

    • Nick G says:


      I agree – respectful listening and sharing is a better way.

      On the other hand, let’s be clear: “liberals” didn’t start the culture wars. They were created and fueled by right wing media that is spreading vast amounts of misinformation in order to make their audiences scared and angry.

      And, “liberals” aren’t the PRIMARY source of the continuing fuel. It’s still the right wing media, which if it can’t find stuff to make “liberals” look bad, will just make it up. Most republicans still believe that Obama wasn’t born in the US…

      • OFM says:

        You simply AMAZE me, sometimes, Nick

        Now let me get this straight, correct me if I’m wrong.

        We HAD a culture here, lets call it the leave it to beaver culture, for simplicity’s sake. Call it whatever you like.

        And then some people, call them whatever you like, decided they didn’t like the old culture, and started doing everything they could to destroy it, and replace it with a new one to their liking.

        And then the followers of the OLD culture decide FUCK NO, we don’t HAVE TO TAKE THIS, we are going to fight for our own existing culture.

        Now ONCE AGAIN…………….. WHO started the culture war, Nick? The people who wanted change, and got it thru the courts? Or the people who wanted things to stay the same? And elected Trump, and the Republicans who are in control, taken all around, of this country?

        I will take this opportunity to remind those who want to change things OVERNIGHT, figuratively speaking, that when you ram something down the throat or up the backside of just about ANYBODY, they WILL FIGHT BACK……… anyway they can.

        In this country, the fighting is done primarily at the ballot box. Those of us who didn’t like the old culture bypassed the ballot box, and went to the courts for the changes we wanted, and got most or at least a very large portion of them.

        The people who don’t LIKE these changes, taken as a whole, have been fighting back at the ballot box, and you see the results………..

        Now I will be the LAST person to argue that self serving bankster types don’t manipulate the political process to further their own ends………….

        But it takes either a fool or a poorly informed person to REALLY believe that most of the people in this country who believe in ” conservative ” values have REALLY been duped by the Koch brothers and their ilk.

        NO, NO , NO.

        They believed the same things before the fucking Koch brothers were BORN.

        Now this is not to say I particularly like or want to defend the older so called conservative values. I married a Jewish woman, I have been a member of three or four different labor union type organizations, I used to be a card carrying ACLU type, I smoked pot, marched in some protests, not many times, and mostly because I was marching with a hot girl, to be honest, lol.

        I do however understand and respect people who think and believe differently, because I KNOW ENOUGH about them and their LIVES to understand WHY they think and believe as they do. They are wrong about a lot of things, FACTUAL things, but their thinking and beliefs are generally rational, given the information and the experiences they have available to them.

        I don’t let my prejudices, either way, blind me to obvious facts. Or at least I try to avoid allowing this to happen.

        Note that if you wonder where I actually STAND on these values, I’m a committed Sanders political animal, old HB not withstanding.

        Every time you insult conservative people the way you are prone to do, week after week, you are doing YOUR part to keep the R’s in power, and the Koch brothers in tall cotton. You’re providing ammo for the Kock bothers, Brother.

        I insult liberals LIBERALLY, pun intended, but I have a REASON to do so. I’m trying to get them to THINK about their mistakes, and conduct themselves in ways that enhance their chances of solving the ONE super critical problem facing us……….. the environmental problem.

        Everything else is a trivial academic problem. The environment is literally do or die.

        HARDLY ANYBODY is ever willing to stand up for ANYTHING , or condemn ANYTHING, if doing so conflicts with his good standing within his cultural group.

        This forum is populated with technically literate people who have at least a fair measure of everyday common sense, except their common sense goes out the window if any argument or fact doesn’t mesh satisfactorily with their political prejudices.

        Hence we all talk about reducing the population, and the Earth being finite, and how we need to preserve the environment, etc…………. but nary a word will you ever hear hear about limiting immigration into this country, or Western Europe, although it’s as obvious as the sun at noon that there’s no way in hell we can allow enough immigrants into this country to MATTER, in terms of what’s happening and what is GOING TO HAPPEN, globally.

        What we MIGHT do , is to allow enough immigrants into the country to buy ourselves such a political backlash that it will make Trump look like a statesman, with the country REALLY going to war with itself internally.

        I don’t mind admitting a few tens of thousands of real refugees annually, or even a million kids, who will likely melt into our own culture, such as it is.

        My intent is to point out that the issue is not even DISCUSSED, CANNOT be discussed, due to the forum membership being gagged by it’s own political prejudices. Nobody, myself included, wants to be accused of supporting Trump, etc.

        We could in principle easily solve our our environmental problems except for ONE primary reason………. the culture war. We know what needs to be done, and pretty much HOW do it.

        If I have ever come up with one more or less original sentence that means anything, it’s that the most unfortunate thing that has happened to us in recent times is that the environmental issue has gotten to be inextricably intertwined with the culture war issue, with the result being that we are at high risk of actually suffering economic and ecological collapse.

  6. Fred Magyar says:

    Fun little tidbit of news:

    On Galveston Island, there is the Galveston National Laboratory, which is part of the University of Texas Medical Branch. This laboratory contains some of the most deadly biological agents found in the known world, many of them of the airborne variety. It contain several Bio-Safety Level 4 labs, which are basically the places where plagues are studied. And here’s the thing, as HuffPost explains—nobody knows what’s going on there at the moment:

    There has been almost no news from Galveston as journalists have reported being blocked from reaching the island because of severe flooding. There has been no reporting at all on the condition of the lab. A call to the laboratory on Tuesday immediately went to voicemail.

    Here’s a professor with some happy news.

    But the generators run on fuel that would have to be replenished. It is not known if the lab is accessible to emergency crews to refuel the generators, which are stored on the roof, according to the 2008 Times piece. “As I see it the existential problem is this: What happens if and when the fuel for the back-up generators runs out?” asked University of Illinois professor Francis Boyle, an expert in biological weapons. “The negative air pressure that keeps (the) bugs in there ends. And (the) bugs can then escape.”

    Hey, I guess the good news is there will not be a nuclear melt down…


    South Texas Project nuclear plant running despite Harvey
    Timothy Gardner
    3 MIN READ
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The two nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project plant near Houston were operating at full capacity on Tuesday, a spokesman for the plant said, as watchdog groups called for the facility to shut due to Tropical Storm Harvey.

    Anyone want to remind us of all the negative environmental consequences of wind and solar?

    • George Kaplan says:



      “The Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, is going to explode any day now, the CEO of the organic-chemical company said Wednesday. On Tuesday, all of the plant’s workers were sent home, residents within 1.5 miles of the plant were evacuated, and a nearby stretch of highway was shut down after the plant was inundated with water from Hurricane Harvey and the subsequent flooding.”

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Since your post it has exploded… Wonder what other nasty surprises will be uncovered over the next few days and weeks?

        • George Kaplan says:

          Black mould – it’s horrendous if you just go away for a couple of weeks’ vacation, what happens if you leave an abandoned house steeping in the damp without A/C for a couple of months I hate to think, I guess there is a bit of relief in that temperatures are slightly lower than average at the moment.

    • Javier says:

      Hi Fred,

      That’s terrible. I wonder what took them to build a security 4 lab in a low lying area that is prone to flooding. As I said Galveston has the US record for more precipitation in a 15 minute period with 3.95 inches in 1871. That’s 100 liters per sq. meter! I worked at a security 4 lab for a period of months and I know how they function. This is in line with the mistake made at the design of Fukushima nuclear plant and protection measures. The same principle that applies to the real state market applies here: location, location, location.

      In any case the nasties are not kept only by negative pressure. They are very safely stored when nobody is working with them and the environment is kept clean with strong UV radiation. Even if the lights go out none will escape. In fact many might die within their vials when the refrigerators stop working. As usual the article tries to raise alarm by giving partial information. To me the real danger is that somebody could access the lab and steal some of the samples for some nefarious purpose.

    • Hightrekker says:

      This was a problem even with Ivan.
      I was wandering if it had been addressed.
      I follow virology news, and it is often mentioned in the papers.

  7. OFM says:

    I might have posted something about this previously, but at any rate, the FBI probe into Trump’s business dealings appears to be gathering quite a bit of steam, and so far as I can see, there’s really not a hell of a lot Trump can do about it.


    Career people who make it to the top in law enforcement are occasionally political hacks without much in the way of ethics, but that sort usually doesn’t get past chief of police or maybe a state attorney general’s office.
    I’m not much of a fan of big government, or big ANYTHING, for that matter, but I do have a great deal of respect for the OVERALL high standards of the FBI, and people like Mueller are far far more likely to be concerned about their place in history, at his age, than about any further advancement, or more money, or just about anything else.

    The odds of Trump having to resign, or being forced out, are looking better from one month to the next, in my estimation, and are now at at least fair.

    Everybody except a few idiots, of the sort that never actually read anything except maybe the sports page, knows that Trump is a crook from his earliest days, although it must be admitted that he is a GOOD ENOUGH crook that he hasn’t been CAUGHT and CONVICTED……… so far.

    But he CAN’T pardon anybody prosecuted under state law, lol.

    And Republicans in districts that are even remotely competitive are necessarily looking at turning on him, considering the information coming out these days.

    • Boomer II says:

      I can’t think of any group or entity he’s good for other than hate groups. Nothing he has done so far has been good for businesses. The GOP would be better served by a different president. The military is doing okay in that most control has been given to Mattis. But the military doesn’t need Trump in office to move forward. He can’t do much for fossil fuels so it doesn’t much matter what he says. He may try to stifle climate change talks, but that doesn’t really help businesses or citizens.

      Most of the traditional conservative/business groups are far more likely to benefit from a president who has an overall strategy than just playing to a base that isn’t likely to create more jobs.

  8. Cats@Home says:

    Hurricane Harvey: Nothing That We Didn’t Know
    Joe Bastardi · Aug. 30, 2017


    The development of Harvey and the pattern that caused it to stall were all on the table well beforehand for those who looked. However, if you did not look, or you were unaware of previous metrics of strength, then you would fall for the arguments that this is part of climate change. All those other storms continued moving, so they went inland and died as they got further away from the ocean source. Because either a warmer than normal or normal pattern steered them that way. Harvey stalled because of a pattern that has happened before, was on the charts, and involved the opposite of arguments that would lead to a warming conclusion. The stalling of the storm was key since lesser storms that have stalled in Texas history have dumped almost as much, the most notable Tropical Storm Amelia in 1978, a mere tropical storm that dumped 48 inches of rain. Naturally, a stronger stalled storm would dump more, but what stalled the storm was not a result of climate change but a well-known, well-forecasted pattern. 
 So if the 1935 Labor Day hurricane — the most powerful storm to be recorded hitting the US, a storm that went from a tropical storm to a Cat 5 in 36 hours — occurs again, why would it be climate change now, but not then?

    If the 1938 storm comes back — a storm that took down two billion board feet of trees in New England, had major river floods in western New England, flooded Providence with 13 feet of water in a storm surge, and had a wind gust of 186 mph at blue hill — occurs again, why would it be climate change now, but not then?

    If Donna of 1960 showed up again — with hurricane force winds in every state from Florida to Maine, never recorded before or since in U.S. history — why would it be climate change now, but not then?

    I can go on and on with countless storms.

    The answer: It is nature doing what nature does. And coming out after the storm and claiming it’s something else reveals either ignorance of the past or, if you do know, an agenda based on deception. If I saw the people commenting on this now making a preseason forecast, or even five days before when the obsession was the eclipse, then perhaps I would be more open to those ideas. But telling people why after the what is Monday morning agenda-based quarterbacking. Perhaps that is the lesson of Harvey.

  9. Survivalist says:

    With climate change, today’s ‘100-year floods’ may happen every three to 20 years, according to new research.


    • Javier says:

      Or not. Climate alarmists are always inventing horror stories that never come to pass. In the US no major hurricane in 12 years and the first one is due to climate change. Ridiculous.

      • Survivalist says:

        Thanks for coming out Doc

        “there are some indications that we may see fewer TCs overall, but an increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest ones.”


        Critical thinking


        • Javier says:

          What indications? IPCC says there is nothing.

          • Survivalist says:

            Read the article short bus. Look into it. See if you can figure it out all by yourself. If you can’t, here’s a link where you can direct your questions and inane blather:


            • Javier says:


              You should get over your challenged upbringing and stop insulting people. You are just insulting anybody that posts anything that is skeptical of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Is it only in this blog where you behave with such bad manners? Otherwise your social life must stink.

              I personally don’t care. But that you greet people that for the first time post links to opinion articles, or post their own opinion, with insults, is a problem for the blog. And others have started to imitate your behavior. What a gang. It is not a problem to me, but it is a problem to the blog. No self-respecting blog or forum allows constant insults and attacks by certain participants.

              And actually I do understand your behavior. You belong to a creed that is in serious trouble. Reality shows it has no basis. IPCC does not support most alarmism. The science is contradictory. Temperatures go down after the big El Niño. Arctic sea ice refuses to melt further year after year. To defend a creed in danger you show aggressive behavior, attacking and insulting anybody that contradicts it. Your behavior is just another symptom of the problems of your creed and the weakness of your character.

              • Survivalist says:

                “I personally don’t care” – Javier

                Given the miles of inane blather that you type into the comments section here I’d suggest you do care, a great deal. You can’t stop thinking about it. Day and night by the looks of it. You are free to hit the x button anytime short bus. However I suspect you won’t, as you need the attention and the conflict. You are quite simply incapable of shutting up.

                • Javier says:

                  I do care about the science of climate change. It is one of the most interesting scientific problems of our time. I believe the evidence has been interpreted with a bias that has only been reinforced with time, and that the most favored hypothesis is incorrect and the contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to global warming has been overestimated.

                  What I don’t give a hoot is about you, your beliefs, your insults and your attacks. I don’t even care what your problem is. I have several people X’d. I suppose they know because I don’t answer to them ever. They are the people who have nothing of interest to say and contribute nothing except noise to the thread.

                  That I post climate information and I am answered by a litany of insults and attacks can be considered a victory. That is what I have reduced you to. And that I can ignore that is a plus.

    • Hightrekker says:

      Even 500 year floods happen now on a almost yearly basis, at least for Texas.

  10. Survivalist says:

    MIT’s Kerry Emanuel on climate and stronger hurricanes.


  11. Survivalist says:

    Tropical tidbits


    Irma is a cat 3

    • Javier says:

      What do you mean two decades earlier? Robert Malthus made his prediction in 1798. We are already 22 decades later (and counting).

      • Survivalist says:

        You might have noticed I didn’t write the article. So “I” don’t mean anything. It’s a link I posted. Duh!
        Quarter to 4 in the morning in Spain and still going stupid strong.
        Must be on the night shift at the sock puppet centre. And off his meds.

        • Javier says:

          So you put the phrase and the link, but you don’t agree… You are the one with a mental problem.

          • Survivalist says:

            It’s called a quote. I took a quote from the article and posted it with a link to the article. This is done so it may help lurkers here decide whether or not they are interested in reading the article. You feel this meets the necessary and sufficient criteria for a mental disorder? Maybe you should offer to rewrite the DSM. I’m sure the APA is just dying to hear what you have to say on the matter of mental illness. You clearly have some sort of binary opposition, conflict seeking and attention seeking personality disorder. And a political agenda to argue against climate change with flimsiest of ideas. You clearly don’t understand the first thing about statistics, math and how to measure the uncertainty of trends and data. Yet you come here day after day trying to pass yourself off as a scientist. You are a sock puppet, and not a very effective one. Your predictions have all been total failures. Why should anybody take seriously the inane blather of someone with such a profound record of failed predictions?

            • Javier says:

              Excuse me. I don’t try to pass myself as anything. I have always said I am not a climatologist, and the only thing I do is display climate information, mostly coming from peer reviewed published studies.

              The only problem is with people like you that can’t accept that science is not as certain as they think it is about the dangers of climate change. You are the one with a problem. Not me. If the evidence shows I am wrong, I will happily change my view and become concerned about climate change, as I am concerned about other things. If the evidence shows you are wrong, what will you do? I can tell you, you will deny the evidence. When people start to call names you can diagnose their exact problem. People that feel superior are clearly inferior. People that call others stupid are not very intelligent. People that call others deniers are more than willing to deny the evidence they don’t like.

              Instead of debating about climate change you are trying hard to bring this down to a mud fight, and you are being allowed to do that. The problem is that you are the one that is coming out as a mud-stained bigot. But that is up to you. I have a much thicker skin that you can imagine. I will post what I want, and you and your buddies hightrekker and whut can continue your insults and personal attacks campaign. I couldn’t care less. I would care if I were the blog owner, but that is not my problem either. They will end this when they want, or not. Some people defend that I should be banned because what I say is inconvenient, but I guess that solution doesn’t remove the worst offenders that will continue to attack and insult anybody that dares to show in their turf and question their beliefs.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Javier,

                You throw insults as well, calling anything you disagree with “alarmist”.

                So when you can ignore the insult and remain “above the fray” without throwing them back. Then it would be possible to ban those that repeatedly resort to ad hominem.

                If everyone who used and ad hom was banned, there would be no more comments at POB, or very few.

                I really don’t have the time to be a blog monitor.

                So people will need to police themselves or at least point out to others when ad homs and other bad behavior is observed.

                • Javier says:

                  It usually works both ways. If insults are tolerated, then people end up defending themselves and then it becomes difficult to tell who is attacking and who defending, but for months I did not respond to attacks and insults until it became clear that insults were not even frown upon.

                  However that excuse is not good for people that post for the first time in a courteous manner and are viciously responded. I have never done that, but the people that attack me do it all the time, so there is a clear difference.

                  I am willing to stop responding to attacks to see how that works out, but quite frankly I don’t have much hope. After all I have been posting here for a very long time, and I was a reader even longer, so I know Ron himself is quite fond of insults and attacks, so no surprise. At least he doesn’t have a problem with other people doing what he does. Some blog owners are abusive to others but keep the exclusivity.

                • Javier says:

                  And if you think you don’t have a problem, when somebody is called retarded for simply posting a perfectly acceptable opinion article by a meteorologist, then you are fooling yourself.


                  • Survivalist says:

                    Snowflake needs to go back to his safe space.

                    Joe Bastardi (yes, Bastardi lol) is a sock puppet.

                    “CO2 cannot cause global warming. I’ll tell you why. It doesn’t mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot – it literally cannot cause global warming.” – Joe Bastardi.


                    Joe doesn’t believe in greenhouses gases.

                • George Kaplan says:

                  Ad hominem is if you decide someone’s arguments are bullshit because you consider them a pratt, if you’ve decided someone’s a puerile pratt because his unwelcome, endlessly tedious, self regarding, look-at-me-i’m really-clever-I-promise comments are bullshit, and he keeps sticking them in no matter what, and immediately killing all sensible argument – that seems pretty logical and not ad hominem at all.

                  • Survivalist says:

                    It’s ad hominem if you rebut their argument by attacking their character. If you ignore their argument and just point out that they’re an idiot it’s not ad hominem. It’s an observation.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi George,

                    I guess a polite rebuttal of “bullshit” would be preferred from my perspective. Though I must admit I do not always follow my own advice.

              • Survivalist says:

                “The question is that a minimum of education is that you should not insult the people you are talking to” – Javier

                Ah I see. So you insulting Wadhams and Tamino is acceptable because you’re doing it behind their back and not to their face. It is acceptable for you to insult them here because they are not here to know if it.

                So then, if you were to stop coming here to engage in conversation I could post links to your writing at JC and insult you and it would be acceptable behavior. But because you come here it is unacceptable.

                I’m beginning to understand very well how foolish you are.

    • Javier says:

      When I read scenarios, I know we are dealing with science fiction. Quite a few scientists must feel they are also good sci-fi writers.

      Predictions have a best chance of coming true when they are conservative, i. e. when we anticipate that the same we are observing is what is also most likely to happen next. Black swan events are unpredictable, but also rare.

    • George Kaplan says:

      Can that be right – how does a any country, let alone one with that many people, function and recover in such circumstances? It seems to me that if the global civilization does go down it will be when it becomes impossible to recover from one disaster before the next one hits, either due to increasing frequency and severity of the event (due to climate change or maybe even just random variation), increased consequence as population growth means more people impacted each time, less ability to recover because of resource depletion, wealth inequality, and failure of political and financial systems, set up in times of stable growth (i.e. debt based), to handle major variability and prolonged periods of decline.

      • OFM says:

        There’s a hell of a trade off between efficiency and resilience.

        A flooded modern house is a disaster. A flooded hut on stilts dries out in a few days, and life goes on, as before.

        The more specialized and the more dependent we get to be on the modern economy, the less resilient we are.

        • Nick G says:

          I agree with the idea that there’s a strong tradeoff between efficiency and resilience. But, not with the idea that modernization reduces resilience.

          Hunter-gathers were at the mercy of a lot of external variables. Any kind of tech, whether it’s 2,000 year old tech or current tech, is still a form of technology, with it’s peculiar inherent weaknesses. And, newer tech tends to solve the problems of the older tech. For instance, old landline hand sets were tough, simple and long lived. But, a person with an early cell phone was much more flexible and resilient than one with a land line. And, later cell phones are tougher and more waterproof than early phones, and even more useful compared to land lines.

          Resilience is a choice: we can choose to build good battery backup for cell towers, or…not. Cities can implement zoning and planning that mitigates flooding, or…not. They can work to prevent climate change or…not.

          That’s a matter of social choices, and whether we as a group are foresighted or shortsighted. Most of all, it’s a question of whether we’re governed by democracy, that tends to make bettter decisions for everyone, or by oligarchs like the Kochs, the Mercers and the Murdochs of the world.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Yes, the flooding in Bangladesh, India and Nepal is truly horrendous.


        1,200 Dead; Up to 41 Million Affected in Asian Flooding
        By Andy Rowell, originally published by Oil Change International
        September 1, 2017

    • Hightrekker says:

      Liberal lies!
      It’s getting colder– just wait and see!
      At least that is what I was told on Judith Curry’s site, and Watt is my head doing up my ass? confirmed it.
      Don’t you know the truth!

      • GoneFishing says:

        I think it has to do with Seasonal Affective Disorder. Gets dark and cold every winter.

    • Javier says:

      Michael Mann is a known liar. He also said in an official court case file that it was a fact he was a Nobel prize recipient and had to be corrected by the Nobel prize committee.


      • Survivalist says:

        “He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.”


        You are clearly not here to engage in a scientific discussion. In fact I’d suggest you are not even interested in reality. You are very clearly a troll.

        • Javier says:

          And the other thousands of IPCC contributors never said they were recipients of a Nobel prize. That shows the low moral stature of Michael Mann compared to all the rest of IPCC contributors.

          He is also quite ignorant in meteorology, so he is clearly out of his area of expertise when talking about the causes of Harvey.

          • Survivalist says:

            He’s smarter than you short bus.

            • Javier says:

              We’ll see about that when his legal cases come to fruition.

              But already he has an awful reputation among lots of scientists and a damning book published on him:

              “A Disgrace to the Profession”: The World’s Scientists in Their Own Words on Michael E. Mann, His Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science.

              One hundred and twenty eminent scientists, including some Nobel laureates, denounce Michael Mann and his “hockey stick” chart on which so much fraudulent global warming argument is based.

              Doesn’t sound so smart to get himself in such position. Already starting legal actions of unknown result is not a particularly bright move and has resulted on the exposure of his Nobel prize fiasco. I think the scientific climate community wants to detach from Michael Mann and his polemic statements. He is not getting much support on his legal battles.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Javier,

                I believe you have said in the past that science is not decided by politics or debate, does that include the court room?

                Judges know the law, but not much about science, jurors in general even less than judges.

                My question would be, do you really believe this is relevant?

                The temperature reconstruction (Mann et al, 2008) is quite well accepted by the peer reviewed literature.

                • Javier says:

                  The court room will decide on the legal claims made by Michael Mann when he filed the cases, not on the science. It is relevant to have an opinion on how smart is Michael Mann, that was the point made by Survivalist in his latest attack against me.

                  Michael Mann’s hockey stick went from poster child in AR3 (TAR) to not being displayed in AR5 and his paper not being even mentioned in a Bibliography on paleotemperatures that contains more than a thousand citations.

                  So well accepted that it has been dumped.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    No there are many studies that have confirmed the original “hockey stick” and the IPCC position has strengthened support for the “hockey stick”.



                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                    If recalled, my previous investigation into the ‘hockey stick’ graph also confirms Dennis’ comment about it.

                  • Javier says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    No. Recent studies have confirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period that we already knew from historical sources.

                    The hockey stick dealt away with the MWP, infuriating many researchers that worked in its evidence.

                    Take a look at this Global map on the Medieval Warm Period
                    Every mark in there is a link to a reference with the effect observed for the 900-1200 AD period.

                    The evidence against the hockey stick is overwhelming.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    Not according to the IPCC where the PAGES study was prominently featured.

                    The Mann analysis has been updated over the years and the more recent Mann et al 2008 is very similar to many other analyses.

                    We are interested in Global temperatures, not just European temperatures.

                    Data for the PAGES study can be found at link below


                    From that page we have:


                    Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971-2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Javier,

        That’s all you have. Name calling is not very impressive a classic ad hominem.

        How about focusing on Mann’s argument.

  12. Javier says:

    What the science actually says:

    Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe
    Hodgkins, G. A., et al. Journal of Hydrology 552 (2017): 704-717.

    “trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe

    Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone.

    There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends.

    The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC (Hartmann et al., 2013) that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.”

    That settles the question for the time being. Now people in denial of science can continue saying that Harvey is proof of global warming, using Texans disgrace to further push their agenda.

    And for those that still don’t know or don’t want to know, AMO is the main mode of climate variability in the North Atlantic region, with repercussions even beyond that area. Most climate phenomena in the region can be linked to AMO a lot more easily than to anthropogenic effects.

  13. Javier says:

    Don’t put too much trust on those scientific consensus.

    The results from the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, assessing the intake of fruit, vegetables, and legumes, and also carbohydrates and fat on cardiovascular disease and mortality have been published in two The Lancet articles. The study is a large, epidemiological cohort study of individuals aged 35–70 years (enrolled between Jan 1, 2003, and March 31, 2013) in 18 countries of 5 continents with a median follow-up of 7·4 years (IQR 5·3–9·3). Dietary intake of 135,335 individuals was recorded.

    Some of the conclusions demonstrate how wrong consensus scientific recommendations on nutrition have been for decades.

    “High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.”

    When most of your energy is coming from fat (any kind), you reduce your mortality risk because you decrease your carbohydrate intake. So dump those carbohydrates and embrace fat. Saturated fat even decreases your risk of stroke.

    Some scientists have been speaking against carbohydrates for decades, but were silenced by the fat-is-bad scientific consensus that led governments to implement nutrition recommendations and policies that actually hurt the population.

    Such is the value associated to the group thinking mentality that is behind scientific consensus.

    Fruit, vegetable, and legume intake, and cardiovascular disease and deaths in 18 countries (PURE): a prospective cohort study

    Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study

    10 minute audio of the authors discussing the studies.

    • Hightrekker says:

      We actually agree on scientific data!

    • Survivalist says:

      “Don’t put too much trust on those scientific consensus.” – Javier


      Thanks for coming out short bus.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Javier,

      Climate science is mostly physics (mostly geophysics).

      So you would need to show us some basic well accepted geophysics which has recently been shown to be false.

      Nutrition not really all that relevant.

      • Javier says:

        Hi Dennis,

        I disagree. Climate science is the subfield that depends most on computer modeling. This probably comes from the success of weather modeling, but weather modeling forecasting breaks down after about 2 weeks, and climate deals with much longer periods. The climate is such a complex problem and includes so many unknowns that a lot of what is included in climate models is just plain guessing disguised as parameterization, and a lot of important phenomena are not even included. It makes true the old adage: Garbage in, garbage out. Useful for learning, but not for deciding between hypotheses or predicting.

        Science consensus tends to go wrong when facing very complex multifactorial problems, like in Medicine, Nutrition, or Climate, not to speak of Psychology. Those problems are not very tractable by logic, so while you can use logic to convince your peers, it usually doesn’t get you any closer to solve the problem.

        So yes, Nutrition is very relevant because it shows how scientists behave when facing problems they don’t know how to solve. They use group thinking to protect themselves from the consequences of being wrong. After all if everybody is wrong there cannot be consequences. Then they collectively attack those that question the group thinking consensus. All very tribal and very ingrained in human nature. Science should be left to machines that are unbiased. Progress would be faster.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          The global climate models are indeed complex, they are mostly based on known physics and reproduce known climate from 1850 to the present fairly well.

          No they are not perfect, but they are improving. Clouds and aerosols along with atmospheric chemistry are areas that need further improvement, along with more research on permafrost, and ice sheets.

          Note also that if you are going to claim that we don’t know, then you cannot claim that climate change will not be a problem, only that we don’t know.

          The uncertainty is the reason why a sensible policy errs on the side of caution, just as we tend to build bridges stronger than they may need to be in case someone gets their calculations wrong.

          There is research suggesting low climate sensitivity and high climate sensitivity, we do not know which is correct.

          In any case fossil fuels are limited and we should transition to non-fossil fuels in any case, which you agree with.

  14. OFM says:

    Question for anybody,

    One person’s guess is as good as the next.

    How long do you think it will be before we see an assortment of solar panels and associated equipment, such as racks and inverters, on display at big box stores such as Lowe’s and Home Depot ?

    • Survivalist says:

      I’ve seen some rather low end stuff at outdoor related shops in my area. I bought a panel that is about the size of a picnic table that I use to recharge a 12v car battery that runs my camper lights.
      I do hope better systems become available. I’m hoping soon, in a few years.

    • notanoilman says:

      Our local Costco has a 3rd party stall that sells PV systems. They also have RV style systems from time to time. The local HD has solar hot water systems as do almost all builders’ hardware shops.


    • Fred Magyar says:

      I’d do my purchasing on line but at least in my neck of the woods there are stores that specialize in solar energy related products and their prices are probably better than what you’d find at the big box stores.

    • Hickory says:

      I’d guess 2 yrs.
      Already, for about 3 yrs, Home Depot has allowed Solarcity to set up a sales table in their stores in California (front row when you first walk in).

      And anyone can buy a pallet of PV’s, or a system, from a wholesale distributor-

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Hey OFM, I hadn’t visited the Sunelec site for a while:

      I’ll bet we will see many more opportunities such as this one in the not too distant future. I could imagine a few enterprising individuals from a closely knit community like you and your buddies banding together and buying a container of modules such as these and putting up a solar powered microgrid with salvaged Tesla battery packs. This kind of DIY independence from the grid is coming fast. See Jack Rickard’s latest EVTV video on what he has been doing with solar and those Tesla battery modules.

      August 18, 2017
      “30kW Tesla Battery Module Solar Storage Battery”


      8 MW of 305 Watt Modules = 26,000 Modules • 2 to 2.5 Years Old • Perfect Condition • Call John Kimball for Details (phone number at link if interested…)

      Available for purchase reservation now! Export only as they are Chinese modules. Shipping would require minimum of one 42 ft. high cubed container per every 624 panels.
      We are looking for partners to purchase the entire lot. Sunelec has someone to help organize it all. There are 43 containers. Give us your quantity and destination in order to receive an estimate.
      We flew to the site and spent 4 days carefully inspecting the modules on August 22 to the 25th. In our opinion they are in perfect condition. They are currently being de-installed. Anyone with interest should contact us at once.

  15. OFM says:

    I know I’m long winded, and take too long to get to my point, lol.

    But nevertheless, anything worth talking about is worth talking about in depth, and nuance is everything, in terms of understanding any complex issue relating to the behavior of naked apes.

    I posted this previously, but the old non petro thread was about dead, and so I doubt anybody saw it.


    I’ve been saying the same thing for years.

    It’s essential reading.

    • Boomer II says:

      A really good article.

    • JN2 says:

      Thanks OFM, great link.

    • Charles Van Vleet says:

      The country changed completely that day when Roe vs. Wade legalized the murder of innocent unborn life. Nowdays that decision can be seen as the source of just about all the issues brought up by the current cultural divide, including how the left supports climate change science while the right opposes it. After Roe vs. Wade, the left got exposed as being on the immoral side of the issues. Many people and regions which used to be reliable Dem voters flipped to Republican just because of the abortion issue, but because of that, they also became totally unwilling to believe in any other issues Dems believe in such as climate change science.

      • Survivalist says:

        I’m in favor of abortion but only up to a certain time limit. Up to 480 weeks. After that it’s just not right.

      • Hightrekker says:

        Yea, life starts at conception, and ends at birth.
        At least that is what I can gleam from my conservative friends.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Every Sperm is Sacred – Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life – YouTube

        Let me guess you are one of those pro lifers who are against terminating a 3 moth old fetus but ok with inciting violence against doctors who provide legal abortions.

      • JN2 says:

        Video: Let Me Explain Why Trump’s Core White Supporters (mostly Evangelical Christians) Won’t Ever Turn Against Him


        Summary: Roe v Wade, same sex marriage, trans etc. Culture wars.

        PS: Bonus points for reading:
        You Still Don’t “get” Evangelical Support For Trump Because You Don’t Know What The Reconstructionists Were/are All About


        Summary: Evangelical theocracy

        • Nick G says:

          But not because of deeply held moral beliefs.

          It’s because moral judgements are being inflamed by propagandists. Why do I say that?

          Because abortion was not historically this kind of white hot issue: the Catholic Church didn’t consider a pregnancy in the 1st trimester to be a human being until the last century or two; many people are willing to allow abortion for rape, which tells you that there are other factors here, like sexuality being bad, but rape not being a “fun” act, so there’s no need to punish the mother; the fact that most people who hate abortion also hate contraception for teenagers (which 1) prevents abortion, but also might allow kids to have “fun sex”, which is bad, ;and 2) allows people to avoid having children, which is considered bad by a pro-reproduction culture); and the fact that there’s no correlation between being against abortion and being against the death penalty (note the phrase”**innocent** unborn life” in the comment that started this discussion – we see that it’s not all life that’s being protected, it’s “innocent” life).

          These culture wars aren’t about morality – they’re about propagandists manipulating people with misinformation (for just one example, the Planned Parenthood videotapes).

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Well, I certainly never had much trouble accepting the fact that all evangelicals are rabidly delusional. As are all forms of science deniers, creationists, assorted cultists, flat earthers, anti vaxers etc, etc… Trump is the current delusionist in chief to all these wackos. However it is important to remember that only about 28% of eligible voters actually supported and voted for Trump. I have some hope that the 70 plus percent of eligible voters who didn’t do so, won’t make the same mistake of staying home and not voting come the next elections! And maybe the rapture will take care of eliminating the vast majority of the remaining evangelicals.

      • notanoilman says:

        Guys, why are you responding to a troll who is trying to hijack the thread and direct people away from the original post?


        • Geoff Riley says:

          If I’m remembering correctly, I believe you are from outside the United States? You may not be aware then just how profoundly the legalization of abortion changed American society. Here in the Midwest, I see and talk to people all the time who will only consider voting for a candidate as long as he or she opposes abortion. Then there are numerous anti-abortion billboards and signs all along the roadways to help sway the decisions of those wavering on the issue.

          Anyway, this is all connected to belief in climate change within the United States because the the candidates who most emphatically oppose abortion often tend to be the ones who also don’t believe humans can alter the climate. Citizens who vote for these candidates because of their opposition to abortion can get swept into the candidates’ other views as well, and end up as science deniers, conspiracy theorists, and so on.

          However, things don’t have to be this way, because it’s perfectly possible to oppose abortion but embrace science. If the Democrats could drop their “purity tests” which mandate unequivocal support of any and all on-demand abortions and welcome into their party candidates who are steadfastly against abortion but support scientific endeavors, more people would see fit to elect Democrats, and the problem of having too many science-denying politicians would subside.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            The highest abortion rates are generally found in countries where it is illegal, and the population is poor , ignorant, and women don’t have access to contraception and good family planning programs.


            LONDON (Reuters) – Abortion rates have dropped dramatically in the past 25 years to historic lows in wealthy countries, but dipped only slightly in poorer developing nations, according to a global study published on Wednesday.

            The study – by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Guttmacher Institute – also found that imposing restrictive laws does little to lower abortion rates, but is more likely to force people into having unsafe terminations.

            It estimated that on average 56 million abortions took place each year worldwide from 2010 to 2014.

            The overall findings highlight a lack in poorer countries of access to modern contraception methods – such as the pill, implants and IUDs – to reduce unwanted pregnancies, the researchers said.

            “In developing countries … family planning services do not seem to be keeping up with the increasing desire for smaller families,” said Gilda Sedgh, who led the research at the Guttmacher Institute in the United States.

            More than 80 percent of unintended pregnancies are in women who are not getting the contraception they need, she said, “and many unwanted pregnancies end in abortion.”

            • Geoff Riley says:

              Abortion is an ethical and moral issue. “Facts” don’t do much to sway opinions on the matter.

              • Survivalist says:

                For those against abortion it is often an issue of moral reasoning. For those in favor of it it is often an issue of practical reasoning. For some folks facts are important. And those people are often in favour of permitting abortion.

              • Nick G says:

                What does that mean? Could you expand on that?

          • notanoilman says:

            Then it should have been brought up as new item not as a method of hijacking a post, which is a troll move.


            BTW I do follow what is going on in the USA.

          • Nick G says:


            Could you describe, as best you can, your perception of why some people feel very strongly that abortion should be legal?

            And, if you still have time and energy after that, could you describe why others feel very strongly that it should be illegal?

          • Survivalist says:

            Is abortion ok if it’s a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest?

        • Charles Van Vleet says:

          I was replying to OFM stating climate change science is part of a cultural divide. The point I tried to make is; climate change science wouldn’t be a cultural divide issue if Roe vs. Wade didn’t made abortion legal because without Roe vs. Wade there would be no natural cultural divide.

          • Nick G says:


            Yeah, I know some women who also feel that women’s issues, like abortion, are the most fundamental issues of all.

            So, could I ask you describe, as best you can, your perception of why some people feel so strongly that abortion should be legal?

            • Charles Van Vleet says:

              I can’t understand those viewpoints of how abortions should be legal all the time in any circumstances. That is just plain wrong, always has been, always will be. Most people with those viewpoints seem also to be very far left, believing in eugenics or overpopulation theories.

              • Nick G says:

                Would it make sense to you to try to understand the viewpoint of people who disagree with you on this issue?

                • Charles Van Vleet says:

                  Not interested in any of that. Abortion is very wrong to me and I will always think so.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Charles,

                    And many people completely disagree with you and will also not be convinced otherwise.

                    So a complete waste of space to talk about it.

                    Don’t bring it up again.

      • Hickory says:

        Charles. there is this little issue of freedom- the right of a women to make her own choice, rather than having the church or government dictate their policy to her. And certainly not you.

        • Nick G says:

          And women having the right to control their own body.

          Conservatives dislike anybody telling them what to do with their money or their business. 2nd amendment enthusiasts feel they should be able to shoot an intruder in their home. How would they feel about having an unwanted pregnancy in their body??

          • Peggy Hahn says:

            Abortion is neither about choice or a woman’s body (just explain to us how a male baby could be a piece of a female body???). It is only about ending the life of an innocent baby (fetus is the Latin word for baby, btw)…it is actually amazing to me how all the folks favoring a mom’s right to end the life of her own child have already been born. If one of the millions of abortions performed every year was filmed in HD and put on all the TV channels at the same time so the nation could see the way the saline solution burns the baby and then how the abortionist literally rips the tiny little arms, legs, hand, feet, legs body into pieces, abortion would end for good! For it is a Silent Holocaust indeed. And it should be illegal because it is an encroachment on the innocent life of the baby. Period. There is nothing further to argue here. If you want to harm your own body by drugs, alcohol and gluttony, well go right ahead (just don’t be seeking medical care, you’ll only drive up costs for all the rest of us). But never should anyone be allowed to encroach on an innocent, defenseless, beautiful little baby. All children are miracles from God. Human life shall never be denied. At this point our powerful nation is filled to overflowing with innocent blood. That does nothing but provoke the wrath of God upon us all. Actually it is only by absolute miracle He has not wiped us off the face of the earth by now due to the very species He give dominion over the planet murdering its’ own.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              While everyone is entitled to believe in any fantasy or superstition of their choice there are certainly plenty of choices from amongst the 4000 or so deities currently available…


              Welcome to Godchecker
              We have more Gods than you can shake a stick at.
              Deity of the day

              God of the Sun from Indian mythology
              Golden-haired Sun God and Lord of the Dawn.

              Our legendary mythology encyclopedia now includes nearly four thousand weird and wonderful Gods, Supreme Beings, Demons, Spirits and Fabulous Beasts from all over the world. Explore ancient legends and folklore, and discover Gods of everything from Fertility to Fluff with Godchecker…

              BTW, A fetus is just a stage in the prenatal, embryological development of viviparous organisms, such as mammals.

              The universe doesn’t care much about them one way or another. Sometimes they survive sometimes they don’t. A miscarriage is just nature’s way of aborting fetuses, it happens all the time. Wonder why God doesn’t prevent that?

              Thank You God – Tim Minchin – YouTube

              The lyrics are here:


            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              “That does nothing but provoke the wrath of God upon us all”

              There must have been a lot of sin in Houston

              • GoneFishing says:

                Whatever happened to just destroying sinful cities and turning people to pillars of salt? Ah the good ole days when god seemed far more dangerous than the devil.

            • Nick G says:



              How do you feel about capital punishment?

              • HuntingtonBeach says:

                Maybe it should be “filmed in HD and put on all the TV channels at the same time so the nation could see the way” government kills in our name.

                For me Nick, as a person who lost my sister to a gun by her controlling and jealous husband. I believes it should be black and white that there is never a justifiable reason to kill another human being. Having ones government operating at times with justification for killing. Only opens the door for gray area in the heads of others to feel it’s acceptable. It also seems pretty clear, that in a moment of anger. The death penalty is seldom a deterrent. Besides as a deterrent, I would rather be dead than life in prison. Guns make it to easy for humans to take a life of another human in a moment of anger and bad judgement.

                There is also another moment in life that modern humans make poor decisions. That impacts themselves and others around them without thinking though the future consequences. That moment being sexual intercourse. Too much thinking with the small head. There should be free education and reproductive services for all at an early age. Good luck getting that acceptable with the religious right. Who want to stop abortion. Try to explain that one to me. Because I don’t understand it.

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  There should be free education and reproductive services for all at an early age.

                  Oh yeah! Look at who we have as the current Secretary of Education… The Evangelicals are a majority of Trump’s base, they managed what is for all practical purposes a coup d’état.

                  The largest concentration of Evangelicals can be found in the United States, with 28.9% of the U.S. population or 91.76 million, the latter being roughly one third of the world’s Evangelicals.

                  However the good news is, that 30% of the population trying to impose their world view on the rest of the population has a rather checkered history in this country. It is past time to abolish the electoral college that allowed these people access to levers of power.

            • Survivalist says:

              Maybe climate change is God’s wrath. You ever think of that Peggy? Maybe it’s not CO2. Maybe it’s abortions and gay marriage that cause global warming.

            • islandboy says:

              Dear Peggy has the good fortune of being born and raised in the land of the free and the home of the brave, no doubt. Elsewhere in the world, an innocent, defenseless, beautiful little baby may grow up to become a an active member of ISIS, a child soldier, a narco-traficker, a thief, a prostitute or a member of some other “undesirable” group, with the odds of the child growing up to be an asset to society depending largely on the educational and other opportunities afforded them by the country of their birth.

              It has been my observation that most human beings seem to find the act that may lead to conception highly stimulating and often give nary a thought to the fact that engaging in the act can result in pregnancy. The best hope that a given individual will not spend most of their life procreating is for individuals to have other things to do with their time that they either find somewhat stimulating or useful towards fulfilling some other desire they may have. Unfortunately in many parts of the world opportunities for finding satisfaction in activities other than sexual activities are somewhat limited and it is in these situations that high population growth tends to be the consequence.

              One wonders if individuals such as “Peggy Hahn” devote as much time to trying to improve opportunities for the less fortunate people around the world, as they do to posting inane comments on the internet.

    • Nick G says:

      I know I’m long winded, and take too long to get to my point, lol.

      There’s nothing wrong with detail and exposition. What’s needed is **organization**.

      Introductions, summaries, topic sentences, bullet points…

  16. OFM says:


    Subsidizing the renewable energy industries is a bargain for us all, taken all around. It’s what gets things up to scale faster, so we can make our remaining endowment of fossil fuels last longer even as we pollute less.

    And affordable lithium may be far more abundant than previously estimated.


    We don’t HAVE to have enough lithium to build a billions of electric cars, because civilization CAN survive and thrive without so many CARS.

    But it may be that we must have enough to build a billion trucks, and a billion stationary batteries, in order to manage using renewable electricity as our basic source of energy.

    There’s enough, and to spare, if we can figure out how to extract it.

  17. GoneFishing says:

    Very little contiguous ice left in the Arctic Ocean.

    • Javier says:

      Yet enough so another Arctic expedition ends in failure.

      Arctic Mission, an exploration programme, led by renowned explorer Pen Hadow and skipper Eric de Jong, are attempting the first voyage by yacht to the North Pole”

      They are using two specially designed yachts to navigate areas that have a high percentage of ice

      Their hopes were cut short when they met impassable ice at 80 degrees 10 minutes North, 148 degrees 51 minutes West, with “only” 10 more degrees to go, or 680 miles (590 nautical miles). They are heading back south, as “further northward progress would increase considerably the risks to the expedition.”

      I guess people are believing the lies that the Arctic is nearly melt already and expending a lot of money setting expeditions that run the risk of having to be rescued, again at great expense, only to fail completely, since the ice hasn’t melted further for ten years.

      • Survivalist says:

        “Hadow became the first person to trek to the Pole solo without being resupplied in 2003. He plans to set off with his fellow expeditioners on the boats, called Bagheera and the Snow Dragon II, within the next few days.

        Trying to be the first to reach that same destination in a sailboat is “bittersweet,” Hadow told Business Insider.

        “I am torn between the challenge of going further north than anyone has in a sailboat before and genuinely hoping that it is not yet possible,” he said. “It’s a very strange situation – I’m conflicted.”


        So, an adventurer and motivational speaker, who walked to the North Pole unsupported in 2003, is now trying for another feather in his cap by being the first to sail there. He was unable to. And how does the keen mind of doctor short bus interpret this event? Laughably. Stick to writing about solar cycles and making up your own charts/graphs over at curry’s ridiculous blog.

        “It is believed Arctic Mission has sailed further north from the coastlines surrounding the Arctic Ocean than any vessel in history without icebreaker support.”


        • Survivalist says:

          Javier busted

          “Your fig 57 does not appear in your referenced data source, and nor does your source refer to IntCal13 in any respect. Not surprising as your source is published a year before IntCal13.
          Your source is IntCal 98 as I suggested, and way out of date…you have wasted our time. Your data is busted.
          Hopefully Judith will abandon part C ?”


          Well JC did publish part c. Javier’s academic fraud is not an obstacle to being published there.

          • Javier says:

            That comment is wrong. Figure 57 is clearly sourced to two different sources and both are linked or fully referenced. Some people, like you get confused. After all climate is a highly controversial issue.

            In a case a problem was brought to my attention with a figure and the problem was corrected. Not in this case because there is no problem with that figure.

            Judith Curry reads my articles and has told me every time that they are very good. She has a huge readership, so this is having a lot more impact that some things that are published in more established scientific venues.

            • Survivalist says:

              “The truth is slowly coming out, you made it up yourself.
              You have no expertise in presenting a radiocarbon record of your own. There is no way you can combine IntCal98 with IntCal13, the records are completely different.
              You have presented to us bogus data.”


            • Survivalist says:

              “Yes you made it up. You presented IntCal98 values and labelled it as IntCal13.”


            • Survivalist says:

              “Yes , very unimpressed that we have to get this far down in comment to find an admission that that “fig57” was NOT a published graph as claimed in the caption but a home made cut and paste.
              I was suspicious about the appearance of this graph but the fact that it was fig 57 and the caption clearly stated a paper ref as being the source gave the clear impression that this was a published PR graph.
              Javier is so sold on his idea that he is committing all the unscientific behaviour that sceptics have been railing about for years.”


              • Javier says:

                I am not responsible for other people’s mistakes. It doesn’t say figure 57 was a published figure. The data it displays is published. It is evident it is not a published figure since one of the references has been included in the figure. Some people have a problem understanding what they read, just like you.

                • Survivalist says:

                  “Javier has a habit of not giving a source for a chart but implying it is from a source that it is not in. He also refuses to, or ignores requests to, provide the source for charts when asked.”


                  Quite a reputation you have Doc. I can see why you publish this crap anonymously.

                  • Javier says:

                    Actually I have a quite good reputation in skeptic circles. Obviously that automatically means a bad reputation in alarmist circles. Steven Mosher and I have a long history going. He is lying there. All the sources for all the data I present in the figures are properly credited and sourced. Nobody with an internet connection and access to scientific articles has any problem to check what I present in 5 minutes. If I was not being truthful Mosher himself could demonstrate it in 5 minutes, but he can’t so he spreads lies and disinformation which is a common tactic when the science is solid but the result is not liked.

                  • Survivalist says:

                    “Actually I have a quite good reputation in skeptic circles.” – Javier

                    Yeah I bet. For stupid people you probably seem like a pretty smart guy.

              • Javier says:

                But in any case I am glad you are reading and promoting my articles. Then more people will be able to see what the published paleoclimatic evidence actually says.

              • Hightrekker says:

                “I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”

                • Survivalist says:

                  “My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007.”

                  lol yeah cuz the national hurricane center just doesn’t cut it.

            • wharf rat says:

              “Judith Curry reads my articles and has told me every time that they are very good”
              IOW, they ain’t worth a hill of beans. Come back when the National Academy of Sciences tells you they are good.

              • Javier says:

                Get yourself a climatologist with 170 peer-reviewed publications tell you that what you write about climate is good, and then we talk.

              • Hightrekker says:

                “Trump’s election provided an opportunity for a more rational energy and climate policy.”

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Area about 3.5 million km2

      • GoneFishing says:

        About 25% coverage. 75% open water.

        • Javier says:

          If that was true the Arctic Mission would have had no problem reaching the North Pole. But they were short by 680 miles. So I guess it is not true.

  18. Doug Leighton says:


    “Houston’s unbridled, rapid growth is a primary factor. The population of its metropolitan area is close to 6.8 million people and, with predictions of some of the country’s fastest growth for the coming years, it is expected to top 10 million by 2040.”


    • George Kaplan says:

      Surely the fact that it is as flat as a pancake and in an area that sees extremes of heat, humidiity and the occasional hurricane has got something to do with it as well.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Now George, most people do not consider the other life on the planet so flooding has to relate to the human population in the area. The rest of the life can just get washed away as far as the majority of people are concerned.
        Humans are smart, that is why they develop flood prone areas. 🙂

      • Hightrekker says:

        And this:
        Texas Secretary of State turns down blankets, beds and more Harvey donations, asks for prayers instead


        • OFM says:

          It might be appropriate to cut this guy a little slack. The problem with donations right now is that they are coming in faster than they can be distributed, keeping people from doing actual distribution and other on the ground relief work, while dealing with warehousing temporarily surplus donations.

          People actually on the scene are saying hold off on donating for a week or a month, the need will be just as great, and then the stuff can be distributed directly, without warehousing it.

    • sunnnv says:

      What the BBC didn’t mention is that the Houston area depends a lot on wells for water,
      and they’ve over pumped so badly (particularly in the past) that subsidence is a problem.
      Also subsidence from oil and gas wells.


      longer paper with good detail:


      They’ve converted to major use of surface wafer, but the damage has been done.

      • Hightrekker says:

        Will this put a dent in happy motoring?
        Take away air conditioning and the automobile, and Houston goes back to its backwater status, and a population of 60,000.

      • notanoilman says:

        All the more reason to build wisely.


  19. Javier says:

    The death of a climate change icon.

    Polar bears are no longer an icon of climate change and Arctic melting. They are not featured in the Inconvenient Truth sequel by Al Gore, and no longer mentioned in official reports on climate change in the Arctic.

    The problem is that polar bears have exposed the absolute failure of claims and predictions that they were about to suffer a catastrophic decline and were suffering greatly from sea ice decline. Actually they are doing great and there are lots of pictures showing really fat bears, and bear moms with three cubs, which is pretty unusual. The number of bears has been growing consistently and IUCN lists 4000 more bears in the last 10 years.

    Another climate change failed prediction:
    Polar bears will decline and disappear with climate change

    Of course not everybody is happy. The polar bears win is the seals loose, as each adult bear eats about 50 seals per year.

    • Survivalist says:

      You’re a very angry little person aren’t you doc?

      “The PBSG summarized the best-available scientific information on the status of the 19 subpopulations of Polar Bears in 2014 (PBSG 2015) including an assessment of current trend (i.e., estimated change in population size over a 12-year period, centred on the time of assessment). The PBSG concluded that one subpopulation (M’Clintock Channel) has increased, six were stable (Davis Strait, Foxe Basin, Gulf of Boothia, Northern Beaufort Sea, Southern Hudson Bay, and Western Hudson Bay), three were considered to have declined (Baffin Bay, Kane Basin, and Southern Beaufort Sea) and, for the remaining nine (Arctic Basin, Barents Sea, Chukchi Sea, East Greenland, Kara Sea, Lancaster Sound, Laptev Sea, Norwegian Bay, and Viscount Melville Sound) there were insufficient data to provide an assessment of current trend. The type, precision, and time span of data used to estimate trends varies among subpopulations (PBSG 2015).

      Estimating Polar Bear abundance is expensive and difficult because the animals often occur at low densities in remote habitats. Although abundance estimates have generally improved in recent decades (Obbard et al. 2010), information remains poor or outdated for some subpopulations. Summing across the most recent estimates for the 19 subpopulations (Table 3 in the Supplementary Material) results in a total of approximately 26,000 Polar Bears ( 95% CI = 22,000-31,000 ). We note that this number differs from what would be obtained by summing abundance estimates in PBSG (2015), because criteria were not the same for including abundance estimates in the two sources (section Population projections). The total number presented here does not include the Arctic Basin subpopulation, for which no information on abundance is available. The 95% confidence intervals presented here were generated using simulation based on estimates of uncertainty in Table 3 and an assumption that the abundance of every subpopulation is independent of the others (see the section Population projections in the Supplementary Material).”


      What’s the source for your IUCN population data? Link? Do you know what a confidence interval is? Do you think polar bear populations are an appropriate metric for measuring changes in Arctic climate? I won’t pretend to think you’ll actually answer those questions. You’re more likely to go off on a tangent about something else entirely.

      Nobody beats Javier when it comes to failed predictions. Shall we do a recap?

      • GoneFishing says:

        Those skeptical about polar bear populations should go north to physically count them.

        • Survivalist says:

          From your second link:
          2015 IUCN Red List 22,000-31,000 [see latest update note]

          This is the latest update note:
          UPDATE 15 May 2016: In late November 2015, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species published a new assessment for polar bears that estimated the global population at 22,000-31,000 and stated the trend was ‘Unknown’. See details (here) and (here) – which includes links to the official report and the press release. Sorry for the delay in updating this post.

          The first (here) is this:

          The second (here) is this:

          Anyone who believes polar bear population has increased by 4000 in the last 10 years can read those links for themselves and see if they feel that is an accurate statement. Or that perhaps Javier is wrong, again.

          Here’s a clue “the current population trend is stated as UNKNOWN.”

          If you’re using unkown trends in polar bear populations to substantiate your thesis that Arctic sea ice is in great shape then you really are an embarresment. Pathetic.

          • Hightrekker says:

            Obviously, that is not what Judith Curry says.
            Maybe she can ask on of those shape shifting alien lizards?

          • Javier says:

            Anyone that doesn’t believe that polar bears have experimented a huge increase in the past ten years should start by reading the 2005 Official Proceedings Report from the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) here:

            On page 33 chapter “Status of the Polar Bear” says:
            “The total number of polar bears worldwide is estimated to be 20,000-25,000.”

            Now the IUCN Red List gives the present estimate of 22,000-31,000 as linked above.

            The central estimate has gone from 22,500 to 26,500. That is an increase in the central estimate of 4,000 polar bears from 2005 to 2015.

            You have taken the wrong position again, and used your lack of knowledge on the issue to attack me again. Using official estimates there is an increase in 4000 polar bears in just 10 years. For a top predator that is subjected to hunting, a 17% increase in just 10 years is huge and indicates very good conditions.

            This increase explains the fall of the polar bear as a climate change icon. As with most doom predictions the polar bear demise has been greatly exaggerated. At what point do people start to think that they have been lied all along about the catastrophic consequences of climate change?

            • GoneFishing says:

              I think somebody left the village gate open lately. More Javier pseudo science, best to look at the actual sources who say there is a 71% chance the population fell by 30%.
              Both sources say the trend is unknown and the numbers arrived at by IUCN were from computer modeling. Polar bears listed as vulnerable since there is no solid population data. Only one of the 19 groups was found to be increasing and different criteria have been used in different studies, so they cannot be accurately compared.

              • Javier says:

                ~ 1000 polar bears are hunted every year from a 22,000-31,000 population, yet the polar bears every year replace the loss and produce ~ 400 polar bears more. It is time to end this farce. For a carnivore that replacement rate is very healthy and denotes resources are plentiful at current population levels and Arctic sea ice levels.

                The IUCN list says trend unknown because it is impossible to sustain that the bear population is decreasing, and since polar bears were included in the list on the grounds of a expected decrease, the whole thing is embarrassing.

                As I said you can expect polar bears to quietly disappear from climate change victimhood rants.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  You do not know that . You are making it up. The very references you give say they do not know that and that the polar bear is listed as vulnerable.

                  • Survivalist says:

                    This clown is clearly not interested in science. The motive is something else entirely.

                    “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists”


                    Anyone with high school science knows that unknown trends in polar bear populations are not adequate metrics for assessing arctic ice conditions. However Javier sticks to it like its gospel. As well it’s worth noting Javier’s insulting bevaviour to others, yet when he feels insulted he runs to Dennis looking for a ban. Long story short, Javier is a loser troll.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    The population in some areas such as Canada may have leveled out since hunting was reduced or eliminated. Biologists are trying to educate the public on how the bears survive, with ice being a critical factor in how much food they can acquire. The final results will take time and the Arctic is changing so fast that time is not available.

                  • Javier says:

                    The number of polar bears that was being hunted before the 1973 limitation was about six times higher than the number hunted afterwards. When those bears were hunted the total number of a now ~ 25,000 population had to be necessarily lower, and afterwards the number necessarily must have gone up. This is consistent with estimates. That the number of polar bears is going up is very clear. The trend is not unknown, it is just not stated for political reasons.

                    The numbers that I give are the official estimates from 2005 and 2015. That you don’t like those numbers is your problem.

    • Javier says:

      The prediction:

      July 7, 2005
      In a closed meeting here late last month, 40 members of the polar bear specialist group of the World Conservation Union concluded that the imposing white carnivores — the world’s largest bear — should now be classified as a “vulnerable” species based on a likely 30 percent decline in their worldwide population over the next 35 to 50 years. There are now 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears across the Arctic.

      “The principal cause of this decline is climatic warming and its consequent negative affects on the sea ice habitat of polar bears,” according to a statement released after the meeting. Scientists from five countries, including the United States, attended the meeting.

      “All of the evidence is heading in the same direction, and the trend is dramatic,” said Scott Schliebe, who led the Seattle meeting and is polar bear project leader in Alaska for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “In a shrinking ice environment, the ability of the bears to find food, to reproduce and to survive will all be reduced.”

      The conditions:

      Average September Arctic sea ice extent for the 1996-2005 period was 6.46 million km2.

      The decision:

      The unprecedented inclusion of the polar bear in the red list of endangered species not based on actual population numbers that were high for a top predator, not based on population trends as the number of polar bears has been increasing since the 1973 international accord to limit polar bear hunting, but based on its predicted decline due to sea ice reduction caused by climate change as a result of human greenhouse emissions.

      The outcome:

      Average September Arctic sea ice extent for the 2007-2016 period has declined to 4.77 million km2. A 26% decline with respect to the 1996-2005 period.

      Polar bear population has increased a central estimate of 17% according to The Polar Bear Specialist Group and the IUCN, and there are now 22,000 to 31,000 polar bears in the Arctic

      The evaluation of results:

      January 9, 2017
      The US Fish and Wildlife Service releases a report concluding that human-driven global warming is the biggest threat to polar bears and that if action isn’t taken soon the Arctic bears could be in serious risk of extinction. “It cannot be overstated that the single most important action for the recovery of polar bears is to significantly reduce the present levels of global greenhouse gas emissions,” the officials wrote in the report, which is required under the Endangered Species Act as part of a conservation plan for the bears, which were listed as threatened in 2008.

      That’s what I call a failed prediction. Just the opposite result is observed. A bigger sea ice decline than expected but a big increase in polar bear numbers instead of a decrease is observed. Yet the government officials decide to continue in denial of scientific evidence.

      • Survivalist says:

        Doesn’t like modelled sea ice volume but gets his balls in a knot over ESTIMATES of polar bear population. ESTIMATES that are improving due to better surveillance.
        Thanks for coming out short bus. You’re always good for a laugh, and plenty of failed predictions. Shall I recap all your failed predictions for you. It’s easy to remember; “all of them”.
        What a troll.

        • GoneFishing says:

          His agenda is very simple and clear.
          Any topic that would slow or eliminate the use of fossil fuels must be attacked. Does not matter what the facts are, the attack is the point.

        • Javier says:

          Clearly you guys have nothing to contradict my information that should be news to a lot of people here. Therefore you resort to personal attacks and insults.

          Would my comment improve if I also add some insults directed to you?

          • Survivalist says:

            Your information is meaningless. It’s an estimate. The trend is UNKNOWN. Do you know what unkown means? Do you know what estimate means?

            • Javier says:

              Sure I know what an estimate means, estimates are the basis for all your comments on future climate doom. Your comments and those estimates are absolutely meaningless. At least we are counting some of the bears and putting collars on them to track them. At least the polar bear estimates are based on real data from capture-recapture methods and statistical analysis, while the estimates you base your comments on are based on fantasy data produced by a computer program.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Javier,

                Models are used for lots of things, including the satellite temperature data you prefer.

                Basically your arguments are full of contradictions and you choose your data very selectively, data which supports your hypothesis should be believed, data which disagrees is suspect and those scientists get stuff wrong all the time so we shouldn’t believe them.

                You cannot take two estimates 10 years apart and assume you know the trend.

                As a very simple example in year 2005 we might estimate 25,000 +/-10,000 and in 2015, 30,000 +/- 10,000.

                Statistically we would not know the trend.

                A claim that we have seen an increase of 5000 (by omitting the uncertainty) would seem to be a lie by omission.

                Polar bears are not very relevant in any case.

                • Javier says:

                  Hi Dennis,

                  I interpret the evidence exactly as climate scientists do. That means giving more weight to certain parts of evidence.

                  An example. Climate scientists knew about the fertilization effect, deforestation, and wildfires. They gave more weight to the deforestation and wildfires and less weight to the fertilization effect, so they failed to predict the observed increase in forest mass.

                  With respect to polar bears scientists gave a lot of weight to the importance of summer sea ice to their populations and less importance to the known growing trend since the hunting ban. Again they failed in their prediction, and despite a huge decline in summer Arctic ice during the 90’s and early 2000’s, the bear population has clearly not decreased and appears healthy and growing. Already 10 years of data for that.

                  So it is another failure, that obviously scientists are slow to acknowledge. And it is important for two facts:

                  – Polar bears are the only species included in the Red List not because of its real condition, but because of a expected decline due to climate change. It was put there as an icon.

                  – It has been widely used as poster child of the awful effects of climate change on the environment. It turns it is all false, as usual.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:


                    Incorrect. We do not have a very good estimate of the polar bear population which is why experts say the trend is unknown.

                    Your claims to the contrary are merely that, not taking into account the uncertainty of the estimates leads to a false claim.

  20. OFM says:


    Huge landslides, apparently mostly unprecedented in recorded history , are likely to be the new norm in the Alps, if it keeps getting warmer.

    And it won’t have to get a lot warmer than it is already.

    • GoneFishing says:

      I wonder what the Alps looked like during the Eemian or during the Eocene? It is very likely that the Alps have seen changes from the extreme cold and glaciations as well as warm times. They continue to build and erosion continues to counter the build.
      This layers of permafrost under rock is a bit confusing and disconcerting. How did that form?
      Anyway, the Alps will still be there, but the people below are in danger for many years to come as the permafrost melts and the more friable rock dislodges.

  21. islandboy says:

    A different point of view?

    Traditional Semi Truck Makers Face Extinction If They Don’t Go Electric

    As we see it, electric trucks will probably follow in the foot steps of electric buses, which are already taking sales from traditional business manufacturers in California and other states.

    EVs are still of course more expensive to initially buy, and have some range and charging issues, but the regular maintenance costs, and energy costs to operate are much, much lower. Also the driving experience is unparalleled.

    As fleet managers and operators more and more see the operational benefits, the change (as with e-buses) will likely be swift when it arrives.

    Ever since I wrote a post over at TOD on electric commercial vehicles, I have held the opinion the electrification makes more sense in the commercial vehicle space with the exception of long range applications. According to data from the Alternative Fuels Data Center under Average Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled of Major Vehicle Categories the average distance traveled by a delivery truck per year is 13,116 miles. If the average truck works every day for 50 weeks a year that would work out to an average of about 52 miles a day. My hunch is that delivery trucks with a 100 mile range could manage a huge amount of the delivery work required.

    • OFM says:

      I’m ready to believe that batteries are just about good enough and cheap enough, now, for the trucking industry to switch to electrics for local delivery vehicles. If not, they will be within another four or five years.

      I just found this article which has graphic embedded that shows how fast the wind and solar electricity industries have been growing in the USA.

      It’s a real mind opener. One thing that I noticed is that although NC is usually thought of as a Republican stronghold politically, the Tar Heels are coming on strong in renewables,being very practical and forward looking people in terms of their business opportunities, even though their wind and solar resources are modest, compared to places such as California, Texas , or the midwestern states. Virginia next door, where I live, is still a dead last laggard.


      There’s a series of articles available at the same spot. The next one is about specific cases of big electricity providers getting into wind power on the grand scale, and expecting to save money for customers while earning for investors.


  22. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can

    “Let’s imagine, just for argument’s sake, that we are able to get off fossil fuels and switch to 100% clean energy… even this best-case scenario wouldn’t be enough to avert climate catastrophe.

    Why? Because the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The remaining 30% comes from a number of causes…

    Our more optimistic pundits claim that technological innovations will help us to de-couple economic growth from material throughput. But sadly there is no evidence that this is happening.

    Global material extraction and consumption has grown by 94% since 1980, and is still going up…

    Clean energy, important as it is, won’t save us from this nightmare. But rethinking our economic system might.”

    Coal Is a Dinosaur and so is the Growth Economy

    Renewables… cannot realistically expand far enough, fast enough, to maintain energy growth and therefore economic growth.

    So overall, one way or the other, we have just about hit the maximum burn rate our civilization is likely to achieve, and it’s mostly downhill from here.”

    Germany’s wind and solar

    “So after decades of focus on solar and wind in Germany
    Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on subsidies
    Most green energy comes from biomass and waste
    Wind and solar provides less than 3%
    And fossil fuels still provide 81% of all energy

    Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google engineers
    Windmills, solar, tidal – all a ‘false hope’, say Stanford PhDs

    “Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.

    In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive – which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably). This in turn means that everyone would become miserably poor and economic growth would cease (the more honest hardline greens admit this openly). That, however, means that such expensive luxuries as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic), reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programmes (watch out for the meteor!) etc etc would all have to go – none of those things are sustainable without economic growth.”

    Ivanpah solar plant, built to limit greenhouse gases, is burning more natural gas

    “Given the high-level of public investment, the plant’s natural gas use should have been better publicly disclosed before the project was approved, said David Lamfrom, California desert manager for the National Parks Conservation Association.

    Lamfrom had opposed the project because it consumed about 5.6 square miles of mostly undisturbed public lands that was home to the desert tortoise, a species threatened with extinction. He also said it was too close – three miles – from the Mojave National Preserve, which is part of the national park system.

    The Ivanpah plant would have had a tougher time winning approvals had people known the extent that it relies on a fossil fuel, said Lamfrom, describing it as a hybrid facility.

    ‘The bottom line is the public didn’t expect this project to consume this much natural gas’, Lamfrom said in a telephone interview. ‘We did not have full knowledge that this was what we were signing up for.’. “

    SunEdison Sets Bankruptcy Exit With Nothing for Shareholders

    “SunEdison Inc. won final approval for a bankruptcy plan that will leave what was once the world’s largest renewable-energy firm as a shell of its former self, with nothing for shareholders whose investment at one point had been worth about $10 billion.

    SunEdison, known for gobbling up other companies and expanding at breakneck speed, will now exit Chapter 11…

    Even as the reorganization draws to a close, letters from more than 100 disgruntled shareholders continue to roll in for the judge, and a group to represent them continued to object. They questioned how the company ran through $24 billion in financing, leaving nothing for them. They also complained that they were left in the dark about how assets were valued and sold.”

    We can’t simply bet on renewable energy to stop global warming

    “Among the most progressive leaders in business, government and NGOs there is a shared belief that, if only we could switch off the fossil fuel tap and quickly transition towards renewable energy sources, we still have a chance to save the world from runaway climate change. All that’s needed is massive investment in wind, solar, geothermal and other renewables…

    …there are some hard facts that cannot be ignored.

    Fossil fuel still dominates

    First, the renewable schemes to date have largely been at the expense of unpopular nuclear installations, while the global share of fossil fuel-generated energy consumption remains at about 80-85%: just where it’s been since the early 1970s.

    • Caelan MacIntyre says:

      • GoneFishing says:

        Using deceptive tactics, Caelan compares renewable electric production to total energy production. In reality wind and solar produced 24.8% of the electric power in Germany in 2017. So after all those years 1/4 of the electric power is produced by wind and solar.

        But percentages don’t really tell much. Germany was listed as the most efficient country in 2014.
        Germany is #1 in the World for Energy Efficiency, according to the 2014 scorecard released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) today. Sixteen nations were studied. Six of the top 10 were from Europe. Canada was the only North American nation to make the cut, placing 9th.

        German Trade and Invest issued a press release noting that:

        The study praised Germany’s comprehensive energy strategy and awarded the country maximum points for its building codes, retrofit policies, and tax credit and loan programs.

        “Germany’s commitment to creating a framework that encourages investment in energy efficiency has made it a world-leading market in the field,” says Henning Ellermann, energy efficiency industry expert at Germany Trade & Invest.

        For example, Germany’s state development bank’s building renovation loan program stimulated private investments of over EUR 34 billion (USD 46 billion) in 2013, government figures show. Germany also offers SMEs subsidies of up to 30% for improvements to the efficiency of their manufacturing processes made by upgrading technology and equipment


        A lot of the change is the energy that never has to be used or produced.

        There are a lot of published articles that take narrow views of a subject and use narrow statistics ( cherry picking) to promote negative ideas about efforts in conservation and energy transistion. I think any person with a brain and a few minutes effort can easily unravel the deception and uncover the snake oil salesmen. One just needs to not blindly accept what others tell. In this case the blatant false claims were very obvious. Too bad so many people want the human race to fail to promote profit of a few.

        It is quite disturbing to have this site be the stomping ground of the Koch brother’s minions and their ilk, as well as those that accept and promote failed efforts in research to expand a program of worldwide destruction.

        • Javier says:

          Germany achieves energy balance by burning lots of lignite, the dirtiest type of coal, and is one of the few European countries that is not reducing its CO2 emissions, all at the same time it dares to lecture us all on how we should do things.

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          “Using deceptive tactics, Caelan compares renewable electric production to total energy production.” ~ GoneFishing

          The only wilful deception, Gonzo, appears to be your own doublespeak.

          The above chart regarding Germany is energy consumption and electricity is apparently still a small fraction of the overall primary energy mix, never mind the so-called renewables portion.
          We are talking about percentages of percentages.
          Electricity is ostensibly merely secondary energy or an energy carrier and, AFAIK, solar panels and windmills, etc., still depend, from cradle to grave, hugely on fossil fuels.

          “A lot of the change is the energy that never has to be used or produced.” ~ GoneFishing

          Yes, we’ve heard that one before.
          Another way we don’t use energy is by simply not using it.
          Going whole hog on some other crony-capitalist scheme can and usually does come up with a slew of other problems.
          Subsidies are the governpimps coercively engineering the lives of the often duped/hoodwinked/scammed sheeple.
          Hook, line and sinker, GoneFishing.
          You et al. seem to want to eat your cake and have it too. Ok, then you have to wait until it passes through your digestive tract.

          “It is quite disturbing to have this site be the stomping ground of the Koch brother’s minions and their ilk…” ~ GoneFishing

          ^ We do like our mindless fallacious dichotomous ‘presstitute’ talking points, don’t we?

          Want real technology? Maybe make it purely democratic. If it still doesn’t work, then at least we tried.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Oh well Caelean, since you replied to yourself I was forced to use the reply below your second rant to reply to the first. Seemed obvious to me, but went over your head.
            Your use of two failed project engineers to “prove” that PV and wind plus other renewable energy cannot supply energy for our civilization merely exposes your lack of comprehension of the subject.

            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              POB’s system didn’t accept the images at the end of the first comment-in-question. That’s why the images were posted separately.

              You shouldn’t be calling either ‘rants’ (at least by me), by the way, because the first is just links/quotes and the second is just images, nor should you be cherrypicking the ‘two engineers’, unless we want to look into why their projects may have ‘failed’ and what that might suggeest about some people’s fantasies.

              The whole economy/system is a failed ‘project’, and you and/or others seem to want to use it to create successful ones.

              Our species is shaping up to become a failed project.

      • islandboy says:

        I am somewhat puzzled by the motivations of the comment to which I am responding ( Caelan MacIntyre’s 09/01/2017 at 7:42 pm). The pie chart below shows the contribution of the various renewable sources to the US generation of electricity as a percentage of the total renewable contribution for June 2017. Table 1 in the lead post above shows that utility scale solar’s contribution to the electricity generation mix grew 55.3% for the first half of 2017 relative to H1 2016 and 73.7% year on year for the month of June.

        One point of my presence in the discussions on this web site, is to try and highlight the pace at which renewables, particularly solar, are growing. I have raised the point before that, the contribution of solar to the electricity mix will have grown one hundredfold between 2007 (0/01%) and 2017 where I expect solar to generate more than 1% of the electricity for the year. Is the commenter trying to suggest that because solar produces what they seem to perceive as a laughable share of the worlds current energy use, that will always be the case? Current trends suggest otherwise.

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          Islandboy’s Energy Matryoshka

          Your ‘renewable electricity generation’ pie chart fits within the wedge of another pie chart that in turn also fits into the wedge of a yet another energy pie chart, yes?

          While it is doubtless there may be scale-ups within your ‘nested energy mix’, it’s very possible that those scale-ups will be limited to economic feedback effects, such as related to entropy vis-a-vis, say, finance and social destabilization; to ‘proportion’ and/or to ‘relativity’, such as with regard to economics-of-scale as related to what large-scale centralized setups like governments and industry, etc., depend on.

          My ‘motivation’, if we must, should be common knowledge around these parts already. Nevertheless, it is in part to question your and society’s sanity and rigor in these kinds of regards, vis-a-vis individuals, society, and the rest of the living planet as a whole.

          Stuff related to the above is in part why I mentioned pure democracy and ‘trinkets’ elsewhere in this thread, and today just added something related that Boomer II suggested about ‘impoverishing the rest of the world’.

          There’s a whole lot more to so-called renewables than their mere ‘growth’ and of course there’s a whole lot more to an economy than growth as well.
          These days we are finally beginning to question the latter, but not after making a very dire mess, which we are highly unlikely to fix using the very system that got us into this mess in the first place.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Tilting at windmills again, ehhh?

            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              In my image, that’s a burning windmill near nuclear power plants in so-called Japan. Clusterfuck.

              Take your boat, GoneFishing, and go fish off the Fukushima coast, or, hell, even just on any relatively-major river nearby.

              In any case, beware the giant squid, never mind the pollution.

              • GoneFishing says:

                Ahh, you wish harm to come to me. How infantile.

                • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                  Of course not, but that’s the point, that harm may come when it shouldn’t.

                  In your pic, Caelan Quixote is looking back at the knight he just hit, falling of his horse in slo-mo, and kind of having fun to boot riding the horse backwards while his damsel (or whatever you call them) looks on in admiration.

                  Seriously, though, I’m allergic to horses… But I do have a mountain bike! ‘u^

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    A ship floats till it sinks. No sense getting our undies in a bunch over it.

          • Ulenspiegel says:

            There are hundreds of thousands of turbines, a few burn per year. And?

            • notanoilman says:

              ..at least you don’t have to evacuate thousands of square miles.


            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              The image ‘says something’ beside the nukes in Japan, and considering all the forest fires around the globe…

              I prefer hundreds of thousands more hectares of non-burning and ‘restored’ wild forest and trees than turbines, but that’s just me.

              While I’m here, are you in Germany or nearby?
              If so, that might explain your comment after my comments and nice video, quotes and pie chart about prison Germany’s energy.

              At least nothing.

              • GoneFishing says:

                So you piss and moan on an energy site to get more trees? Maybe you are in the wrong place, there are many eco sites and conservation sites that might work better for you.

                Peak oil will kill the forests, so best to do everything possible to energy transistion to sustainable methods and at least retain the 2/3 of forest we still have. Climate change is killing the forests also, so moving away from fossil fuels is best.
                Your desire to crash civilization will crash the natural world with it. Jellyfish anyone?

    • Javier says:


      As much as I would like for renewable energy sources to be able to meet our energy needs I have to agree that the evidence is not there that they can. Without a big development of nuclear, our energy future doesn’t seem too bright at present. Right now we are headed towards more expensive, less reliable energy. And this has huge economic and social repercussions.

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        Hi Javier,

        Fantastic discussions along those lines can be likened to the way little girls and boys, etc. might play house.
        The dollhouses, dollcars and dolls can look real enough and the fantasies can be fun and make a whole lot of sense internally until they’re are taken outside, made real, scaled up, multiplied and, say, thrown onto a dry lake bed and into a hurricane with some chemical plants and whatnot lying around; or thrown onto an oceanfront dry river delta and into a tsunami with some nuclear reactors and waste and whatnot lying around.

        That’s also why I think transition according to some people will not happen.

        K.I.S.S.. (But of course they don’t.)

        6% of 10% is a small number, but even if that changed, it would still have to come out of the playhouse…

        Much of this is of course about exponentials, chaos and feedback and how the complex interplays within and between everything can form results that make the playhouse fantasies reveal themselves for what they are and worth.

        We live in a very real ‘playhouse fantasy’– full of denial, delusion and dunning-kruger, etc.– and I resent having it imposed on me and my beloved Earth.

        Pole Shift

        “It doesn’t really matter if the south turns north
        Or the stars above stop in their course
        If ten thousand coastal cities are taken by the wave or not
        The outcome’s still the same for all of us now

        Riddles in stone, great cycles of time
        Forgotten, ignored – the ancient paradigm
        A polarization of values happening
        Opposing camps define themselves and pull apart…”

      • scrub puller says:

        Yair . . .

        If, in certain regions, detached dwellings were made ineligible for grid connection would be a simple place to start.

        It has happened here after fires.


        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          Scrub, that’s kind of in part why I may have likened so-called renewables to ‘trinkets’ under a previous article. I don’t doubt that they’ll appear here and there, but not nearly in the way they are sometimes portrayed or fantasized, at least not without some unforeseen consequences, whether actually unforeseen, or simply ignored.

  23. Survivalist says:

    Is the choice of statistical paradigm critical in extreme event attribution studies?


  24. wharf rat says:

    Harvey’s Made the World’s Most Important Chemical a Rare Commodity

    Few Americans care about ethylene. Many have probably never heard of it.

    As it turns out, this colorless, flammable gas is arguably the most important petrochemical on the planet — and much of it comes from the hurricane-stricken Gulf Coast. Ethylene is one of the big reasons the damage wrought by Hurricane Harvey in the chemical communities along the Gulf is likely to ripple through U.S. manufacturing of essential items from milk jugs to mattresses.

    With Harvey’s floods shutting down almost all the state’s plants, 61 percent of U.S. ethylene capacity has been closed, according to PetroChemWire.


    • Fred Magyar says:

      Few Americans care about ethylene. Many have probably never heard of it.

      They will when the price of a gallon of antifreeze goes through the roof…

      • GoneFishing says:

        Never heard of propylene glycol?

        But have no fear, there are other routes to ethylene, even from methane. In fact a solid shock to the American hold on cheap ethylene production could spur other types of production and maybe bring some research results to the plant scale.
        Traditionally, the world’s 140 million metric tons of annual ethylene capacity is created by steam cracking, or heating feedstocks to about 800 ?C. The heat cracks both carbon-carbon bonds, creating smaller molecules, and carbon-hydrogen bonds, giving rise to the double bonds of ethylene. This is a very energy-intensive process, and between 1.5 and 3.0 tons of carbon dioxide is emitted for every ton of ethylene produced. Building on work by MIT’s Dr. Angela Belcher using genetically modified
        bacteriophages as scaffolds for constructing inorganic materials, Siluria is discovering and optimizing novel catalysts for the oxidative coupling of methane (OCM) reaction to produce ethylene directly from methane with high performance at low temperatures


        • Fred Magyar says:

          Never heard of propylene glycol?

          Meh, don’t need it in an air cooled engine? At one time down in Brazil I owned a 1981 VW Brasilia powered by a 1.6 L, 100% ethanol fueled and air cooled 4 cyl. engine. There was almost nowhere that little car wouldn’t take me. Look Ma, no radiator 😉


          Mine was sky blue. It also had nicer bucket seats good head rests and better seat belts.

          Damn almost like this one!

          • GoneFishing says:

            I remember those early Beetle back in the 60’s. Put several people in them and they could not maintain speed up the mountain highways near me. We were wishing for pedal assist power.:-) Quite maneuverable though and definite death traps in head on crashes with larger vehicles (lost a friend that way). But no radiator. Now they put the motor in the front.
            Was the Brasilia built better than the Beetle?

            EV’s are very temperature sensitive and not many plugs out in the woods or in the Amazon. Alcohol, now that is everywhere.

            • Hightrekker says:

              I drove one from LA to Costa Rica and back.

            • scrub puller says:

              Yair . . .

              “Was the Brasilia built better than the Beetle?”

              I doubt it. The original German built beetle was one of the best built mass produced cars ever.


              • Fred Magyar says:

                Yep, the original ‘German Folks Wagon’, wins hands down!

                The Brasilia for its time, wasn’t too shabby either. Because the engine and its weight were over the rear wheels they were great on muddy back roads, which were quite common in Brazil back then…

                Note to GF, my Brasilia had a 1.6 L engine so while not a Porsche it was good enough, on most roads it cruised at about 120 kph. Some of the early VW bugs had 1.2 L engines but they did have better aerodynamics.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Yep early VW beetles (bugs) put the engine in the rear so the drivers body could act like a cushion in an accident saving the engine from damage. Not much else to stop a Cadillac from turning a VW into pre-sized recycles.
                  Although I did see a Cessna 150 crunch worse than a VW when it stalled on approach and nosed into the ground from about 200 feet. Could barely fit a arm into the cockpit.

          • notanoilman says:

            Hmmm, there’s something like that near me, I’ll have to take a closer look and see just what it is. That alcohol fuel smell in Sao, intoxicating but the orange/brown haze hovering over the town inside the periferic!


  25. George Kaplan says:

    Looks like the Antarctic might have started melting a few weeks early – there is a heat wave with plus 4K temperature anomalies due around the middle of next week.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Wish they would send some heat here, been about 15F lower here than normal.

      • wharf rat says:

        “Wish they would send some heat here”

        California is a lot closer, and as islandboy’s article below shows, there are places which are 30 degrees above normal, so there is plenty to go around. Rat has been at 107 degrees for a few days, so you can take your 15 degrees from Mendocino County.

    • Doug Leighton says:

      Just more Alarmism, according to our pretentious in-house clown; that would be the one who has yet to master High School statistics but makes arm chair claims slandering, misrepresenting and discrediting Real Scientists with his fumes of fancy.

      • GoneFishing says:

        On the more serious or at least less nauseating side, I was just discussing climate change with someone and she felt it was a horrible and terrifying subject, didn’t want to hear about it or think about it. I brought up the point that knowledge of impending changes allows us to adapt to and possibly reduce the effects of future global warming. Without the “alarmists” warning people they would have no chance at all and would be blindsided.
        I wonder if people who don’t want to hear about it or those who actively deny it also remove smoke detectors from their houses and never go to a doctor even when sick. Same logical pathway.

        • Doug Leighton says:

          I’d advise against removal of smoke detectors from houses because it’s reassuring to glance at the ceiling before you go to sleep and see one there. Just rip out the batteries then you won’t have to worry about being jarred awake from sweet dreams. Works the same as climate change denial, encourage the scientists to plod on with their research but don’t listen to anything they have to say.

        • Javier says:

          You are assuming you are right on the issue, but you are not. Your position is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Unfounded alarmism is very damaging because it leads to irrational decisions.

          • GoneFishing says:

            No fire? Has someone disconnected your brain? Or would you lock and bolt the doors so no one can escape? That is the result of your attitude. Trap them all. We have laws against that, not that it helps the trapped people.

          • Survivalist says:

            Thanks for coming out short bus.
            What a troll.

    • Survivalist says:

      This is a picture of sea ice that I like.


      Click on NSIDC SH for Antarctic. Record low maximum.

      • Javier says:

        It’s not global warming, but an unusually negative Southern Annular Mode plus unusual weather:

        Modulation of the seasonal cycle of Antarctic sea ice extent related to the Southern Annular Mode
        Authors Edward W. Doodridge, John Marshall
        Accepted manuscript online: 1 September 2017
        DOI: 10.1002/2017GL074319

        “Our analysis shows that the wind anomalies related to the negative SAM during the 2016/17 austral summer contributed to the record minimum Antarctic sea ice extent observed in March 2017.”

        But who knows, Antarctic sea ice has been growing during global warming. I would expect Antarctic sea ice to decrease when global warming is reverted.

  26. Hightrekker says:

    Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse:

    White House to nominate U.S. Rep. Bridenstine for NASA post


    • Fred Magyar says:

      From the link:
      If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Bridenstine would become the first Oklahoman to lead NASA and one of the few NASA administrators without a science or space background.

      Perhaps a review of Richard Feynman’s report on the Challenger Shuttle disaster might be in order…

      Feynman was so critical of flaws in NASA’s “safety culture” that he threatened to remove his name from the report unless it included his personal observations on the reliability of the shuttle, which appeared as Appendix F.[6][10] In the appendix, he stated:

      It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask “What is the cause of management’s fantastic faith in the machinery? .. It would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy.

      “For a successful technology,” Feynman concluded, “reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
      Source Wikipedia

      That quote applies to all of reality, including anthropogenic climate change and how we assess the possible risks! To paraphrase Feynman, with sincere apologies.

      It would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or external consumption, the current administration of the USA exaggerates the competence of its members, to the point of fantasy.

      • Hightrekker says:

        I think it may possibly be that they never want another weather satellite launched.
        Science is Satan!
        These are not the brightest porch lights on the block.

      • GoneFishing says:

        I think a variation of Feynman’s words would make an excellent extension to civilization.
        ” For a civilization to be successful, reality must take precedence over economics.”

        • Nick G says:

          uhmmm…economics is all about reality.

          It’s a question of realistic econ vs fake econ. Just like realistic physics vs fake physics.

          • GoneFishing says:

            There is no realistic economics. The economics of our system depends totally on ignoring most of the inhabitants of this planet (their death is inconsequential), ignoring the effects of our civilization and concentrates on increasing inequality, pollution and natural destruction as a positive result. That is the reality of actual economics and the economy.

            • Nick G says:

              I strongly disagree.

              Economics is just the science of producing and distributing stuff. Our current “system” is just one way of organizing an economy. For instance, hunter gatherers have a different system, and Marxists have another. Economics tells us how each system behaves, but it doesn’t tell us which system (or which of the trillions of sub-variations) to choose.

              Actually, I also disagree about our current system depending on ignoring other life, and inequality, pollution and ecological damage. The Koch brothers would like you to believe that it’s an either/or choice, but it’s really not.

              For instance, they’d like us to believe that we have to choose “drill, baby, drill” in order to have a good life, that the alternative to FF & oil is poverty. It’s really, really not true!

              • GoneFishing says:

                Wow, that was a low blow, implying I am susceptible and taken in by Koch bros. propaganda. Really sick.

                • HuntingtonBeach says:

                  Fish, I don’t think Nick meant it as a low blow. That’s really not his style. Now if it were me, it sure could have been. I do agree with Nick and economics also includes human behavior.

                  I get the sense your beef is more in tune with the way current economics is functioning. Which really goes back to our democracy and it’s laws and regulations. Letting the rich and powerful manipulate natural resources and labor for their self interest. With no responsibility for damage to earth and humans. Including those like the Koch brothers and their misinformation campaign.

                  Capitalism without regulations is a race to the bottom except for all but a few. Be suspect when the politicians want to eliminate regulations for special interest. Most likely he is not thinking about you, but themselves and who is lining his pocket with power.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    We were discussing reality.
                    Aside from that, economics cannot even add up the cost of burning coal. When it tries to value nature and our world in dollars, it has failed completely to understand reality.
                    Economics is a business tool.
                    Give me the actual value of a gopher tortoise or a coral polyp using economics. Fail, total fail. It cannot deal with reality.
                    It only deals with the imaginary systems and rules set up within human culture and even then it has huge holes.
                    If a science cannot even assign a true and testable (and repeatable) value to something concrete and measurable then what is it?
                    Of course with a lot of work nature and the environment could be valued in human terms, but that would be a highly biased value and subject to viewpoint.
                    So off the bat, economics cannot assess even the most basic parameters of the earth system. It can only work with invented systems in a closed and narrow human world view.

                  • HuntingtonBeach says:

                    The economic cost of not burning coal is not producing electricity with it, or producing steel from it, or heating your home with it. Which would mean you would go without or use a substitute to replace the loss electricity for example. Which could rise the price of other energy sources.

                    On the other hand, there are additional costs to producing electricity from coal, other than just your electric bill. There is the cost of dumping the burnt byproducts into the air we breath and the streams we drink our water from. Or the cost of global warming and it’s effect on hurricanes.

                    Crap, if it’s a dollar amount your looking for. What is the going rate for a gopher tortoise at the local pet store these days ? But I don’t think that the answer your looking for. The real cost is setting aside untouched human land for it to live in peace.

                    There’s even a price for human life. We go to war knowing that there will be a certain number of casualties. We know there is a cost to not taking ones AIDS medicine.

                    In economic “reality”, something is only worth what someone will pay for it. Because you have to put a buyer and seller together in an agreement. And as you well know, that can change by the minute.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Give me the actual value of a gopher tortoise or a coral polyp using economics. Fail, total fail. It cannot deal with reality.

                    I have to fully agree with GF, that economists operating within our current paradigm, fail miserably when attributing value to things like ecosystem services. Our economists can tell you the price of anything but not its true value! Case in point:


                    What’s the economic value of the Great Barrier Reef? It’s priceless

                    Deloitte Access Economics has valued the Great Barrier Reef at A$56 billion, with an economic contribution of A$6.4 billion per year. Yet this figure grossly underestimates the value of the reef, as it mainly focuses on tourism and the reef’s role as an Australian icon.

                    When you include aspects of the reef that the report excludes, such as the ecosystem services provided by coral reefs, you find that the reef is priceless.

                    Putting a price on the Great Barrier Reef buys into the notion that a cost-benefit analysis is the right way to make decisions on policies and projects that may affect the reef. For example, the environmental cost of the extension to the Abbot Point coal terminal can be compared to any economic benefits.

                    But as the reef is both priceless and irreplaceable, this is the wrong approach. Instead, the precautionary principle should be used to make decisions regarding the reef. Policies and projects that may damage the reef cannot go ahead.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    HB, nothing against you or others who buy into the old paradigm. There are only benefits to replacing harmful, health killing ways with less harmful and even fully sustainable ways. There is no cost to transistion, there are actually huge gains. We will need far less energy by transitioning away from fossil fuels. That is the big thing, the thing that most analyses do not consider for the researchers are trying to fit the energy transistion into the old paradigm. It’s not separate from changing civilization completely. Civilization will evolve as conditions change just as economies will change.
                    Another huge example is how does current economic practice and principle deal with eliminating about half the jobs by 2030 due to further automation? It doesn’t, because it has to adapt to changing conditions like we do, since it is a model of our activity, nothing more.
                    Clearly people need to seriously consider value instead of price.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    New economic paradigms are begining to emerge.


                    Building a City: Regulating the Sharing Economy in Amsterdam
                    From dads with DIY projects to fashionistas seeking the latest trends, Amsterdam’s tenacious citizens are ripping up the rulebooks and bringing trade into the 21st century. How did a city enable its citizens to think differently and connect in new ways?

                    In the hip Amsterdam district of Jordaan, a woman walks into an award-winning fashion boutique. She pulls her fingertips through racks of emerging designers and vintage classics. When she’s picked out the perfect dress, she takes it to the counter and greets the clerk with a smile. No cash exchanges hands. Next week, the shop will take the outfit back, no questions asked, so she can exchange it for something else.
                    Over the next few weeks, that same customer can exchange her latest selections as many times as she wants for the set monthly price she pays. This is Lena — the world’s first “fashion library,” where clothes are borrowed in real life via subscription. An endless wardrobe for as little as €25 per month makes quite the antidote for the trends of fast fashion and mass consumption.
                    Lena is just one of many Amsterdam startups ditching the notion of fixed ownership in favor of shared access to goods and services. This same idea has propelled companies like Uber, Airbnb, and Deliveroo to global prominence. Now Amsterdam is paving the way for the collaborative economy’s next frontier

                    The Danes are also working on shifting the economic paradigm away from individual ownership.


                    Danish VIGGA.us is the founder of a award-winning business model for a circular economy in the textile industry. VIGGA is a maternity and kid’s wear brand designed for a circular economy, because pregnancy bellies as well as kids grow and clothes don’t. The VIGGA™ product-service-system enables parents to lease organic maternity and children’s wear. Saves time, money and resources.

                  • HuntingtonBeach says:

                    “Our economists can tell you the price of anything but not its true value! Case in point:”

                    Fred, this comment reminds me of your arguments with Caelan on good and bad technology. Technology is what it is. It’s what humans do with it that causes it’s effect.

                    It’s not economist place to put a value on our ecosystem. That lies with humans and how they treat the environment.

                    I see the environment, just like most peoples health. They don’t value their good health until they loose it.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Gone fishing,

                    How do you measure value?

                    Economists cannot really answer this question. Perhaps you know the answer, the problem is far from straightforward.

                    One would need a yardstick that is invariant.

                    But which to choose is far from clear.

                • Nick G says:

                  Hi GF,

                  As HB said, that wasn’t intended as a personal comment about you.

                  I’m just saying that we need to think outside the fossil fuel box. I think a lot of Peak Oil enthusiasts are having trouble envisioning a world without fossil fuels, and the fact is that a world without fossil fuels is cleaner, safer AND more prosperous.

                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                    As long as we don’t leave one bad box merely to climb into a bad box of another kind.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Caelan,

                    Who decides on the “good” and “bad” sandbox?

                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    As a start, perhaps people who are simply being honest with themselves.

                    That be you?

            • Fred Magyar says:

              I’m certainly no expert on economics and would at least agree that very few economic models seem to me to portend even a remotely sustainable future if our industrial global civilization continues on its current pah.

              Though I’m not sure it follows that there can be no economic system that might be sustainable. I’d say that exhibit A of a none sustainable city would be the economic and developmental path taken by Houston.

              The question remains, are there completely different paradigms that might bring us to a much better outcome. I don’t know the answer to that question but there are people working on trying to find out if other economic systems might work.

              Here’s one group trying out some ideas. I receive their news letter and would like to find ways of applying some of their ideas to my own town.


              Building Urban Resilience-

              Before the middle of this century, the world’s cities will face challenges like never before. A projected 50% growth in world population, hand-in-hand with the concentration of people in urban centres, means our cities will have to be prepared for the social, environmental and infrastructural challenges coming their way.

              Examples of these challenges include high unemployment, an overtaxed public transportation system, and potential food and water shortage. Layered on top of that are the inevitable technological developments that will help reshape how we live and work. What, for example, will a mass transport system based on autonomous and shared vehicles mean for public safety, employment and land use?

              100 Resilient Cities (100RC) is an organisation dedicated to helping cities around the world become more resilient to the physical, social and economic challenges of today and the future. From Accra to Yiwu, cities around the world are supported in their distinct challenges by 100RC.

              Join us in this live show to hear from Elizabeth Yee, the Vice President of City Solutions for 100RC and help us to ask what we can learn from how cities are overcoming resilience challenges.

              It ties into a discussion we had about Sam Harris’ podcast guest,
              From Cells to Cities
              A Conversation with Geoffrey West


              Geoffrey West is a theoretical physicist whose primary interests have been in fundamental questions in physics and biology. He is a Senior Fellow at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a distinguished professor at the Sante Fe Institute, where he served as the president from 2005-2009. In 2006 he was named to Time’s list of “The 100 Most Influential People in the World.” He is the author of Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies.

              • GoneFishing says:

                Make Room! Make Room!

                • Fred Magyar says:


                  That includes making room for naked mole rats and blue whales and maybe learning a thing or two from the resilience and survival capabilities of mats of invasive fire ants floating on the chemically polluted flood waters of Houston’s bayous.

                  Sticking our heads up our asses and denying reality probably isn’t going to be a very productive long term survival strategy for us naked apes, who so far haven’t managed to demonstrate that we are all that much smarter than yeast or cyanobacteria…

                  The fat lady hasn’t sung yet so it may be a bit premature to write us off before the final curtain.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Humans will attempt to survive their fantastically amplified overshoot. I am more concerned with the survival of the rest of the species and the system that keeps them alive.

                    I wonder how many manipulative intelligent species survive and how many worlds they have taken down with themselves across the universe.
                    There may be a very good reason why space is quiet when it comes to intelligent communication. Silence can be deafening.

                    Of course truly intelligent species may have learned to shut up, learned that technology is not compatible with life or use a whole different way to communicate than we know about.
                    Two of my favorite sci-fi stories are Rendevous with Rama (we are completely ignored by aliens) and The Day the Earth Stood Still (aliens tell us to control ourselves or be destroyed = we are vermin).
                    Think about it, the way we act in general, the way we have set up our own destruction at the touch of some buttons, the ways people treat their our own families. Who would want to visit us or even talk to us? The answer is of course, the psychos of the universe.

                    Does the fat lady have a name?

                  • HuntingtonBeach says:

                    Cass Elliot

                • Hightrekker says:

                  Yep, make room.

  27. Hightrekker says:

    The reason our American Corporate Masters gave us a choice between corruption (Hillary Clinton) and bigotry (Donald Trump) in the 2016 national election is that either was acceptable to them, since both are intrinsic aspects of how business is being conducted.

    In 2016, the Democratic (Party) National Committee saved corporate privilege from the threat of democratic accountability. American democracy did not die because of voter apathy, it was assassinated by the DNC in a conspiracy of pure betrayal of both the American people and democratic principles, with the coup de grâce being delivered on 26 July 2016. So, instead of America today being the mythical democratic republic portrayed in school textbooks, it is actually a corporatized oligarchy – or a fascist state, take your pick – with a modest social democratic insurgency carried on mainly by idealistic younger people.

    That so many Americans cannot yet acknowledge these facts is a sad reflection on the extent of ignorance, bigotry, greed, insularity and self-absorption throughout the population. It is difficult to feel sympathy for the plebeian and bourgeois slaves who resist rebelling against their own exploitation, by slavishly attaching themselves to either the Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton (and Barack Obama) pacifying personality projections of the corporatized oligarchy.

  28. islandboy says:

    Heat, Smoke, and Fire Assault Western States: All-Time Record Heat in California

    The steamy, fiery summer of 2017 hit a new crescendo this weekend across the U.S. West, which is getting its hottest Labor Day weekend on record in many locations—and in some spots, the hottest weather ever observed. Overall, “this is the greatest statewide heat wave ever recorded in California,” proclaimed WU weather historian Christopher Burt on Saturday night. Burt based his conclusion not only on the heat’s intensity but on its widespread nature well beyond California’s usual scorching locations. Even an escape to the cool Pacific shore was pretty much futile, as easterly downslope winds funneled scorching air from the interior into coastal sections that are normally mild and sometimes chilly even in midsummer. Readings also soared above 110°F across California’s Central Valley, although such heat is not quite so unusual for late summer in that area.

    California’s Bay Area has been the focal point of the weekend’s most extraordinary heat. Temperatures soared to 106°F in downtown San Francisco on Friday and 102°F on Saturday. Friday’s reading was the hottest ever measured in downtown SF, where temperatures have been observed since 1874. Friday’s 106°F handily topped the previous record of 103°F from June 14, 2000, and Saturday was only the second high of 102°F in downtown history, matching Oct. 5, 1987. “To put this in perspective, the average high temperature for the city these two days is just 71°F,” said Chris Burt, who lives in the East Bay region. “Friday night’s temperatures failed to fall below 85°F at several hill locations near me (I dropped to 81°).” He added: “It is so hot in our home I can hardly think. No air conditioning, of course.” Heat-related illnesses overwhelmed San Francisco hospitals on Friday, according to the Bay Area NWS office. It would not be shocking to see multiple Bay Area fatalities during this heat wave, given the multi-day intensity of the heat and the Bay Area’s lack of air conditioning.

    Cue Javier in 3, 2, 1…… to tell us 2017 is actually following a cooling trend!

  29. Hickory says:

    There is some interesting comments on the various sides of the nuclear generation issue in this article-
    ““It is fair to say that replacing nuclear with renewables and storage is running in place, but the alternative is replacing nuclear with natural gas and that is going backwards,” Burgess said.”


    And a DOE report on small modular nukes-


  30. Boomer II says:

    Maybe the best way to get everyone talking is to focus on natural disasters. The US is getting record breaking heat, rain, and fires. Those can’t be hidden. Some people might claim they are an aberration, but if they continue to happen, it’s increasingly hard to do that.

    Some people will say these aren’t the result of global warming. Okay, but we still have the cost and disruption of natural disasters. How do we deal with that?

    Houston is having to live with the results of no zoning, and overbuilding on wetlands. What will the city choose to do? It also has to deal with the consequences of chemical pollution. Houston can choose a business-as-usual approach, but part of their economy is going to continue to be spent on cleanups. Is that what the city wants?

    • Hightrekker says:

      We will see what Houston looks like after this mess is cleaned up.
      Like NO, it could lose population.

    • George Kaplan says:

      The trouble is it’s all probabilistic, people like certainty. Try explaining Bayesian inference, Monte Carlo methods, multidimensional probability functions or just the concept of risk as probability times consequence to even a reasonably educated person and you can get some blank looks. Survivalist had a good paper above about the different methods of trying to apportion how much of an event can be attributed to AGW – try discussing that a few times at the water cooler. It also had a link to another good paper about how the 2012 low Arctic ice extent was highly influenced by AGW, in fact could almost certainly not have happened otherwise, but at times the language is almost impenetrable.

  31. Javier says:

    Hurricane Harvey Makes The Case For Nuclear Power

    “The storm has left refineries shut down, interrupted wind and solar generation, caused a constant worry about gas explosions, and caused a chain of events that led to explosions and fires at the Arkema chemical plant that is only the beginning. Over a fifth of the country’s oil production has been shuttered. But the Texas nuclear power plants have been running smoothly. The two nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project plant near Houston were operating at full capacity despite wind gusts that peaked at 130 mph as the Hurricane made landfall. The plant implemented its severe weather protocols as planned and completed hurricane preparations ahead of Category 4 Hurricane Harvey striking the Texas Gulf Coast on August 25th. Anyone who knows anything about nuclear was not surprised. Nuclear is the only energy source immune to all extreme weather events – by design.

    • Hickory says:

      Small modular reactor development-
      oregon state- NuScale Power – first to be awarded design approval

      Terra Power backed in part by Bill Gates-

      Westinghouse- are they still solvent?

      Debate on Nukes in Oregon- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKhEyJbP9EA
      ” We go on to discuss Oregon legislation, bill SB 990, which has passed the Senate. SB990 will essentially void Oregon law that no new nuclear plants be build in the state until a national nuclear depositary has been activated. Such a depositary does not exist. SB 990 would allow cities and counties to approve building of SMR within their boundaries, contrary to the 1980 initiative law forbidding them.”

      • Survivalist says:

        “Texas Wind turbines went right on Turning under Harvey’s impact, as Refineries Shut Down”


        • OFM says:

          I seldom agree with Javier, because he seldom mentions any thing other than global warming, but he does make sense other than on that one topic.

          We naked apes are dumber than fucking fence posts, no matter how well educated we are, when it comes to actually THINKING versus just blindly doing what our tribal loyalties indicate is best to maintain our good standing in our respective IN groups. So hard core big D Democrats will never admit that HRC was a rotten candidate, any more than hard core big R Republicans will admit that Trump is simply rotten, PERIOD.

          The only people who don’t understand that our current day nukes are extremely dangerous are the people who haven’t bothered to take a few hours to study the risks associated with them.

          BUT BUT BUT BUT the average environmentalist these days is taking a fucking RELIGIOUS approach to the nuclear power issue, doing all he can to make sure we NEVER have a new generation of safe and affordable nuclear reactors.

          This is a BIG mistake. We really ought to be spending some real bucks on research and development, and find out if we CAN build small, modular, safe, and AFFORDABLE reactors.

          If we can’t, then we can’t.

          But putting all our future eggs in the renewables basket may be a fucking mistake that is so huge it beggars description, because if we CAN’T or DON’T manage to build out renewables to the extent necessary to keep BAU up and running, well…………

          Well intentioned green thinking bloggers and scientists aren’t in CONTROL of this old vale of tears. Politicians are more or less in control, banksters are more or less in control, and the people themselves, in the last analysis, ARE in control.

          PEOPLE will burn every last ton of coal, and every last old plastic bottle and car tire before they go without electricity. Anybody who thinks otherwise has his head up his ass.

          We shouldn’t be GAMBLING on our future to any greater extent than we MUST. We need plan B’s and plan C’s and nuclear power should be in the B and C categories, for damned sure.

        • Javier says:

          That’s entirely not the point. I guess people want energy during the hurricane also. Hard to evacuate if you can’t charge your EV. Without nuclear the amount of people without electricity would have soared.

  32. Bob Frisky says:

    Aside from Florida, almost all places east of the Rockies saw an unusually cold August. Actually the magnitude of the cold temperatures in the middle part of the country is pretty remarkable considering how the scientists say global warming is supposed to have heated up the planet.

    • Bob Frisky says:

      August was 5.3 degrees below normal in Kansas City.

      CXUS55 KEAX 010736

      STATION: Kansas City International MO
      YEAR: 2017
      LATITUDE: 39 19 N
      LONGITUDE: 94 43 W

      1 2 3 4 5 6A 6B 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
      12Z AVG MX 2MIN

      1 85 61 73 -5 0 8 0.00 0.0 0 3.1 8 270 M M 3 18 11 240
      2 88 64 76 -2 0 11 0.00 0.0 0 4.3 9 290 M M 5 18 11 240
      3 81 63 72 -6 0 7 0.00 0.0 0 9.2 17 320 M M 5 8 23 320
      4 78 52 65 -13 0 0 0.00 0.0 0 5.0 13 10 M M 2 18 18 350
      5 65 57 61 -17 4 0 2.15 0.0 0 10.4 31 150 M M 8 13 37 140
      6 75 64 70 -8 0 5 T 0.0 0 5.8 10 40 M M 9 12 13 40
      7 79 63 71 -7 0 6 0.00 0.0 0 6.3 13 30 M M 7 1 16 10
      8 80 62 71 -7 0 6 0.00 0.0 0 6.0 12 130 M M 2 18 16 130
      9 83 60 72 -6 0 7 T 0.0 0 6.9 17 160 M M 5 18 20 200
      10 85 68 77 -1 0 12 0.00 0.0 0 4.6 13 20 M M 8 18 15 20
      11 82 65 74 -4 0 9 0.01 0.0 0 7.8 14 10 M M 5 1 20 20
      12 80 62 71 -7 0 6 0.00 0.0 0 7.3 12 80 M M 3 17 90
      13 80 59 70 -8 0 5 0.00 0.0 0 9.2 15 120 M M 4 21 130
      14 85 65 75 -3 0 10 0.00 0.0 0 6.8 13 210 M M 6 18 18 180
      15 87 67 77 -1 0 12 0.00 0.0 0 6.9 14 180 M M 5 8 19 130
      16 86 68 77 -1 0 12 0.50 0.0 0 8.5 18 240 M M 8 13 25 220
      17 84 63 74 -3 0 9 0.00 0.0 0 6.7 15 280 M M 3 20 270
      18 89 62 76 -1 0 11 0.09 0.0 0 7.9 26 10 M M 4 3 32 360
      19 91 65 78 1 0 13 0.00 0.0 0 3.8 13 160 M M 0 1 14 130
      20 87 68 78 1 0 13 0.76 0.0 0 12.2 38 340 M M 6 13 47 350
      21 83 68 76 -1 0 11 4.08 0.0 0 10.8 37 350 M M 7 1238 45 360
      22 80 58 69 -7 0 4 2.06 0.0 0 8.9 32 30 M M 6 13 42 30
      23 79 56 68 -8 0 3 0.00 0.0 0 4.1 9 50 M M 0 14 120
      24 79 58 69 -7 0 4 0.00 0.0 0 8.3 15 150 M M 5 20 130
      25 81 62 72 -4 0 7 0.00 0.0 0 9.3 17 160 M M 4 24 160
      26 83 62 73 -3 0 8 0.00 0.0 0 8.5 16 170 M M 2 8 19 180
      27 75 63 69 -6 0 4 0.54 0.0 0 5.4 14 170 M M 5 138 18 260
      28 80 60 70 -5 0 5 0.00 0.0 0 7.7 14 20 M M 2 1 21 330
      29 78 57 68 -7 0 3 0.00 0.0 0 4.7 12 20 M M 3 1 14 10
      30 82 60 71 -4 0 6 0.00 0.0 0 5.3 13 60 M M 2 1 16 60
      31 80 60 70 -4 0 5 0.00 0.0 0 7.2 15 50 M M 2 18 19 60
      SM 2530 1922 4 222 10.19 0.0 218.9 M 136
      AV 81.6 62.0 7.1 FASTST M M 4 MAX(MPH)
      MISC ----> # 38 340 # 47 350



      STATION: Kansas City International MO
      YEAR: 2017
      LATITUDE: 39 19 N
      LONGITUDE: 94 43 W


      HIGHEST: 91 ON 19 GRTST 24HR 4.08 ON 21-21 TO 1/4 MILE OR LESS
      LOWEST: 52 ON 4 3 = THUNDER
      TOTAL MONTH: 0.0 INCH 5 = HAIL
      8 = SMOKE OR HAZE
      X = TORNADO
      MAX 32 OR BELOW: 0 0.01 INCH OR MORE: 8
      MAX 90 OR ABOVE: 1 0.10 INCH OR MORE: 6
      MIN 32 OR BELOW: 0 0.50 INCH OR MORE: 6
      MIN 0 OR BELOW: 0 1.00 INCH OR MORE: 3

      [HDD (BASE 65) ]
      TOTAL THIS MO. 4 CLEAR (SCALE 0-3) 11
      TOTAL FM JUL 1 4 CLOUDY (SCALE 8-10) 1

      [CDD (BASE 65) ]
      TOTAL THIS MO. 222
      TOTAL FM JAN 1 1078 HIGHEST SLP 0.00 ON M


      • George Kaplan says:

        I live east of the rockies and it’s been pretty warm here – it’s called Europe. Do you think posting all those numbers makes you look bright – because it actually makes you look like a complete pillock.

        • Bob Frisky says:

          All those numbers are actual data which confirm my point about a cold August. I thought you liberals have a deep respect for data, facts and figures?

          • Hickory says:

            Bob. Pretend to be beyond 5th grade sometimes.
            Cool month in August in one region sounds pleasant.
            Globally, the past three years have been record breaking (warm).
            Climate is about big weather trends.
            They do teach concepts like this in school, or books.

            • Doug Leighton says:

              Hickory — I don’t think you’re being entirely fair to a lot of 5th graders. Best you encourage Bob (and Javier) to start their own Blog, which everyone could ignore, and we’ll all be happy.

              • Hightrekker says:

                It might be a Wing Pawn sensation!
                Watts my head doing up my ass? has been a sensation among the clueless.

          • Survivalist says:

            Another short bus drive-by courtesy of Bob Frisky. Hey Bob, did your mother have any children that lived?

          • Fred Magyar says:

            Gotta agree with George that your posting those numbers makes you look like a maroon. If you are going to post numbers, just stick to a chart, graph or a simple link.

            BTW, I haven’t been in Europe this summer but a large portion of my extended family lives in Germany and Hungary and there was a family wedding in Italy which I was unable to attend. They all tell me it has been quite hot this summer and still is.


            Extreme heat warnings issued in Europe as temperatures pass 40C
            Authorities in 11 countries warn residents and tourists to take precautions amid region’s most intense heatwave – nicknamed Lucifer – since 2003

            Jon Henley European affairs correspondent
            Friday 4 August 2017 11.28 EDT First published on Friday 4 August 2017 09.00 EDT

            Eleven southern and central European countries have issued extreme heat warnings amid a brutal heatwave nicknamed Lucifer, with residents and tourists urged to take precautions and scientists warning worse could be still to come.

            Authorities in countries including Italy, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia are on red alert, the European forecasters’ network Meteoalarm said, and swaths of southern Spain and France are on amber.

            As temperatures in many places hit or exceeded 40C (104F) in the region’s most sustained heatwave since 2003, emergency services are being put on standby and people have been asked to “remain vigilant”, stay indoors, avoid long journeys, drink enough fluids and listen for emergency advice from health officials.

            Cool August my ass!

            • Survivalist says:

              I’m pretty sure Bob doesn’t know how to read a graph.

              Copernicus will have the August data out shortly.


              Hey Bob I have a skill testing question for you. I have a 50 gallon drum and I want to fill it with water. My garden hose puts out 5 gallons of water a minute. How long will it take to fill my drum with water. No calculator.

            • Hightrekker says:

              I’m a bit worried on your location on the planet right now.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Yep, I’m monitoring the situation, it’s starting to worry me a bit but it kinda comes with the territory, its that time of the year…

                Edit: It would be quite ironic if it happened to come ashore at Mar-a-Lago…

                • Hightrekker says:

                  I was thinking the same thing.

                • George Kaplan says:

                  All the models seem to point to Miami now, but with a big range of category from TS to just about 5. The best one for trajectory is ECMWF high resolution which tends to stay more offshore, but their ensemble mean goes through Miami and up the spine of Florida (Mar-a-Lago would then probably be in the direct firing line for prolonged highest winds and maybe storm surge). Aren’t there a couple of other regular posters here from Florida? Hope all of you stay well.

                  ps there’s another one forming immediately behind Irma, and looks like it might be on a similar track.

                  • Raymond Sloop says:

                    Well you are better off throwing a dart at a map to see where the hurricane will go because these models -funded by massive taxpayer subsidies no less- are a bunch of junk. Running forwards they are unable to accurately predict any big climate events like hurricanes hitting land -while running backwards they can’t even tell you known conditions from the past. The best example of how “good” they are comes from less than 10 years ago when Al Gore, King Of Climate Change was on the talk show circuit telling everyone how his glorious models predicted an ice free arctic by 2014. Well that one didn’t work out very well did it? Still -after Hurricane Sandy and Barry Obama’s cronyism- federal scientists got tens of millions of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars to “refine” & “improve” climate models which they already knew were fundamentally flawed in the first place. In other words our money got squandered with no noticeable improvement of forecast accuracy for any climate events impacting us here in the United States.

                  • George Kaplan says:

                    I think you need to look up the meaning of climate versus weather. Also maybe “informed comment” versus “biased bullshit”.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Well you are better off throwing a dart at a map to see where the hurricane will go because these models -funded by massive taxpayer subsidies no less- are a bunch of junk.

                    Were you home schooled by morons? You do realize that the US is not the only industrialized country in the world that funds scientific research, right?

                    Maybe go down to your local Walmart and buy this thing they have there, called a globe…

                    Because obviously you missed out on taxpayer funded basic education and are in dire need of remedial work in a number of areas.

              • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                Not to worry, Hightrekker,

                Fred’s crony-capitalist plutarchy technology will save him and everyone else.

                • Hightrekker says:

                  Might be a wake up call for techo narcissists
                  (not talking to you Fred)

          • George Kaplan says:

            I do like numbers but I can’t work out why you presume to know my politics. Here are some numbers for you: Climate works over about 30 years, so 360 months of data needed. Kansas City is just over 1 million people, take that as a mean so look at cities over 500,000 to be representative. There are 71 such cities in the US, prorate by population that would give say 1500 worldwide. Each city needs 4 pages of data per month so that gives about 2 million pages for a proper study. Dennis might welcome such a post, you should get right on it.

      • Max Gervis says:

        Bob you got the response you did because you broke a cardinal rule of PeakOilBarrel, that is you either post about record high temperatures, extreme heat waves, and warming trends, or get out! Posting anything that deals with record cold temperatures and sustained cold spells is a sure way to get you sent to the firing squad here.

        • GoneFishing says:

          “Actually the magnitude of the cold temperatures in the middle part of the country is pretty remarkable considering how the scientists say global warming is supposed to have heated up the planet.”

          That is right, most people don’t understand the earlier predictions by climate scientists that the weather would become more chaotic and that temperatures would be distributed differently due to jet stream changes from Arctic warming.
          As far as temperature goes, weather variations happen all the time and the magnitude of weather related temperature changes (short lived events) is larger than the global heating temperature change.
          I think there was no rule broken, just a very strong statement that indicated Bob F knows little about climate science and understands nothing about what has been said by actual climate scientists.

        • notanoilman says:

          The figures are little different from average, it is easy to check. They represent weather. Remember Global Warming is Global NOT just a few places in the middle of the USA. Global Warming leads to Climate Change which could be hotter or colder, wetter or dryer that leads in turn to Weather which is what Bob is posting. You should also note that his image shows colder AND warmer temperatures.


        • George Kaplan says:

          His response was because he must think we are idiots if he thinks posting four pages of mostly irrelevant numbers about the weather in Kansas City in August somehow constitutes important news that we should all get excited about.

  33. OFM says:

    I’m thinking tidal power will be coming on strong within the next decade or so, given that it can piggyback on the techniques learned by the offshore oil and gas industries and the offshore wind industry to avoid most of the cost of designing and building the special equipment needed to put under water turbines in place.


    And of course the tides are entirely predictable, making tidal power dispatchable for major portions of the day. Knowing exactly when it will be available means it will be possible to idle back any coal and gas fired generating plants running up to the extent of the tidal output capacity, saving a hell of a lot not only on pollution but ALSO on the cost of buying coal and gas.

    I haven’t yet been able to find a lot of information about running existing industries intermittently in order to take advantage of cheap wind solar and tidal power, but I’m thinking there is a huge potential to build some kinds of infrastructure so as to take advantage of cheap intermittent power.

    Consider for instance a water desalinization plant. If it can be built to operate efficiently when cheap electricity is available, say on average twelve to fourteen hours a day, rather than continuously, this might be a huge bargain. It depends on the capital cost of course, plus the operational flexibility.

    We don’t think about it very often, but we have trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure that is used only intermittently, or very lightly, at different times of the day and different times of the year, ranging from school buildings which are empty seventy five percent of the time, to highways which are busy only half the time, to existing power plants that burn coal and gas…….. WHICH RUN ON AVERAGE, industry wide, at only fifty percent of capacity, so far as I have been able to find out.

    My farm equipment sits most of the time, over the road trucks are only actually ON THE ROAD an average of maybe sixty to seventy hours a week, including the ones operated by team drivers, million dollar dozers sit out in the sun collecting dust and rust eighty or ninety percent of the time, etc.

    So why shouldn’t we have water treatment plants and so forth that can be ramped up, or just started up, to take advantage of dirt cheap renewable electricity as it is available????

    Any links to articles about running heavy industries or any industries intermittently to take advantage of cheap electricity will be greatly appreciated, and thanks in advance.

  34. Cats@Home says:

    Expect Post-Hurricane Car-Buying Surge
    Steve Finlay | WardsAuto


    The devastating impact of Hurricane Harvey will have far-reaching effects on the auto industry, from scrapping flood-damaged vehicles to replenishing dealership inventory.

    And after the immediate impact of the storm is over, dealers can expect something of a sales boon. That’s because of a typical pattern of auto sales when natural disasters hit an area.

    During a damaging storm and its immediate afterwards, car buying is not top of mind for most residents. Nor are many dealerships in shape to sell vehicles. An estimated 500 dealerships were affected by the storm and flooding in metro Houston alone.

    But during the recovery period of a natural disaster, car sales typically spike. That’s because people who lose their vehicles in storm-related circumstances need to replace them. When they get their insurance-claims checks, they especially are ready to buy.

    “There likely will be a rush” by dealers to get inventory and then by consumers to acquire it, Vince Phelan, vice president-marketing for dealer information services provider CDK, says of that post-storm period.

    CDK is preparing to send field engineers to the area to help affected dealer clients. It serves about 120 dealer groups and 350 individual stores in the Houston area.

    The storm hit some dealers harder than others, says Dean Crutchfield, CDK’s executive vice president and chief information officer. “We’ve confirmed some people are fine and able to conduct business.” Others aren’t.

    Between 500,000 and 1 million vehicles will need to be replaced in Houston alone, Black Book estimates.

  35. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    “Looky! TRump made the cover of Stern magazine.” ~ Fred Magyar

    Aside from the checkout-counter tabloid-style that this kind of comment seems to demonstrate; aside from how people may regard Trump; and aside from how he is portrayed, here’s a small illustration of how the line between reality and unreality can be mediated (and therefore, resulting and questionable perspectives and opinions form and potentially snowball)…

    Louisiana Governor thanks Trump for flood visit

    “So you got the story backwards…”

    It’s very important to understand that every historical tyrant/despot/dictator/authoritarian/whatever could never have gotten anywhere without a whole lot of societal complicity.
    It is therefore also important to keep this in mind WRT Trump, whoever he really is and whatever he really thinks.

    Trump could be the perfect chump for (systemic/individual) sociogeopolitical agendas that began long before he appeared on the scene, so leveraging his public image as a kind of distraction for this can be particularly dangerous for society, especially an increasingly-desperate one in the initial throes of energy depletion and social decay.

    • Hightrekker says:

      He might be the bag holder.

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        Yes and in the mean time a ‘curtain’ behind which the organization can continue to pull the strings and levers.
        Obama was kind of like that too, but of a different kind. His was the suave, sincere-looking, sweet-talking kind that sort of maybe looked Middle Eastern and/or black and with a name to match.
        Perfect counterpoint to Bush Jr. and for after those Mid-East bombing campaigns…
        “See? He’s just one of you. We are multinationalcosmopolitan.”

        “Here, Barack, have this Nobel Prize from us…”
        “Ohh, no, I can’t possibly accept this…”
        “No-no, please-please. Take it.”

        • Survivalist says:

          Brand Obama was a brilliant scam

          “Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.”


        • Hightrekker says:

          “It is easier to imagine the end of the world, than the end of capitalism”

  36. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    “Oil provides 95% of the fuel demands of the transportation sector… Every transport mode – cars, trucks, trains, buses, marine vessels, and aircraft – relies almost entirely on petroleum fuels. Only natural gas liquids and, in recent years as the result of regulated fuel mandates, ethanol – have made small inroads in the dominant share held by oil. Further, on the basis of the projections by all major agencies that analyze energy supply and demand trends to 2035 and 2040, this will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future…

    Proponents of the all-renewable future seem to be stuck in a time warp. For them, it is still 2014, oil prices are still close to $130 per barrel, and natural gas and coal prices are surging. In such a world, it may be easier to make the case that renewables will become far more competitive sooner. The reality, of course, is that the decline of international oil prices to the range of $40 per barrel and the dramatic slumps in natural gas and coal prices in many areas (especially North America), has meant that these hydrocarbons are far better placed to compete with alternative energy sources.” ~ Robert Lyman

    “Today in the U.S. 33 percent of electricity generation is from coal, 33 percent from natural gas and 20 percent nuclear. While rising steadily, only 13 percent is from renewable energy. The decline in the price of renewable energy is indeed worth noting… However, the price of oil and natural gas has also fallen steeply with the use of horizontal drilling and other new technologies which make it difficult for other fuel sources to compete economically, much less totally capture the market…

    There has certainly been improvements in renewable energy sources over the last decade. However, the idea that there will be no need for coal or oil in 15 years is simply not believable.” ~ Gary Wolfram, PhD

    “So is the solar revolution finally here? Not quite. Even after a decade of rampant growth solar energy still barely moves the needle in the U.S. energy mix. In fact, solar merely equals the amount of electricity that the nation generates by burning natural gas captured from landfills

    The biggest sources are the old standbys. Oil still reigns supreme at 36 quadrillion Btu, natural gas at 26 quads, nuclear 8. Hydropower and biomass bring up the rear at 2.6 and 2.7 quads. Wind is just 1.5 quads. And coal — the great carbon-belching demon of the global energy mix — its contribution is 19 quads. That’s nearly 8 times all the nation’s wind and solar generation combined…

    For all the talk of ‘grid parity’ the simple reality is that even combined with far more power generation from natural gas, renewable alternatives will need decades to push out coal. And the irony will be that as demand for coal lessens, it will become cheaper and cheaper, making it even more attractive for the coal-burning power plants that survive the coming cull

    Coal has gotten immensely cleaner over the past generation. And new and better ways will be found to extract energy from coal without sending its dangerous byproducts into the environment. It’s scalable and reliable in ways that renewable energy sources simply aren’t. In short, unless we’re willing to put up with blackouts that freeze grandma in the winter and melt her in the summer, coal will remain a mainstay of U.S. power generation for decades to come.” ~ Christopher Helman, MS, MA

    “Modern society depends on always available power. If power goes down then society stops. There are no phones, no internet, no ATMs, no refrigeration, no sewage pumps – nothing, and if a large city like London is without power for more than 12 hours rioting and looting would quickly take hold. It is therefore inconceivable not to ensure that we have reliable energy at all times. So an energy plan for the UK must be able to meet demand even on the coldest evening of the year in winter with no wind and no solar. For this reason Renewable energy can never under any realistic scenario meet that target. To imagine that battery prices could fall enough to make wind and solar backup such enormous power demands is simply a delusion.” ~ Clive Best, PhD

    “In the next few decades world economies will require hydrocarbon liquids from oil, coal, natural gas, heavy oil, oil sands, and enhanced oil recovery. Sugar cane ethanol is also practical, but volumes will be limited. Other biomass liquids are uncertain. Corn-ethanol is an energy & environmental loser, and cellulosic liquids are not yet practical.” ~ Robert L. Hirsch, PhD

    “We want to be very clear: solar cells, wind turbines, and biomass-for-energy plantations can never replace even a small fraction of the highly reliable, 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, nuclear, fossil, and hydroelectric power stations. Claims to the contrary are popular, but irresponsible.” ~ Tad W. Patzek, PhD, David Pimentel, PhD

    • Ulenspiegel says:

      Hey Snowflake,

      your sources are quite old, e.g. Tad Patzek’s opinion is from 2005 and interestingly during the last few years he did not longer make such claims. 🙂

      I usually like Patzeks work, his arguments against biofules are IMHO sound and are supported by others who do not have his oil background.

      Your list only proves that people with PhD may err, ok, fine for me.

    • islandboy says:

      As I stated in a comment in response to another inane comment from Caelan, I am somewhat puzzled as to what the motivation for his comments might be. The lead post outlines the contribution of renewables to the electricity mix and Table 1 shows the change between 2016 and 2017 year to date (H1) and year on year (June). I find it hard to look at the percentage change for solar and not think that something significant is happening yet the above comment seems to be intent on trivializing the contribution from renewables and what is more, it suggests that renewables will never be able to make a useful contribution to the worlds energy mix. Ever heard “never say never”?

      In other comments on this web site, I often highlight the advances in the field of batteries and electric vehicles, my intent being to show how a transition to electricity generated from renewable sources, in combination with practical electric vehicles, might help tropical island nations, such as the one where I live, become less dependent on imported fossil fuels for electricity generation and transportation. In countries where the contribution from solar has grown significantly, it has started to make a noticeable reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity generation and with the introduction of the less expensive Tesla Model 3, it can be expected that the cascading effect will result in the cumulative number of plug-in cars in the US passing the 1 million mark within the next six months to a year (See the chart of US plug-in sales below). The cascading effect includes the introduction of the Chevy Bolt, the upgrading of several existing models such as the new 2018 Nissan Leaf, to be unveiled tomorrow and possible surprise announcements from the likes of BMW at the Frankfurt auto show later this month (September 14th).

      Is it possible that the world is about to experience an avalanche in the adoption of solar PV, battereies and EVs, a la Tony Sdeba’s “Clean Disruption”? It would appear that certain posters on this site feel threatened by such a possibility and the question is, why? On an individual level, who will be most inconvenienced by such a disruption? I can understand folks who make a living from the fossil fuel industries being concerned but, other individuals railing against the disruption, appear to be representing the interests of the wealthy corporations that benefit the most from the status quo.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        As I stated in a comment in response to another inane comment from Caelan, I am somewhat puzzled as to what the motivation for his comments might be.

        I gave up reading his BS and have X’ed him out and written him off as a delusional member of an anti technology permaculture cult, who naively believes that nature must be left to its own devices. He has zero understanding of biological sciences and how nature actually works. He also seems profoundly ignorant of recent technological advances in multiple fields and his political ramblings border on the ravings of a madman. Either he doesn’t understand that what he proposes means literal death to billions of people or he really wants to see massive suffering on previously unprecedented scales. So best to ignore him completely!

        While there are no guarantees about the future… My money is on something a little more hopeful and sane.

        Maybe this could be a model of future sustainability for cities such as Houston?
        Though they might want to start with learning about flood control and dikes…


        >Netherlands is world number two in agricultural exports by using greenhouses and new technology

        Each acre in the greenhouse yields as much lettuce as 10 outdoor acres and cuts the need for chemicals by 97 percent.

        The Netherlands is a small, densely populated country, with more than 1,300 inhabitants per square mile. It’s bereft of almost every resource long thought to be necessary for large-scale agriculture. Yet it’s the globe’s number two exporter of food as measured by value, second only to the United States, which has 270 times its landmass…

        …These climate-controlled farms enable a country located a scant thousand miles from the Arctic Circle to be a global leader in exports of a fair-weather fruit: the tomato. The Dutch are also the world’s top exporter of potatoes and onions and the second largest exporter of vegetables overall in terms of value. More than a third of all global trade in vegetable seeds originates in the Netherlands…

        …With demand for chicken increasing, Dutch firms are developing technology to maximize poultry production while ensuring humane conditions. This high-tech broiler house holds up to 150,000 birds, from hatching to harvesting.

        The soaring cost of grain to feed animals? “Feed them grasshoppers instead,” he says. One hectare of land yields one metric ton of soy protein, a common livestock feed, a year. The same amount of land can produce 150 tons of insect protein.

        The conversation rushes on to the use of LED lighting to permit 24-hour cultivation in precisely climate-controlled greenhouses. It then detours to a misconception that sustainable agriculture means minimal human intervention in nature.

        Only absolute imbeciles still think that humanity can survive without science and technology.


        • islandboy says:

          “I gave up reading his BS and have X’ed him out and written him off as a delusional member of an anti technology permaculture cult, who naively believes that nature must be left to its own devices. “

          Even so, he appears to give “old” technology a pass despite the fact that it has generated and continues to generate pollution and CO2. When presented with “new” technology that has the promise of reducing the pollution and CO2 emissions, he rails against it. It is this contradiction that puzzles me.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            When presented with “new” technology that has the promise of reducing the pollution and CO2 emissions, he rails against it. It is this contradiction that puzzles me.

            Which is precisely why I think he is both irrational and delusional. Either that or he has gone over to the dark side but he doesn’t quite come across as being bright enough to pull that off… As far as I’m concerned, he has basically become just another stupid troll.

            His comments tend to be full of blatant falsehoods, out of date and obsolete quotes, links to known anti science sites. logical fallacies and red herrings.

            Case in point, a while back I pointed out to him that sales of EV’s in China were in the multi millions and growing. I provided a link that referred to electric bicycles and scooter sales and he came back with some gibberish about capitalist plutarchy and how Teslas were toys for the rich powered by electricity produced by fossil fuels.

            • GoneFishing says:

              A clear case of the wind wanting to hear itself, yet has no ears.

              • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                ^ This appears as a thread that at once demonstrates, feeds and wallows in its own ignorance.

                Of course it also adds yet another question-mark for the readership with regard to some members’ capacities to process the issues relevant to the POB forum.

        • Boomer II says:

          He’s on my ignore list, too. I don’t even think this is the best place for his comments. Not likely to find like-minded people via this forum or convert any readers to his thinking. Best to just go create his utopia and let the example speak for itself.

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            For Personal Dunning-Kruger Safe-Space, Please Select Ignorance Button With Snowflake Icon, and Continue Your Virtuous Forward Thinking

            “That’s what I consider the upside of income inequality. It may be better for the environment.

            If you impoverish most of the world so that they have to cut back their lifestyles to a bare minimum, their consumption of the world’s resources will go down. They may end up depleting their local areas, but they won’t be able to afford big houses, big cars, plane trips, and so on.

            The small number of rich can buy up land, put up their moats, create animal and plant preserves, and so on and perhaps preserve a part of the world for future generations lucky enough to have access to that property.” ~ Boomer II

            “But wasn’t it the so-called rich and/or the correlated dynamics that got us into these predicaments in the first place?
            I’m unconvinced that your prescription is going to get what you suggest will happen, and even feel it to be a perverted, twisted and/or nihilistic sense of logic, which doesn’t seem like much of a step to suggest simply killing people to control the population… Maybe that’s part of the logic behind the American governpimp apparently dropping weapons ‘in the middle’ of ISIS/ISIL/IS territory? Create more chaos and death?” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

            ‘But wasn’t it the so-called rich and/or the correlated dynamics that got us into these predicaments in the first place?’


            I’d rather not have income inequality. But perhaps impoverishing most of the world will slow down environmental destruction.” ~ Boomer II

            It’s crazy talk, Boomer, and in the wrong place at the wrong time, very dangerous talk as well. People can take it and run with this kind of thing.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

            That’s a fair point you are making.” ~ Boomer II

            “Fred Wrote:
            ‘#!@& you and everybody who thinks like you!’

            As I feared, a rebuttal with name calling and absolutely no substance!

            Fred wrote:
            ‘you missed my point completely, which was that a three hundred year old organism, which I knew personally, just got wiped out unnecessarily!’

            Oh I got your point. Its the same point over and over. Its a point on a single topic that ignores every other problem!” ~ TechGuy


            “So, Fred [Magyar], apologizing for the rant being off-topic, but not for the condescending, self-aggrandizing, look-how-non-fucked-up-my-priorities-are-how-dare-you-partake-in-something-so-frivolous attitude… You’re like the person on the foot of a hill who points to the top of the mountain and says ‘Hey, we need to be up there, let’s go already! It’s much nicer up there, why are you spending time down here?’ while the rest of us are in our gear and inserting cams into crevasses. I don’t think you’re as far ahead or as forward thinking as you claim to be.”

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:
  37. Fred Magyar says:

    Potential road map, a new Stanford report details the path to 100% renewable energy by the 139 countries that currently are responsible for 99% of all global carbon emissions.


    PDF of report can be downloaded here:

    By the way, due to the progressive and influential work Jacobson has been leading, he is in one camp with Elon Musk — he’s getting trolled by anti-renewable forces on the interwebs and in the flesh. Also see these two articles:

    100% Clean, Renewable Energy Is Possible, Practical, Logical — Setting The Record Straight

    The Attacks On Cleantech Leaders Have Begun — Expect More

    I’m sure the Koch Bros, team will be along any minute to tell us why the only possible future is to stay with fossil fuels! 3, 2, 1, 0…

  38. OFM says:

    I just ran across this, haven’t looked at it yet, but it seems like something most of us will want to watch.


    It’s called how money really works, or something close.

  39. George Kaplan says:

    Looks like the melt season in the Arctic is coming to an end a bit early, while Antarctic melt season is starting, also early. I’m not sure if this counts as a rebound year like 2013, the extent is higher than last year but almost all the thick, nulti-year ice above 2.5m has gone now, probably never to return, so it’s mostly spread out and smashed up first year ice in relatively low concentration at the moment. Conditions are new each year at both poles now, which makes it interesting to follow if nothing else.

  40. Longtimber says:

    Tomorrow is the roll out for the Next Gen Leaf.. 3 biggies.
    – 1. thermal management on the Battery?
    – 2. Fast Charge ( HV DC ) as per North American Standard CCS or the Asian Chadamo?
    – 3. Acceptable in appearance? Who wants a car that looks like a Turtle?
    The new BMW i3 is a step forward – but a wimp in capacity/range. When will these idiots deploy a battery standard the User can replace. Lack of Battery Standards will continue to hold back acceptance. Same in Power and Landscape tools. Note: No one with a Brain is going to own a low ridder. Lost a Diesel -no computers – in Hurricane Opal. Totaling a car because you hit a puddle is well .. just Gump.

    • islandboy says:

      Hey Longtimber, IIRC you are the person who once posted a picture of a Tesla Model S battery pack you had on a test bench with a view to re-purposing it. What do you think of the latest work by Jack Rickard over at EVTV.me?

      As far as battery standards go, IMO vehicle manufacturers outsourcing battery manufacturing to the likes of LG Cem, Samsung SDI, Panasonic and so on is a good thing. Having batteries made by battery companies separate and apart from vehicle companies might result in a more limited number of form factors for cells and modules, which vehicle manufacturers could then assemble into battery packs to fit each vehicle. That way if a the particular cell used in a particular battery pack becomes obsolete, it should be possible to re-manufacture the pack using a similar cell with the same form factor.

      Maybe the car makers need to be forced to manufacture their charging and battery management systems to allow for changing battery parameters, such that if a battery pack comprised of 2900 mAh 18650 cells is replaced by a pack using upgraded 3400 mAh 18650 cells, the car automatically accepts the upgraded battery. Such a system could be based on the vehicle being able to interrogate the battery and adjust the key parameters accordingly as well as the battery being able to adjust to the limits of any older vehicle it is put in. edit: A glaring example of a failure to implement this is the incompatibility between the older Nissan Leaf and the new 30kWh battery pack. What justification can there be for this other than to limit customer choice? I’m pretty sure Nissan could have achieved compatibility if they wanted to, or if regulations forced them to. end edit

      The current state of affairs as with laptop batteries is to be avoided at all costs. AFAIK just about all laptop batteries are made using commodity 18650 cells yet, a genuine OEM replacement battery can cost more than a fifth of the cost of the complete laptop (~US$100). 18650 cells can be bought for between US$1 to US$8 per piece, retail so, why should an eight cell battery cost more than about $65 at the most, since manufacturers of battery packs do not pay retail prices for the cells the buy by the container load?

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Maybe the car makers need to be forced to manufacture their charging and battery management systems to allow for changing battery parameters, such that if a battery pack comprised of 2900 mAh 18650 cells is replaced by a pack using upgraded 3400 mAh 18650 cells, the car automatically accepts the upgraded battery. Such a system could be based on the vehicle being able to interrogate the battery and adjust the key parameters accordingly as well as the battery being able to adjust to the limits of any older vehicle it is put in.

        I believe that Jack Rickard is of the school of thought that thinks the brains for battery management should be an integral part of the battery packs themselves. I.E. the batteries already know what they need.

      • Longtimber says:

        EVTV’s BMS for the Tesla Modules is what the doctor ordered. But you can get exact regulation with just Charging each 24V ( 6S ) module with a Meanwell HLG-320-24A Type A driver as long as you don’t need fast charge or discharge AND you can charge from any AC Voltage, as well PV direct. However ANY Metal Oxide Li cell is not “really suitable” for stationary applications, especially type NCA “Tesla/Panasonic” . Yes even the TESLA Power Station is not Appropriate, but that’s behind a fence and Factory Mutual, UL, etc have no say. Keep Li Oxide Paks under a separate roof than you dwell in. We ONLY mess with them cause they are more available than LFP’s ( LiFePO4 ) since they are produced in scale for EV’s. LFP’s will work great in heat under the hood so we expect them to become mainstream. They are currently gaining acceptance for Motorcycle Batteries and high end cars.

  41. Fred Magyar says:

    Who wants a car that looks like a Turtle?

    Hey! I happen to like turtles, ok?! 😉

    Not to mention they are a lot faster than you might imagine… try keeping up with one under water.

  42. Fred Magyar says:

    Hurricane Irma is starting to look a lot like this old XKCD comic.

    Upcoming Hurricanes

    I’ve been trying to get a handle on what the Jet Stream and steering currents are doing. Its looking more and more like this is aiming for the Florida Keys and Southern Miami before slipping through the Florida Straits into the Gulf and heading north along the west coast of the Florida peninsula before heading across central Florida back to western Atlantic seaboard and then north along the East Coast of the US. It might be a strong category 3 or even a 4 at that time. Expected to produce up to 24 in of rainfall in Southern Florida.

    I might be kayaking around my neighborhood sometime next weekend…

  43. islandboy says:

    This comment is actually a response to one by coffeeguyzz over on the petroleum thread, which as Dennis has pointed out, should have been posted under this thread. coffeeguyzz pointed out the huge contribution being made by solar to the peak mid day demand in California but, lamented that the contribution was going to disappear just as the late evening (dusk) surge in demand got underway. coffeeguyzz is entirely correct in one sense in that, on hot summer days when lots of power is needed for air conditioning, the loss of solar PV production in the evenings is a significant challenge for utilities.

    This brings me to an issue that has become of intense personal interest to me. I live in a apartment with a concrete slab roof that gets quite hot in the summer, remaining hot except for when there it rains and the rain is accompanied by significant amounts (multiple hours) of heavy cloud cover during the daytime hours. I have an air conditioner that is yet to be installed because I have a bit of a dilemma with regards to the source of power for the a/c. I also have a 3 kW grid tied inverter and enough panels to get the maximum output although I have not installed enough to do so yet. I would like for all the power for my a/c to come from my solar rig which is entirely possible while the sun is shining but, not in the evenings when the heat load from my concrete roof is significant. This is is very similar problem to that faced by the state of California, leading me to think that any solution to my problem might also be applicable to CA.

    I could just use batteries and an inverter charger but both the batteries and the inverters will come at a significant cost in addition to introducing new points of failure. I have taken note of a company called Ice Energy and their products which are mainly targeted at using cheap off peak electricity to make ice at nights to be used to offset the use of electricity during peak rate periods, usually in the day. Ice Energy has also recently introduced a product aimed at the residential market configured to make ice in the middle of the day when solar power is abundant and offset consumption during the evening peak, that is to increase self consumption of solar electricity by households equipped with solar PV. Another solution is offered by Cryogel that makes 4 inch diameter plastic encapsulated “Ice Ball”s which can be placed in storage tanks an use to store cooling energy in the form of ice. The intended application for the Cryogel solution appears to be the same as that for the Ice Energy one. Since it takes eight times as much energy to melt a given mass of ice as it does to raise the temperature of a similar mass of water one degree celsius, this is the basis for storing cooling power in ice.

    The question is, if one has enough solar power in the middle of the day, why not use it to make ice to offset power consumption when the sun goes down? One answer is that the efficiency of air conditioning and refrigeration units is adversely affected by high ambient temperatures so the units work better in the latter half of the night when ambient temperatures are lower but, besides that I see no other reason why it cant be done (and obviously neither does Ice Energy).

    For my own purposes I am considering the following experiment. Acquire a “Deep Freeze” a.k.a. chest freezer. Fill it with plastic soft drink bottles which have been filled to the brim with water and then had at least 20% of the water squeezed out before tightening the cap. This allows the ice to expend to fill the entire volume of the bottle without rupturing it. If necessary spacers can be used to prevent the bottles from stressing the walls of the cabinet when the water in them freezes. Replace the lid of the freezer with a modified lid incorporating connection for a heat exchange mechanism. Connect the heat exchange mechanism to the evaporator of an air conditioning unit with pipes or hoses and fill the loop with a mixture of water and anti-freeze. Set the temperature of the chest freezer to it’s lowest point or a few degrees above the freezing point of the anti-freeze mixture and turn it on when the sun is shining. Pump the coolant mixture through the heat exchanger to the a/c unit and back with the blower on when cooling is required. The length of time for which effective cooling would be available would be determined by the relationship between the size of the conditioned space and the size of the ice storage (chest freezer).

    It would be interesting to hear from an HVAC expert as to whether or not such a system would be less costly or more efficient than just storing the electricity in batteries to run the a.c after the sun goes down.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Any chance you could install solar panels on your roof to both produce energy and shade your roof at the same time? You could still do all the other things you mention as well. At the very least you might consider painting your slab white with some highly reflective paint. Something like this would probably help.

      • islandboy says:

        Shading with the modules is part of the plan. I just added a couple last week to take the total up to 8. The full complement will be 13 or 14 and should completely cover the bedroom or the living room depending on where I choose to mount them permanently. I have another plan to shade the half that isn’t covered by modules

    • GoneFishing says:

      I am no HVAC expert, but you need to find a way to dump the heat from freezer coils to outside the apartment, otherwise you will just be trading heat back and forth in the apartment. A friend of mine used cold water overflow from his well to chill his air conditioner and ended up with a very efficient system. His warm water flow went out to his garden.
      Edit: Just saw Fred’s reply, do that too.:-)
      The first and most important thing to do is insulate that ceiling if possible, foam panels will work. That source of heat from the roof needs to be reduced.

      • islandboy says:

        Ozefridge Industries out of Australia make a eutectic refrigeration system that is laid out with the compressor and condensing unit as s separate, remote from the eutectic plate which is placed in the cabinet to be cooled. The system is itself uses a material to absorb heat through melting to store cooling power but I would think one would need a fairly large mass of material to try and match the cooling power of a 1 ton (12,000 b.t.u.) air conditioner for any appreciable length of time.

        These systems have been designed for refrigeration applications on sailboats so, I doubt they would work effectively in an air conditioning application. The thing is, all the components required to implement this solution but AFAIK only Ice Energy has integrated everything into an off the shelf product. See

        Ice Energy Will Launch Residential Ice Storage in First Quarter 2017

        The Ice Cub his team came up with is sized like a 2.5-ton AC unit, the kind that serves small to medium-sized households. This AC has a special power, though: in between air conditioning cycles or when it’s not in use, it freezes water in an insulated tank. It can fill the tank with ice in four hours. Then, on command, the system can switch from conventional AC to using the ice to cool the house for at least three hours, during which time no energy is needed to chill the air.

        That’s a big deal for anyone who pays time-of-use rates or residential demand charges: The Ice Cub essentially eliminates the electricity demand for cooling, which is the largest single household use for electricity, during three hours of peak demand.

        Customers with rooftop solar gain additional value, as they can put excess solar during peak production hours into making ice, which then cuts demand when it’s later used for cooling. In markets where compensation for excess solar generation is dropping, this offers an efficient way to consume more of what the panels produce.

        Searches for price and/or availability have come up blank.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Searches for price and/or availability have come up blank.

          Interesting, obviously on their website they list their products for both commercial and residential applications.


          They do mention that depending on where you are located there are different rebates available. They don’t list any prices but they do give contact information both email and phone number.

          I did find this piece of information which might give some idea of a ball park price of an Ice Bear System.


          What is the cost per unit?
          For utilities, which buy in MW scale, the pricing is similar to our Ice Bear 30, so the least cost distributed energy storage is about 50% of the cost of lithium-ion batteries on a life cycle basis.

          For homeowners in California, IB 20s can be purchased for the cost of a conventional AC system.

          I assume that’s probably after all available California State and Federal rebates. I guess we could search for what kinds of rebates might be available and look up typical central AC pricing and come to a reasonable estimate or barring that, send them an email or call them for an estimate. 😉

          As a rough idea of current market prices for central AC units, I live in a small condo and recently replaced my central AC unit for about $4,000.00 My friend also recently did the same for his 4 bedroom two car garage house for about 12 grand…

    • notanoilman says:

      Ok, from experience living in the tropics with copious sun, humidity and rain.

      What colour is your roof? White waterproofing makes a BIG difference under the slab. Note, my slab is built up with 20cm thick 40x80cm polystyrene blocks acting as forms for cast in place reinforced concrete beams plus a thin slab on top but is a LOT cooler with the waterproofing. 3 more things, shade, shade, shade but with space for air to circulate too. If you have a slope the put Spanish tiles on top, lots of cool.

      Watch out for condensation. If you don’t draw out the humidity, just cooling can send your RH soaring and everything gets damp and smelly. Someone suggested cooling pipes in the ceiling until I pointed out the risk of creating clouds and rain. Anything cold will end up in a pool of water and fast.

      The big thing is to keep the sun off the roof and western facing walls. Use paints, panels, tarpaulins, plants etc and leave room for air to circulate.


      • islandboy says:

        As I said in my response to Fred, I have a plan for the unshaded portion of the roof once the modules from the PV array are permanently mounted.

        Whatever I do inside, one of the goals will be to reduce humidity, a good reason to not use evaporative coolers, another good reason being that they are not as effective in humid climates anyway. I want to avoid putting the air to be cooled in direct contact with the ice as it will cause condensation and add to the volume of ice when freezing takes place. I want to have the ice storage in an container that is basically sealed to prevent water vapor from entering so, I will need a coolant loop to transfer the “coolth” to something like the indoor unit of a mini split system. Any condensation inside the indoor unit can be dealt with like a normal a/c, most likely drained to the exterior of the building but, I am toying with the idea of using the condensed water to moisten some elements, similar to those used in evaporative coolers, to assist with cooling the condenser.

    • Longtimber says:

      Energy Storage via thermal mass has Z E R O marginal cost. There are so many ways to do this in
      stationary applications. eChem is for Lighting and Traction.

  44. Survivalist says:

    the second warmest August on record


    “August 2017 extended the spell of exceptional global warmth that has now lasted since mid-2015. It was:

    close to 0.5°C warmer than the average August from 1981-2010;
    the second warmest August on record, by a small margin of well under 0.1°C;
    more than 0.1°C cooler than August 2016.”

    Sorry Bob Frisky. Kansas just doesn’t cut it.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Sorry Bob Frisky. Kansas just doesn’t cut it.

      Damn you Survivalist! How could you possibly say such a thing? You are worse than the Wicked Witch of the East. Think of poor little Toto.

    • Doug Leighton says:

      May be cool in Kansas but unless your name is Dorothy Gale, Kansas isn’t the world. This week will feature persistent, dangerous heat across British Columbia and rounds of heat across the Prairies. For most, this will be a fantastic stretch of weather for the unofficial end of summer, but the key is that the fires will thrive in this environment and will likely spread through the following week. In fact, several daily maximum temperature records were broken across southern British Columbia on Sunday. The Town of Nelson hit 35.8 C, beating its previous record of 32.2 C set in 1931.

    • Survivalist says:

      The last 11 months have all been 2nd warmest.

      • Javier says:

        Temperatures going down since February 2016. 18 months of decline since the Big El Niño apex, and nobody knows when or at what temperature they will stop declining. If they go back to Pause levels that is going to be a great source of entertainment. Nature does have a sense of humor if after raising climate pessimists hopes with the strong El Niño, dashes them with cooling afterwards.

        • Survivalist says:

          You are delusional. Not scientific at all.

          “August 2017 extended the spell of exceptional global warmth that has now lasted since mid-2015. It was:

          close to 0.5°C warmer than the average August from 1981-2010;
          the second warmest August on record, by a small margin of well under 0.1°C;
          more than 0.1°C cooler than August 2016.”

          Rather than speculate about the future would you care to give us another failure of a prediction?

      • Hightrekker says:

        Harvey’s Flood so massive, it flexed Earths crust:

    • Hightrekker says:

      I wonder if the Wizard can give Bob a brain?

  45. GoneFishing says:

    Rail transport of petroleum and petro products is fading fast.

  46. GoneFishing says:

    King Coal is not making it back to his past glory.

  47. Boomer II says:

    We are experiencing historic rainfall, floods, and fires. Is there any chance there will be more public discussion about climate change now? Are we facing a future where a significant portion of the economy will go toward disaster relief?

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Is there any chance there will be more public discussion about climate change now?

      You’re kidding right? Every single member of the current administration is a climate change denier beholden to fossil fuel corporate interests. Just the trolls on this site alone should give you some idea as to the kind of public discussion you might expect.

      • Boomer II says:

        Do you think we can bypass the administration and ask the public what they think? What happens to the budget talks when states need money for recovery?

        • Fred Magyar says:

          I actually believe that there is some hope from a few states and even more likely some cities. Miami is actually one. Then there are businesses and corporations that do accept reality.

          Google and the Circular Economy

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            “Then there are businesses and corporations that do accept reality…
            Google and the Circular Economy” ~ Fred Magyar

            The Anti-Diversity Memo Leaked Out Of Google Is Typical Tech Industry Discrimination

            “The ten-page anti-diversity manifesto penned by a male Google software engineer highlights a larger problem with Silicon Valley: when the status quo and mythology of meritocracy is threatened, there’s a need to restore what some think is the proper order.

            The screed lays bare sentiments getting louder and louder as a shrinking majority makes its last gasps and grabs for power. This behavior is being normalized in our political climate. Because of the current base level of public discourse and decency, bigotry masquerades as patriotism, and prejudiced people and views in all industries and arenas are emboldened to spew all manner of rhetoric in the name of shunning political correctness.”

            Women say they quit Google because of racial discrimination: ‘I was invisible’

            “As Google reels from the fallout over a controversial diversity memo, multiple women say they faced regular discrimination and ultimately left”

            More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

            “Scandal over discrimination at the company deepens as dozens of current and former staff say they have earned less than men despite equal qualifications”

        • OFM says:

          ” What happens to the budget talks when states need money for recovery?”

          It’s worth noting that when we send money to DC, it always comes back minus whatever the congress critters and various bureaucrats manage to skim off or waste. We can’t possibly get back as much as we send, collectively.

          When California eventually needs a super sized bail out, I won’t object, because California has been subsidizing the rest of us.

          But we really do need to do something effective when it comes to bailing out the SAME people over and over again, because OTHERWISE, we will have to bail them out over and over again forever.

          We need a prorated sunset law for places that have been flooded a couple of times previously. Say we continue to pay, but starting five years from now, we knock off two percent per year after that from what any individual or business can collect. So you gradually lose federal disaster monetary compensation for your house or business which is located in a flood plain.

          Over time, if it could be implemented, this would at the very least have the effect of discouraging any further development in flood prone areas.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Discussions still happen at the state, local and private levels.

      • Steven Haner says:

        In your utilized context, the term “denier” is both derogatory and crassly intolerant. As a matter of fact, displaying such intolerance is what will cause a majority of Americans to connect anthropogenic global warming dogmas with communism, socialism, or various other forms of totalitarian government instead of merely accepting the theory for the sake of science alone. After all, a true scientific theory will always be welcoming of skepticism. Furthermore, as Americans, we all enjoy the basic right to doubt or question any “overwhelming opinions,” as opinions can be wrong, even those expressed by the scientific community.

        • Survivalist says:

          noun: denier; plural noun: deniers
          a person who denies something.
          “a prominent denier of global warming”

          lol what a snowflake. Go back to your safe space.

          “Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege.” – Joseph Stalin

          • Hightrekker says:

            Words and magical books are very important to our wing pawn denier friends.
            They need a safe place, where no bad words are spoken!
            It is a way of controlling dialog and information.

            • OFM says:

              “Words and magical books are very important to our wing pawn denier friends.
              They need a safe place, where no bad words are spoken!
              It is a way of controlling dialog and information.”

              Perfectly true.

              I will go so far as to point out that it also applies to the leftish leaning element these days. The kids at a lot of universities are totally unwilling to allow any discussion of several topics, unless it’s a totally one sided discussion. They are abetted in this by some faculty who aren’t bright enough to remember that universities are the last redoubt against dogma.

        • Hightrekker says:


        • Fred Magyar says:

          If the Foo shits, wear it!

          Furthermore, as Americans, we all enjoy the basic right to doubt or question any “overwhelming opinions,” as opinions can be wrong, even those expressed by the scientific community.

          You are right, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion but not his or her own facts. If you expect to be able to question scientific facts and theory you may but only after you have obtained your doctorate and have put in the necessary years of research in a career and then you can offer your opinion in peer reviewed journals. Otherwise your opinion ain’t worth jack.

        • notanoilman says:

          The trolls are thick today!


    • Hightrekker says:

      Our Wing Pawn Friends can’t go there.
      They would have to abandon the pillars of their delusions, and would be in a fetal position screaming as reality emerged through the smoke.
      Fantasy is more reassuring, and as simple story provides ground.

      • GoneFishing says:

        You are quite correct, they cannot go directly there. However they can approach it from a profit and loss aspect and maybe even see a bigger problem. The problem would be a natural one, not manmade, in their minds but still the recurrent nature of it could be made obvious and some progress made to prepare and mitigate certain aspects.
        If you can get them by their wallets and even better yet show them a way to profit from it, then action will occur.
        Also give them opportunities to look like heroes and they will jump on board without admitting the realities behind the causes.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Lack of preparation for the inevitable disaster will also cause great harm. We need to get ahead of this and spend more money and time on disaster risk reduction. The needed equipment, supplies, methods and trained personnel need to be in place as well as monies. We should also not allow development in threatened areas and even remove development before it is damaged. Otherwise we will only be reactive and that will be extremely expensive, eventually overwhelming the response systems and the support of such systems.

      you realise that the only way we’re going to be able to deal with these trends is by getting out ahead of them and focusing on reducing disaster risk.”

      Failure to plan properly by factoring in the effects of climate change, he added, would result in a steep rise in the vulnerability of those people already most exposed to natural hazards. He also predicted a rise in the number of simultaneous disasters.

      “As the odds of any one event go up, the odds of two happening at the same time are more likely. We’ll see many more examples of cascading crises, where one event triggers another event, which triggers another event.”

      Constant vigilance is needed.

      “After the Indian Ocean tsunami there was a lot of attention and international resourcing into building tsunami resilience.
      “The tsunami early warning system worked well for three or four years – and worked well institutionally – but afterwards, it started to fade so the equipment hasn’t been well maintained and the institutional capacity-building was not kept alive. In educational terms, the topic [has] faded out of awareness.”
      And therein, he added, lies the challenge: “Every time there’s a mega disaster, there are lessons learned – or at least there’s a lot of attention in the scientific and political realm. The key question is always, how do you keep up the awareness after a couple of years?”


    • notanoilman says:

      1/ NO
      2/ Yes


    • Justin Sroka says:

      There’s absolutely not going to be more public discussion about “climate change” now unless the left really intends to turn the culture war going on in this country right now into a literal all out war. The sides are already well drawn up. Academics and the “educated elite” are mingling with the left on the one side, while the Average Joes of the middle class are on the other side firmly with the right-wingers. Now average Joes don’t have education of the type the left likes to wave around to make themselves feel superior, but they do know both right from wrong and when they are being bamboozled by those in high institutions.

      Indeed as a conservative myself, I’ll tell you that whenever you liberals and democrats in this country make some grand proclamation about how you can socially engineer away problems like “climate change” by stashing away another load of public grant money here or building another useless “cloud chamber” there, we collectively roll our eyes and feel extreme motivation to X the box for Republicans like Trump. The point isn’t that Trump may, in fact, be one of the “deplorables” or a potential failure in the making, but that he doesn’t come from either the establishment or academia.

      • Survivalist says:

        Conservatives are always behind the times. And they know it.
        As they know they will only be defeated – their only joy or reward comes from trolling their liberal opponents.
        Every liberal offended or irritated is a victory for the conservative cause. Pathetic, isnt it? The specific viewpoint is irrelevant as all conservative views are eventually consigned to the dustbin of history – the only thing that matters is *how many liberals did that view piss off?* – the more the merrier. When did conservatives become such a bunch of pussies? My guess is when they began to realize what a blind alley, far away from the mainstream of civilization they really were.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Culture war? Nahhh, you can have your beer and pizza. It’s not the liberals or the democrats you need to worry about. It’s your own kind, or at least the ones you think are your own kind. You will see, the rest of us will get on with the business of transistion and ignore you. When you wake up in a new and lonely world, complain about it, it won’t matter. All those Average Joes will have jumped ship and gotten paid to build it. It’s the only real game in town, not just talk and flim-flam, real.

    • Bruce Grano says:

      The only public discussions about climate change will continue to come from the people lapping up the lame propaganda from the so called science experts being paid by deep state activists to promote the theory. Here is a good example of a question that will bring them out … if the seas are rising, why do our so called science experts ignore that the water level in San Francisco is lower than it was back in the sixties?

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        Because we all know there is a leak in the bottom of San Francisco Bay and that’s why the water level is lower the San Francisco

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        Because they are draining some of the nice and sparkly San Fran water– the best water for the purposes of terraforming, as determined by a deep-and-delicious state expert science panel– for the Space X Martian Terraforming mission, which will be narrated by Matt Damon.

        Coincidentally, the sixties were the time when the water began to become scientifically ‘nice’. Some called it, ‘flower-water’, and it was then only a matter of time before an expert science panel would pick up on that fact.

        BTW, technically, HB is correct, because the leak is the drain. Good call, HB. ^u^

    • Javier says:

      We are experiencing historic rainfall, floods, and fires.

      By historic you mean that they have been happening regularly through history, right?

      To claim historic events, you first have to know your history. On September 8, 1900 a category 4 hurricane hit Texas causing ~ 8,000 deaths (from a much smaller population) and destroying several cities. The Galveston hurricane of 1900 is the deadliest in US history.
      “The Weather Bureau ignored reports from Cuban meteorologists because they expected the storm to curve northeast along the coast of North America: “Assumption became fact as the official government reports stated, wrongly, that the storm was traveling northeast in the Atlantic.”

      You can check global temperatures in 1900 yourself.

      The US is hit by major hurricanes most years. The only unusual aspect of hurricanes in the last years is the unusual 12-year lull in hurricanes since 2005. A major hurricane in the US was overdue, an in a purely random bad year several major hurricanes might hit the US.

      Use of Harvey to push a climate agenda is a discredit because it shows ignorance or deception.

      • Javier says:

        Anything rebuilt in flooded areas is only temporary until it gets flooded again. It is only a question of time, and reducing CO2 emissions, carbon taxes, or renewable build up, will have no discernible effect on that.

      • Javier says:

        Texas cat 3 or 4 hurricanes since 1850 (Wikipedia):


        19 major Texas hurricanes in 167 years. One every 8.8 years. Only two in the past 30 years. Yep, no doubt the last one is due to climate change. That’s how a catastrophist climate change mind works.

        • Survivalist says:

          Why look only at Texas, and why not include Cat 5? Seems like a rather arbitrary sample. You know, like Bob Frisky looking only at temps Kansas. Not scientific at all. In the interest of science let’s see if we can do a better job.

          Here’s a broader look:
          All category 3, 4 and 5 Atlantic Hurricanes.

          All category 3, 4 and 5 Pacific Hurricanes.

          I’m on a micro device so can’t get plotty, but maybe someone could throw that up on a chart for us, if they have the time.

          “For the 21st century, some models project no change or a small reduction in the frequency of hurricanes, while others show an increase in frequency. More recent work shows that there is a trade-off between intensity and frequency – that as warmer oceans bolster hurricane intensity, fewer storms actually form. For the continental United States in the Atlantic Basin, models project a 75 percent increase in the frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes despite a possible decrease in the total frequency of all storms.”

          • Javier says:

            Why look only at Texas, and why not include Cat 5?

            Because we were discussing Harvey as evidence of global warming effect, and because Texas doesn’t have a cat 5 hurricane. It is cat 3 and above.

            Major hurricanes that make landfall have always been noticed. tropical storms and minor hurricanes over sea are highly biased because we have become much better at detecting them.

            Let’s go energy and let’s go global.

            Hmm… no, nothing that you can claim there.

            • Javier says:

              Note that the IPCC agrees with me on this one:

              “Globally, there is low confidence in any long-term increases in tropical cyclone activity (Section 2.6.3) and we assess that there is low confidence in attributing global changes to any particular cause.”

            • Survivalist says:

              lol global accumulated cyclone energy. You’re an embarrassment to science.

            • Survivalist says:

              -Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
              -There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
              -Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.


              • Javier says:

                Yes, yes. By the end of the 21st century everything is going to be awful. Meanwhile we don’t see any effect and every prediction for the past 35 years has been wrong. These people have zero credibility and have been so burned by their past failed predictions that every prediction they make now is so far removed that everybody will be dead by then.

                They tried near term awful predictions but they were unable to convince people and then those predictions failed. They are now trying long term awful predictions and they are finding people don’t care much about those. Plenty of time to see them coming.

                After all if the sea is going to raise 2 meters by 2100, first it will have to rise 1, and before that 50 cm, and before 25 cm. But after 35 years we are not seeing even 25 cm, more like 9 cm, so we don’t buy it.

                You just don’t realize how ridicule the “Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely…” sounds. Those “will likely” never come to exist. It will turn out they were no so likely after all.

                • notanoilman says:

                  He’s on night shift!


                • Survivalist says:

                  You are the one with zero credibility. Shall I do a run down on all your failed predictions? It’s easy to remember which of your predictions are failures- all of them.
                  You are an embarrassment to science. It’s obvious why you hide you identity. PhD indeed. You’re a failure.

                  • George Kaplan says:

                    Survivalist, I think you might be the only one who doesn’t have his bullshit x’d out now, but keep up the good work, you keep him away from the rest of the threads and a lot of the stuff you post and link to is worth following up on.

                  • Javier says:

                    My credibility is not the issue here. Of course I am not believed by those that commune with the makers of the catastrophic view of climate. What matters is the credibility of the people that for the past 35 years have been inventing catastrophic events that never came.

                    Shall I remember for example the 50 million climate refugees by 2010 that the United Nations Environmental Protection Agency told us we were going to have?

                    They even made a map with the places they would be coming from.

                    They are a complete failure and it is surprising that some people haven’t smarten up enough to realize.

      • George Harmon says:

        My theory, because we went through such a long 12 year drought in major hurricanes striking, there is a significant amount of pent up energy/excitement by the climate change buffs and Chicken Littles to pontificate about how their climate change theories say hurricanes are getting more severe. Best just to let them ramble on. They will wear themselves out soon enough when they realize nobody in the real world cares about anything they say. Then they will have no other option but to slither back into their basements and institutions.

        • GoneFishing says:

          12 years? Stop lying. I got hit by one of the biggest just a few years ago.
          There have been 21 Major Atlantic Hurricanes since 2010 and over 100 tropical storms. Total damages added up to over 100 billion dollars in just seven years, not including the last one that just hit Texas (might be part of the US).

        • George Kaplan says:

          Your theory is wrong, like all the other ones you’ve come up with. Do you also have a theory about the irony of someone endlessly moaning on about climate scientists and then a) asserting that no one in the real world cares about what they say and b) apparently aspiring to be one themselves, despite obviously having none of the skills, training or aptitude required?

      • notanoilman says:

        Maybe the more deaths from a smaller population was because the satellites and computers used for forecasting weren’t quite as good as we have now.


        • islandboy says:

          Yeah! You shoulda seen those computers and satellites they had back in 1900! They were a sight to behold (NOT)! The radios, televisions and cell phones weren’t that great either, meaning a slightly lower number of people would have known what was coming their way.

  48. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    Oho… Small wonder why you are apparently one of POB’s biggest proponents of renewable electricity, and maybe electric cars, islandboy…

    (Nothing like running an electric car and juicing its battery on fossil fuel, especially in Jamaica, apparently.)

    Jamaica’s got a ways to go but, to be fair, the last data point’s from 2014…

    (Is that a ‘dead-cat bounce’ at 2012? What was the oil price back then? I wonder where the cat is now…)

    While I’m here, what is the latest on USA energy consumption per capita compared with the rest of the world’s?
    I ask this in part maybe to put its so-called renewable energy/electricity consumption in perspective. I mean, if I don’t, who will? ‘u^

  49. wharf rat says:

    Harvey is also managing to increase petrol (gas) prices in the UK as product is diverted to the US as a result of the refinery closures. Just shows how inter-connected the whole world is now, but on the plus side it reduces demand for a short while and the release of CO2 is delayed.

    eleggua / September 4, 2017
    “(RAC spokesman Pete Williams) added: “Americans are wedded to their petrol engines and while they have been endeavouring to become more self-sufficient through increased fracking they are now having to buy more unleaded from overseas which is reducing the availability of unleaded for the rest of the world.””

  50. Survivalist says:

    Is everyone OK with using socialism to clean up after Harvey? Or should we let the free market take care of things? I’m asking for a friend.

    • notanoilman says:

      The corporations are going to make out like bandits on all that government pork coming to Texas.


    • Mossygrape says:

      Socialism cannot be the answer in cleaning up after Hurricane Harvey, because prosperous cities and towns have never been built by people who reject historical societal norms for the Family. Family Values that build community that ‘they will come’ to are taught by Mothers and Fathers who learned them from their own Mothers and Fathers.

      No, the Cleavers on Leave it to Beaver weren’t stupid, but the real world can be. Public Sector socialized institutions (Governments, Scientists, Schools, and ‘Organizers’) can’t take the place of the Immediate Family. Governments, Scientists, Schools and Organizers have never ever built up free and prosperous nations. Communities that grow and work can only be built by good men who marry good women, have many children, and teach them how to work, how to sacrifice their wants and needs for their families, how to Honor God and Country first, followed by ALL Authority including their own father first. Only then do they and their neighbors build a ‘community’ that works and grows.

      Any family’s largest investment is their home. It takes many hours of elbow grease and good $$$ to keep a home up. Historically, home/property values increase year after year. But if socialistic ideals begin taking root, people will see their largest investment declining, so they pull out. Who wouldn’t? You have to count on your homes for retirement so your neighbors don’t have to rob from what you worked hard for to leave to their children.

      Nice communities with nice, large homes were not built by Big Government bureaucrats. They were built by God-fearing families. More people have been killed in the last 100 years by Governments that promised to ‘build community’, give jobs, meet all the needs of its citizens by using class warfare than ‘religious wars’, disease, etc. Guess what? That’s what some here in the US want to do too, by ‘organizing’ an army. They will wind up starving too. Look at the world. All the formerly robust European economies (the ones that used to follow American Principles) have succumbed to socialist wealth redistribution and all are in debt up to the wazoos. It’s gonna last unless we get back to the basics by rebuilding this nation from the ground up.

      It WILL gonna take some time, but you have to do it if you are willing to make changes. NOT the fundamental change of ‘all cultures are equal’. If they were, people wouldn’t flock to the US fleeing the destruction caused by their failed governments. (they come either to join in or to destroy by ‘hey lets elect the same kind of folks who will promise us the moon, or lets implement drastic freedom-taking laws and oppressive taxes. It’s all part of Culture Decline. Blight? Is it too late? Have we reached the tipping point. No, so long as you can convince small businesses, entrepreneurs, and families to move back because you’ve begun to adopt the God-Fearing values that build great community, they will come back. This is America, after all. Land of the free and home of the brave! We can do anything we want as long as we stick to OUR AMERICAN VALUES.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Look at the world. All the formerly robust European economies (the ones that used to follow American Principles) have succumbed to socialist wealth redistribution and all are in debt up to the wazoos. It’s gonna last unless we get back to the basics by rebuilding this nation from the ground up.

        You don’t know a whole heck of a lot about European economies, do you?
        Maybe go visit Scandinavia, The Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland… etc!

        • GoneFishing says:

          Space is the final frontier, especially the space between the ears.
          (Note: not for Fred.)
          The sheer megalomania and conceit of those who want to impress their ways and values on everyone else by declaring “OUR AMERICAN VALUES”. Meaning their values and ways.
          Look buddy, trying to impress your values on others and force your ways down their throats is akin to wanting slaves. War is the next step if certain Americans try to mold America into some religio-fascist control state. God-fearing values my ass. It’s all just the self-righteous power mongering that has gotten us where we are today. Cloak it in whatever deceptive delusional crap you like, it’s all about control, bigotry and ostracism. It’s all about suppression of thought and communication. You are allowed to believe what you want, but when you cross the line of trying to make others that way, that is UN-AMERICAN.
          Forget the father-land, we are moving onto whole new territory and whole new ways that are more in line with what the originators of this country wanted. Democracy and freedom for all, not just followers of “ALL AUTHORITY”.
          We can help ourselves, we do not need your help at all.

      • Nick G says:

        Isn’t the Family a socialist institution? If a family member is sick, the rest pitch in – they don’t ask if the sick family member paid his or her insurance dues, they don’t ask if the sick family member is “deserving”, they just do what needs to be done. The rest do what they can, contributing their individual talents, working hard without being asked.

        To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities. Sounds pretty American to me…

      • Survivalist says:

        Harvey is one of the costliest disasters in U.S. history, and most of the victims have no flood insurance


        Well that rules out that market solution.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Dunno, guess it all depends on whether or not Harvey was a liberal or conservative storm…

      BTW, do the Trolls around here have a full time employee who comes up with fake names for them?!

      Bob Frisky
      Max Gervis
      Steven Haner
      Justin Sroka
      Bruce Grano

      • GoneFishing says:

        Maybe it’s all Artificial Intelligence! Well that is stretching the word intelligence, but here is a great radio program on AI from BBC Business Daily. AI is already running our lives with algorithms that assess and label us for business purposes.

        Computer says no?
        Business Daily

        Will robots and artificial intelligence help us in our daily lives, or steal our jobs and discriminate against us?

        Manuela Saragosa talks to Max Tegmark, who has just written a book about what it means to behuman in an age of artificial intelligence.…

        Also talks to Proffesor Sharkey of the Foundation for Responsible Robotics.
        And a story about “ORWELL”.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Sam Harris just had Max on his last Podcast.
          The Future of Intelligence
          A Conversation with Max Tegmark

          • GoneFishing says:

            I find it quite phenomenal that we are entering multiple unknown territories all at once. Not just explorers or groups or even nations, but all of us, the whole world.
            New unknown futures:
            Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
            Peak Oil
            Peak other fuels
            Accelerating technological change
            Alternative transport and energy
            Genetic Manipulation
            This next few decades will have a fantastically steep learning curve. We must stop this bickering among ourselves and start working together, allowing new educational forms and open ended learning. There is no real time or energy for saber rattling or war or any national squabbling. All those that persist in that should be sidelined and left to their own devices. We will have all we can do just to manage our difficulties, change to workable systems, keep up with the expanding knowledge while trying to sort out the harmful from the batch. As well as removing the old dangerous systems we have running currently.
            If people think they will not have a lot to do in the future, think again. We will be wishing for robotic help there will be so much to do.

            If the world keeps acting like it is still recovering from the City of Babble incident, then results will be mixed at best and disastrous at worst.

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              You forgot maybe the biggest most important issues and I’m pretty sure Ron would be disappointed.

              Mass Extinction

    • GoneFishing says:

      Let’s see if that 8 billion dollar aid package to aid Harvey victims passes Congress today. That is socialism right? Tax money going to help people and communities.
      Happens all the time.

      • Longtimber says:

        No Wholesale Diesel available for sale in Pensacola Fl. Even for Critical needs.

    • Hightrekker says:

      Let the Invisible Fist take care of it.

  51. Hightrekker says:

    Irma at 180 mph!!!!!!!!
    It is a race between the Bermuda High and the trough over US.
    (This makes Irma the strongest hurricane in the Atlantic
    basin outside of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico in the NHC

    • George Kaplan says:

      It looks like the track has edged to the west side of Florida, which means the east coast will see the highest winds, rain and storm surge from the NE quadrant, for about a day and a half. GFS has it hitting at 110kt, there might not be much left that’s inhabitable if that holds.

      • Hightrekker says:

        Catastrophic if it holds.
        It all depends on the turn north now.

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          I sometimes rode my motorcycle at 120 mph and even at that speed, the wind is pretty fierce.

          • Hightrekker says:

            115 here.
            Things get very strange.

            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              You grow up in a place and get used to time with distances on foot, and by bike, car and buses, all going not more than 60 mph. Then you get a motorcycle, and the same distances suddenly get ‘compressed’. It was a strange feeling at first.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Yeah, I might have to hit OFM up for a job and a place to stay after next week 😉

        • Hightrekker says:

          Mandatory evac for Monroe County

          Fred– I might want to get further north–
          Just saying!
          185 now–

          • Fred Magyar says:

            I’m already north of Monroe, in Hollywood, that’s Broward County. Ironically, literally just as I saw your post I heard the mandatory evacuation order on the radio.

            • notanoilman says:

              Just looked it up, yikes, suerte! Keep that kayak safe, looks like you’ll need it.


          • OFM says:

            Anybody I am acquainted with via this forum, and their immediate family, say up to five or six, can find shelter here for a week or two. I’m just north of the Va NC line near I77.

            So far as any forum member who comments regularly is concerned, there is a standing invitation to visit for a day or overnight , gratis, anytime he might be passing thru. But be forewarned, I’m prone to asking as many questions as a little kid if you happen to be expert in a field such as solar power, etc, lol.

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          Yes, you might need another safe space.

  52. OFM says:


    She will go to her grave without ever acknowledging her own shortcomings as a candidate.

    It’s CHILDISH to claim that Sanders was responsible for Trump labeling her a crook. Worse than childish.

    Now we need to get rid of Trump. It looks as if he’s doing everything possible to make it as easy as possible to do so, lol. Just about every body I know who voted for him who is also even remotely LITERATE will either stay home or vote D next time around.

    Every kid he’s trying to deport probably has half a dozen friends and or relatives he or she can motivate to register to vote against Trump. If the kid’s too young, whoever is parenting should be busy as hell as hell NOW getting new voters registered.

  53. islandboy says:

    August EV Sales Higher For US, But You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet!

    Sales of plug-in vehicles in the US continue to show strong growth in 2017…and we haven’t even gotten to the “good part” yet.

    For August, some 16,623 plug-in vehicle deliveries were made, an improvement of almost 15% over the ~14,592 sold a year ago.

    In fact, last month marks the 23rd consecutive month* of record gains in the US market for plug-ins, and as mentioned this is the “low point” of the growth curve for America moving forward. For 2017 YTD, ~121,501 plug-ins have been moved, up 31% from 2016 (~92,211 sales).
    Tesla Model 3

    While a handful more of Tesla model 3s went out in August, expectations are for some pretty lofty returns on the latest Tesla in Q4 – perhaps upwards of 25,000 copies.

    Add in the soon-to-arrive deeper inventory of the Toyota Prius Prime with the 2018 model year’s debut in a month’s time, the Chevrolet Bolt EV just going national in the last week or so, the newly re-designed/longer range Nissan LEAF arriving in December…and the typical year-end EV sales spike (thanks to how the $7,500 federal credit works), and we’d be shocked to not see 100,000+ plug-ins be sold in the last 4 month’s of the year.

    Posted with the explicit intention of getting under the skin of the trolls. Trolling the trolls, in other words!

    • GoneFishing says:

      Islandboy, you do a great job tracking electric power and keeping us up to date. Thanks. I want you know that the work is appreciated and hope you keep it up. Don’t let the trolls and deniers get too far under your skin, they are not important.

      As far as EV’s go, in just s few years EV’s have gone from hobbyist level to full commercial production around the globe. I am amazed that they are so competitive against a technology that has had over one hundred years to advance and evolve. The EV is nowhere near being perfected yet it’s performance is phenomenal.

      • OFM says:

        I second the words of appreciation!!

        • islandboy says:

          Thanks guys! One isn’t always sure ones contribution is appreciated.

          AFAICT there’s a storm a brewin’ and I just want to give a heads up to anybody who’s interested.

          Speaking of storms a brewin’, Irma looks like she’s gonna be a bitch! My thoughts go out to the residents of Antigua, the rest of the Leeward Islands and the Virgin Islands who will experience her wrath over the next 24 hours, then residents of Puerto Rico thereafter.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            Hey islandboy, If there is anything left of Miami after next week and you are in the neighborhood drop me a line and we can have bite and a beer!

            BTW, looks like Hurricane Jose is coming right behind Irma…

      • Longtimber says:

        Just a couple of hours untill a new chapter in EV’s. Let’s hope they pop these out
        like popcorn and they sport Level 3 CSS Power Portal. Never guessed that the fine folks that bring you, Fukushima, also serve up CHAdeMO.
        TEPCO >> Total Trash due to their wonders @ Fukushima Daiichi.
        Dial up a Nissan Dealer and inform them no one wants a vehicle with a TEPCO Designed Fukushima Plug.

    • Caelan MacIntyre says:

      Harvey Wrecks Up to a Million Cars in Car-Dependent Houston

      “And that’s where another specter raises its head: title washing, or taking a damaged vehicle, fixing it up a bit, and fudging the record (either by forgery or taking advantage of legal loopholes by moving states) to hide the fact that it was once the victim of serious problems. A 2014 study by Carfax found there were nearly 800,000 cars on US roads that had been through this sort of fraud; 650,000 of those were flood damaged or salvage vehicles.”

  54. Hightrekker says:

    Kinda looks like a bad day at the Dog Track.
    I wonder if this will continue?

  55. Boomer II says:

    The trolls must be getting nervous. The US is being hit by record breaking fire, rain, and flooding. So the trolls are coming here in hopes reality won’t change the public’s opinion. When your property has been destroyed, you probably don’t give a damn whether scientists are right or wrong, or whether government help is socialist.

    • Caelan MacIntyre says:

      Define Impoverish

      “If you impoverish most of the world so that they have to cut back their lifestyles to a bare minimum, their consumption of the world’s resources will go down. They may end up depleting their local areas, but they won’t be able to afford big houses, big cars, plane trips, and so on.” ~ Boomer II

      “The US is being hit by record breaking fire, rain, and flooding.” ~ Boomer II

    • Javier says:

      The US is being hit by record breaking fire, rain, and flooding.

      Bullshit. You don’t have the evidence to say that. 35 years of scaremongering, that’s all you’ve got.

      • Survivalist says:

        With regard to wildfire
        2015 is the record year with 10,125,149 acres burnt.
        2017 so far is 7,802,597 acres burnt.

        A quick glance at NIFC data reveals that the 10 worst wildfire seasons as measured by acres burnt are 2015, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2011, 2005, 2004, 2017 (still in progress), 2000, 2002.

        Year to date stats, for years 2007 through 2017, puts 2017 in 3rd place, behind 2015 and 2012.

        The trend is towards increasing amount of hectares burnt each year.

        • Javier says:

          North America is not the world, is it?
          The IPCC AR5 only talks about wildfires in the North American regional chapter 26 of WGII. The reason was stated in IPPC Third Assessment Report in 2001:

          “During the past decade, forest fires in developed countries generally have become smaller, with the exception of the former Soviet Union (FAO, 1997a), Canada (Kurz et al., 1995; Kurz and Apps, 1999), and the United States (Sampson and DeCoster, 1998).”

          It appears it is a North American specific problem and therefore can’t be linked to global climate change. In Europe the surface burnt has gone down dramatically over the past decades, and satellites tell us the decrease in forest fires is a global phenomenon.

          “The global area of land burned each year declined by 24 percent between 1998 and 2015, according to analysis of satellite data by NASA scientists and their colleagues. Scientists now believe the decrease in forest fires is increasing 7% the amount of CO2 stored by plants.”

          So unless the prediction is less wildfires with climate change, you can’t blame climate change for the change in fires.

          • Survivalist says:

            The first paragraph from your link:
            “Shifting livelihoods across the tropical forest frontiers of South America, the Eurasian Steppe, and the savannas of Africa are altering landscapes and leading to a significant decline in the amount of land burned by fire”

            Climate change discussions generally concern themselves with naturally caused fires, like lightning for example, and characteristics of fire behavior and intensity. Not man caused fires ignited to clear land for agriculture in Africa and other developing countries.
            You are very clearly not an analytical person. Nor are you interested in a scientific discussion about climate. You’re just a troll posting bullshit. Do you suggest that less fires in Africa being lit by people to clear land has any validity as a climate metric?
            Thanks for coming out short bus. You are an embarrassment to science.

            • Javier says:

              The surface burnt by fires is decreasing globally, including countries where fire is not used for land clearance. Only North America is increasing its fires. You are just trying to make a climate connection using only North America, and using only part of the data. Very scientific.

              This is the situation in Southern Europe, the most wildfire prone part of Europe.

        • Javier says:

          You also have a problem of a too short time series for the conclusions you want to extract.

          The area burned in 1936 was 21.98 million acres, which is considerably more than what burns nowadays. 1937 was a good year and only half that surface burnt.

          The 1920’s-1930’s saw huge fires and lots of surface burnt in the US.

          Littell, J. S., et al. “Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces, 1916–2003.” Ecological Applications 19.4 (2009): 1003-1021.

          • Survivalist says:

            lol too short a time series… from the clown who cherry picks 2007 to present for an arctic sea ice trend.

            Here is a link to an article where that image you posted above can be viewed. It is image 5.6. on page 178.
            Check out image 5.7 and 5.8 on page 180 and 181.
            And a quote from page 181.
            “Similar studies have been done to examine how climate change will affect forest wildfires in other regions of the world, including Australia, New Zealand, the southern Mediterranean, and in boreal forests of Canada (IPCC, 2007d). In general, these studies report wildfires will increase over the course of the century due to projected climate changes from one or more of the AR4 climate models using one or more of the marker emission scenarios.”

            Impacts in the Next Few Decades and Coming Centuries

            “Moreover, most crop modeling studies have not considered changes in sustained droughts, which are likely to increase in many regions (Wang, 2005; Sheffield and Wood, 2008), or potential changes in year-to-year variability of yields. The net effect of these and other factors remains an elusive goal, but these are likely to push yields in a negative direction. For example, recent observations have shown that kudzu (Pueraria lobata), an invasive weed favored by high CO2 and warm winters, has expanded over the past few decades into the Midwest Corn Belt (Ziska et al., 2010).”

            You are a disgrace to science. At least Judith Curry has the balls to put her name on her work. You hide like a troll. Ashamed to show your face. And why not? You’d be laughed out of the faculty with the crap you post. You’re an embarrassment and you know it. That’s why you hide your name.

            • Javier says:

              Yes, yes. “Will affect,” “will increase,” “likely to push…” Since they don’t have a crystal ball, we know they are making up all those predictions. That’s why they never come to pass. Just by chance they should get some predictions right, but they don’t. They are consistently wrong.

              In 2001 IPCC TAR said that fire frequency was expected to increase with human-induced climate change, and that several authors suggest that climate change is likely to increase the number of days with severe burning conditions, prolong the fire season, and increase lightning activity, all of which lead to probable increases in fire frequency and areas burned.

              In 2017 NASA scientists demonstrated using satellite data that the global area of land burned each year declined by 24 percent between 1998 and 2015.

              They then find an excuse for why they got the prediction backwards, like they didn’t include other anthropogenic effects. They are the clowns and the embarrassment to science. They consistently predict the opposite of what happens, and don’t predict what really happens.

              Did they predict the global increase in forest biomass that is being observed? No they didn’t. They are experts in the wrong interpretation of the evidence. And you are just their singing chorus.


            • Javier says:

              I don’t think you should criticize that I don’t use my full name.

          • Survivalist says:

            “The researchers found that fire weather seasons have lengthened across one quarter of Earth’s vegetated surface. In certain areas, extending the fire season by a bit each year added up to a large change over the full study period. For instance, parts of the western United States and Mexico, Brazil, and East Africa now face wildfire seasons that are more than a month longer than they were 35 years ago.”


            hmmmm… fire seasons have lengthened. I wonder what’s causing that?

            • Javier says:

              Hmmm… longer fire seasons yet less surface burnt in most places. I wonder if precipitations are part of that equation and are not being considered.

              • Survivalist says:

                It’s called wilderness fire suppression. 100’s of millions of dollars spent to put fires out. Maybe you’ve heard of it? Duh

        • Javier says:

          There appears to be a basic problem with your reasoning.

          • Survivalist says:

            Fuck are you stupid. Your historical data is reconstructed. Your most recent data is 2004. CO2 was nor 400ppm in 2004. Duh! As usual you have no problem with stupid bullshit like polar bear population estimates and reconstructed fire data from over 100 years ago and before records existed, but modelled sea ice you object to. You’re not a scientist. You’re a troll.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hansen’s predictions in 1988 (29 years ago) were pretty good.



        • Javier says:

          If you think so, Dennis…

          Except for the recent El Niño that could end up being a temporal spike like previous Niños, temperatures have tracked closer to Hansen’s scenario C, while emissions have tracked scenario A.

          Temperatures are already going down since the 2016 peak, while they should be going up if in scenario B.

  56. OFM says:

    I guess I still have a streak of juvenile male in me, because if I were free to do so, I would head FOR Florida, so as to experience a first class hurricane first hand. I would of course want to get there in time to find a well sheltered spot on fairly high ground and take a truck load of useful stuff, such as canned food and water, and maybe a couple of generators. Plenty of gasoline too, enough to get back at least into Georgia without having to buy any.

    This wouldn’t be any more dangerous than any of my usual bad habits such as riding motorcycles or playing with guns.

  57. Doug Leighton says:

    1) Four new ones started on Monday.
    2) Hectares estimated burned: 1,148,000 [4432 square miles].
    3) Cost to B.C. Wildfire Service: $464 million.
    4) Personnel deployed: 3,800, as well as 182 aircraft.

    • George Kaplan says:

      Doug – I hope you are still coping – looks like cooler and even some rain by the weekend.

  58. Hightrekker says:

    Looks like Irma is going to break Allen’s record on wind velocity.
    (for the Atlantic)
    Defiantly over 190 on the last pass.
    We have a new champion!

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Defiantly over 190 on the last pass.
      We have a new champion!

      That’s a record I’d rather not witness and experience first hand!

      • George Kaplan says:

        GFS and ECMWF both have the track moving further east again – another couple of steps of the same size and it would mostly miss Florida, just a lot of rain.

      • George Kaplan says:

        Is the insurance situation for flooding as bad in Florida as in Houston? If so a direct hit might be preferred by some over just rain as I think getting flooded after your roof is ripped off is mostly covered, whereas water coming up through the floor boards is not.

        Also for the economists is $190 billion costs, mostly uninsured, in Houston and however much Irma costs (could be more based on some tracks I’d say) going to be inflationary or deflationary and is GDP going to rise or fall as a result?

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Is the insurance situation for flooding as bad in Florida as in Houston? If so a direct hit might be preferred by some over just rain as I think getting flooded after your roof is ripped off is mostly covered, whereas water coming up through the floor boards is not.

          I think it is probably equally as bad! Insurance companies are the slime of the earth! To be adequately covered you need wind insurance , flood insurance, fire insurance and home content insurance, and even if you have all that they might pull a not covered due to it being an act of god, on you… You need to have a law degree to be able to understand all the fine print.

          At the end of the day if we get hit by a Cat 5 things will be pretty bad for the usual victims, the under privileged, and minorities living on the wrong side of the tracks, The wealthy will make out like bandits.

          Though the real consequences will be to the tourist and service industries and small businesses that tend to employ the underprivileged. It might take a long time for those folks to fully recover, during which time a lot of people will endure a lot of hardship.

          So there are probably no good results to come of this!

        • notanoilman says:

          From bits I have read, the insurance companies will ignore a roof ripped off by wind and state that the damage was caused by flood, then not pay.


  59. Fred Magyar says:

    A Tesla taxi company called Tesloop recently had a Model S roll past the 300,000-mile mark, and according to its calculations, the savings have been massive.


    Tesloop says that its first car, a Tesla Model S, has been operating since 2015, often being driven as much as 17,000 miles a month. But despite covering so many miles, maintenance has been fairly cheap. In its first 300,000 miles, the car only needed $10,492 for maintenance and fuel. Of that total amount, $6,900 was scheduled maintenance, and $3,500 went toward repairing headlight damage that occurred when the car was driven through deep water. That’s a lot to spend on a car over two years, but 300,000 miles works out to about 20 years of regular use. Fuel costs were negligible because, while it won’t last forever, the Model S has free access to Tesla’s Supercharger network. If Tesloop had to pay to charge, 300,000 miles would equate to $12,872 at 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to our friends at IntelliChoice.

    Over the same number of miles, Tesloop estimates a Mercedes-Benz S-Class would have used $36,000 in fuel and would have required a whopping $52,000 in maintenance. A Lincoln Town Car, meanwhile, would have used $42,000 in fuel and $28,000 for maintenance. The release isn’t clear how it computed maintenance costs or what all it included, but it appears to include lost revenue from the number of days each car would have spent in the shop. Tesloop estimates the former would have needed 112 days in the shop, while the latter would have been out of commission for 100 days. The Tesla, meanwhile, was only in the shop for a total of 12 days.

    Even if you ignore the cost of maintenance and only focus on fuel savings, the Tesla comes out way ahead. Granted, that’s only because it’s able to take advantage of free Supercharging, but even if it had been paying for its juice the Tesla’s fuel costs still come in way under those of an S-Class. Plus, Tesloop estimates that the car will still be good for another 900,000 miles over the next six years thanks to Tesla’s eight-year, unlimited-mile powertrain warranty. At the end of its service life, the 1.2 million-mile Tesla will have theoretically saved Tesloop $144,000 in fuel costs alone.

    • GoneFishing says:

      You can’t beat a bargain like that, and it actually saved a lot of energy too.
      The future is here. Problems are being solved.
      Soon, a car that needs no charging or fuel. Oh, just remembered, already been built.

    • OFM says:

      I have personally worked around and sometimes on electric motors that have been in continuous industrial service for fifty years or more, as often as not without a single failure during that entire time.Routine maintenance consists of keeping them clean and lubed and replacing bearings maybe every ten years if they show serious wear.

      And they would still be good to go that long again if reconditioned, as needed, but as they fail now, they’re being replaced with new motors, due to the new ones being more energy efficient. Electricity’s only RELATIVELY cheap when you need tens of thousands of horsepower for two or three shifts week in and week out.

      We can build cars and trucks that will last just about forever, in practical terms, using electric motors and corrosion resistant materials such as carbon fiber and aluminum, and charge them mostly or just about all the time with wind, solar, and tidal electricity.

      We talk about automation without ever really THINKING about just how powerful a tool it can be.

      Self driving trucks do not NECESSARILY have to be electrics. They can work with diesel engines just as easily as electric motors, and load themselves onto and off from flat cars in automated rail yards and be in LA one day and NYC two days later without needing super fast trains.

      All we will REALLY need will be well maintained track with crossings that are sturdy enough to keep cars from getting onto the tracks, or over passes and underpasses. Trains don’t NEED to fly like race cars. Eighty mph will take you a couple of thousand miles in 24 hours, and conventional trains can run a hundred mph on good solid reasonably straight track.

      I foresee the railroads eventually being rebuilt along the lines of major limited access highways. This might require that they be publicly owned, so be it if necessary. The actual trains could still be operated on the tracks by paying service charges, after the fashion that airlines use publicly owned airports.

      One thing we WILL need is a standard design system for batteries , so that they can be sourced from multiple companies. We have such standards for tires and batteries and so forth already.

    • Javier says:

      How something that cannot be demonstrated is used to promote climate change agenda.

    • GoneFishing says:

      I thought it might be about people being so stupid as to cause their own extinction.
      However it is about a small group of megalomaniac self-proclaimed geniuses too stupid to not keep their mouths shut.

  60. Survivalist says:

    Hurricane Irma and Tropical Storm Jose by Tropical Tidbits


    • GoneFishing says:

      Another monster storm. Looks like Hansen was right about storms getting stronger.

      • islandboy says:

        Eye over Barbuda.

      • Javier says:

        Hansen hasn’t been right about a thing in his life.

        Bob Reiss said this in 2001:

        “While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

        So what did he get right in his “vision”? Hansen is just a scaremonger failure.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Bob Reiss makes a living writing fiction. He must be your hero.

          • Javier says:

            And Jim Hansen produces the fiction Bob Reiss writes. No doubt your hero.

            • GoneFishing says:

              A new record, Javier is one third correct.

              • Javier says:

                That would still be one third more than Jim Hansen.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Back to being 100 percent wrong again. No hope for you.

                • OFM says:

                  Javier represents himself as a scientist, but he totally ignores the precautionary principle.

                  He wouldn’t be able to get a job as a lab tech in a responsible setting. It would take a fool to hire him, considering his reckless confidence that HE is right, and just about the entire scientific establishment is wrong.

  61. OFM says:

    The really scariest fact that I can think of which emerges from the study of basic math is that IF any particular event CAN happen, given ENOUGH trials, it WILL happen.

    Sell enough tickets, and you sell a winner, no matter how stacked against the bettor the odds of the lottery.

    And really scary things DO happen, and more often than most of us actually realize. Consider for instance that Hitler got control of Germany, and started WWII.

    And now Trump is president of the USA.

    And dough boy is dictator for life of North Korea, and may actually be crazy enough to have plans to actually launch a nuclear armed ICBM at the US or some other country. Or he might have a contingency plan such that if he is assassinated, the orders for the launch automatically go into effect.

    I have read everything I can easily find about EMP weapons, and conclude that one that works as designed, set off over the central USA, would basically destroy us as a country, economically and culturally, but it wouldn’t destroy our military capabilities, short term. Whoever launched it, or was even suspected of launching such an attack, would be wiped out within a matter of an hour at the most.

    But that wouldn’t fix our problems at home. THERE ARE NO SPARES for the countless large switches, transformers, and other heavy duty high capacity parts of the grid, in the event of war. The LEAD TIME for a large transformer is a YEAR PLUS.

    Spares in the numbers actually needed under normal conditions are ready to go, because the failure rate is well known, and we need only a few hundred per year, nationally, to replace the really big ones that fail.

    But if most of them get knocked out by an EMP weapon, the grid will be down, the economy will look like toilet paper run thru a shredder, and it won’t be POSSIBLE to manufacture new ones in quantity. It couldn’t be done anyway, on short notice, because these things aren’t mass produced, they’re pretty much built to order one at a time, the same way a large building is constructed, by skilled men, a step at a time.

    And so far as I can see, you don’t need a high precision delivery system for a big EMP bomb, anywhere within fifty to a hundred miles of the optimal calculated spot would be FINE. And you wouldn’t need much in the way of a first class reentry vehicle, because it will be set to explode at pretty high altitude ANYWAY, where the air is still thin, and the heat of re entry wouldn’t be so much of a problem.

    I’m an old fart, and thus I don’t have much to worry about, personally.

  62. Dennis Coyne says:

    Hi all,

    A new Open Thread Non- Petroleum is up


    and a new post by Mr. Kaplan on the Gulf of Mexico


Comments are closed.