515 Responses to Open Thread- Non-Petroleum, August 2, 2017

  1. Preston says:

    If you missed the latest news from Tesla, they shipped the first 30 model 3’s to customers on Friday. They announced two versions. The standard model gets 220 miles of range for $35,000 and a long range version that has 310 miles of range for $44,000. Any color except black costs an extra $1000.

    The supercharger rates are up to 120-140 miles added per 30 minutes of charging.

    Home charging from a 220V outlet adds 30-40 miles per hour.

    All Tesla’s have the autopilot hardware included, including the model 3’s. The software costs $5000 for the basic auto-pilot and $3000 more for full autonomous driving.

    The production is ramping to 20,000 cars a month (about 1000 per day) by December. The waiting list is very long, a new order likely wont be filled until late 2018 or early 2019.

    • wharf rat says:

      VW, in Settlement, to Build Electric Vehicle Stations
      By Bobby Magill

      Published: July 28th, 2017

      Volkswagen will build a massive network of electric vehicle charging stations across California as part of a settlement over its diesel emissions scandal.

      The California Air Resources Board has voted unanimously to approve the $200 million plan as the first of a number of steps the German automaker has proposed to take to help cut greenhouse gas emissions in California. In total, the company has agreed to spend $800 million on zero-emissions electric vehicle infrastructure in the state over 10 years.


    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      “220 miles of range and 120-140 miles added per 30 minutes of charging”

      A driver could complete a one day 500 mile road trip with two timely rest stops

    • DimaondJoe says:

      If a 220 volt outlet is needed for charging, then North American sales won’t be good at all.

      • OFM says:

        You can add a lot of kilowatt hours to your battery with a 120 volt 20 amp circuit, over night, but it’s true that a 240 volt thirty amp circuit, such as is commonly used for an electric clothes dryer or so called quick recovery electric water heater works several times faster.

        It costs maybe an extra couple of hundred bucks, maybe four hundred at the most, to include an extra circuit of this type with an outlet in a car port, or with a weather proof enclosure on an outside wall when building new.

        Adding such a circuit in an old house can run a couple of thousand bucks, depending on whether the service is adequate, there’s room for another breaker in the breaker box, and how much carpentry and masonry work must be done to install the wires and so forth.

        Running wire in exposed conduit is fast and cheap, poking holes and fishing it thru and hiding the evidence is time consuming and expensive.

        I don’t see the builders of nice new homes and apartments having a problem with spending a few hundred extra running a charging circuit. A helper can run the wire in an hour from the service panel to an outlet in a car port while wiring a new house and wire and breakers don’t cost all that much.

        Digging a ditch for an underground wire and putting a weather proof outlet some distance from the house is a different matter, if it’s new work at an old house. This could easily run a couple of thousand because it involves time and more and more expensive materials, and bringing in a ditching machine, etc.

        But hey, what’s another couple of grand when you’re spending a couple of HUNDRED grand or more for a house ?

        I foresee adding charging stations being quite common on new construction within the next five or six years, because doing so will enhance rental and resale values, even though the first owner or tenant may never use the outlet.

    • islandboy says:

      I just did a quick and dirty calculation of the portion of 2015 electricity production that would have been consumed by EVs if all 2015 VMT in light duty vehicles had been traveled in EVs consuming between 250 and 400 Wh per mile. The result was 19% on the low end and 30% on the high end.

      • Preston says:

        Sounds about right, and it’s mostly going to be off-peak in the middle of the night. Not a problem.

        Plus in California, they are doing a trial right now with a small fleet of bmw i3’s where they give the utility control over charging and they can also tap into the car battery to source power if needed to handle short term peaks on the grid. Although, right now they are only testing charge control to balance out generation.

        • Nick G says:

          Increasingly, they’ll be charging off-peak in the middle of the day! Things are changing…

          • OFM says:

            I’m dead sure electric utility managers are DROOLING at the possibility of selling huge numbers of EXTRA kilowatt hours during the night, when they can source a lot of it from base load nukes and coal, which need to run fairly steady anyway.

            And they will be hoping to sell ever more kilowatt hours sourced from sun power during the day. But that might not work out so well, because a hell of a lot of people and companies are going to be charging cars with on site solar production, no utility needed.

            • Nick G says:

              Yeah, I know some people who are quite pleased that they have a “solar-powered” car.

              can source a lot of it from base load nukes and coal

              And wind, which is on average a little stronger at night.

              • OFM says:

                Wind too, quite true.

                But millions of electric cars may very well be on the road in many parts of the country before there is enough wind power on the grid to charge them. If the cards fall this way, the utility will be in tall cotton selling lots of extra off peak kilowatt hours using otherwise idle and excess conventional capacity.

                It could be ten years, or thirty years, before enough high voltage long distance transmission lines are built to allow the people in say Atlanta, or Washington DC, to use significant amounts of wind generated electricity.

                • Nick G says:

                  Well, at the moment wind and solar seem to be growing faster than EVs.

                  An ideal ratio might be to have EVs consume about 1/3 of wind & solar production. IIRC, wind and solar are providing about 6% of the US’s kWhs. OTOH, I’d estimate that currently EVs are only accounting for about .1% of the US’s kWh consumption.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Total vehicle miles travelled in the US is 2.1 trillion for light duty vehicles. If all light duty vehicles were electric that would be about 630 terawatt hours. For losses round it up to 700 terawatt hours per year.

                    Considering that the US uses about 4200 terawatt hours per year, converting all light duty vehicles would use 17 percent of the electric power in the usa. So all we have to do is become 17 percent more efficient to have no change.
                    I assume that the EV’s will become more efficient and so will many other uses of electric power. If 20 percent of the EV’s are powered by home or business distributed PV, then that will lessen the load on the grid considerably.

                  • Nick G says:


                    I agree.

                    What Mac and I were discussing, I think, is the role that EVs can play in managing wind & solar variance. EVs can charge dynamically (perhaps when prices are low), and buffer intermittency. That makes EVs and renewables synergistic.

    • Gene Orleans says:

      Tesla averaging 1,800 Model 3 reservations per day since last week’s event


      This technology will be the good way forward for people in small countries like island nations. Don’t know if there’s as much usefulness in the mainland but probably enough with city dwellers to keep the Tesla stock price up.

      • OFM says:

        Unless I’m mistaken, the average driver in the USA puts about twelve thousand miles a year on his car. Such a driver will be able to drive his usual two hundred to three hundred miles a week charging a THREE only once or twice. People who commute up to a hundred miles or more round trip will be able to recharge their new THREE overnight without any problems at all while saving a lot of money and time.

        The only real range issue from here on out will be the occasional longer trip. I’m thinking most people who can afford a forty thousand dollar car will also either own a conventional car, if they live in a two car household, or will be easily able to afford to rent a conventional car for the occasional weekend trip.

        • Bob Nickson says:

          Or, they can just use the Supercharger network, which is one of the most significant advantages a Tesla has over any other EV on the market, for the time being.


          As usual, Tesla is leading the charge (ha!) demonstrating what is possible.

          • Charles Van Vleet says:

            With that map, you can see how this technology mostly only appeals to our country’s liberals and socialists.

            • Bob Nickson says:

              Can you explain that one to me Charles, how so?

              • Charles Van Vleet says:

                Blue States/Areas have more locations, especially Commiefornia.

                • Nick G says:

                  There’s a pretty good correlation with income and education, and with urban living that allows shorter driving distance.

                  How odd, though, that patriotic americans have been misinformed about EVs. In fact, if you want to support your troops, you want to reduce oil imports, and EVs are one good way to do that.

  2. Bob Frisky says:

    The big blob of cold probabilities for next week is now even bigger.

    • notanoilman says:

      Important: This is a map of PROBABILITIES not temperatures.

      Note the increased probability of above normal temperature in the west and the cold probability area being squeezed in the south east and south west by probability of above normal temperatures.


    • Hightrekker says:

      Look at Alaska—–
      Boy, those ice caps are getting smaller by the second!

      • GoneFishing says:

        Heat wave predicted out in the northwest coast and soggy permafrost in Alaska. Doe the pipeline float?
        From the shape of it, must be a shift in the Jetstream.

    • Preston says:

      Yes maybe cool for a few days, but the rest of the world cooks……

    • Johnny92 says:

      Twitter and Facebook gonna have epic meltdowns as cold comes while Al Gore’s propaganda shows in theaters. lmao

      • Survivalist says:

        lol facebook and twitter, are you 12?

      • Songster says:

        Johnny92 – The weather forecast for the Pacific Northwest may break some all time high temperature records. Portland may be 107-109. Are lmao about that also?

        • Johnny92 says:

          I’ll lmao if it causes epic social media meltdowns! Even better if there’s a lit af meme war to go along! 😈

          • George Kaplan says:

            Why, if I may ask (genuine interest, not a wind up)?

            • Songster says:

              Johnny is just saying he is being a dick and stirring things up, just to do it. You know….a troll.

            • Johnny92 says:

              I lol about how passionate both sides of the climate debate get when arguing about what they believe. Especially because they don’t even realize their arguments persuade nobody and are just big wastes of time. 😆

    • Hickory says:

      Thanks for the weather forecast Bob. Is it supposed to have some meaning beyond the next 10 days?
      I guess all those people in the middle will have to fire their heater- looks so cold.
      I heard it would also get very cold in the winter, particularly in the north.
      Thats impressive, huh?

    • Fred Magyar says:

      I think there is an ever increasing probability that you are either an idiot or a troll, maybe both!

    • OFM says:

      NO NO NO BOB,

      It’s not going to be cold, it will only cool off to PLEASANTLY WARM or bearably hot, in the blue areas.

      Just checked the NWS forecast for Fargo , ND, which is famous for being as cold as a witches tit.

      The force cast is for highs in the upper seventies from Monday on.

      I’m thinking the country as a whole will be warmer than average, and that some of us are going to BAKE.

    • Bob Nickson says:

      Mr Frisky,
      Since you really like temperature anomaly graphics, (and who doesn’t!), check out this cool* animation showing temperature anomalies for all regions each year since 1900:


      *figurative expression

  3. Hightrekker says:

    GOP congressman: God will “take care of” global warming if it exists
    (The Cabbages For Christ never disappoint)

    And just think this idiot is making laws for you in congress!

    “Think how dumb the average person is, and then realize half the population is stupider than that”

  4. Survivalist says:

    Hundreds of people have reportedly been fleeing a town in eastern Saudi Arabia after weeks of clashes between the security forces and armed men.

    I hope Iran kicks their ass good and hard.

    • Hightrekker says:

      Iran can actually shoot back, and has those good Russian Toys also.
      SA is a decaying theocracy, that would go back to the 11th Century if we left.

    • George Kaplan says:

      Pretty much right where the oil is.

  5. Hickory says:

    This ain’t peanuts-
    ‘The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced plans to convert its entire 2,200 bus fleet to zero-emission buses by 2030. ‘

  6. Hightrekker says:

    Those lying scientists!

    Notice how the liars at NASA start this temperature graph at -0.2 degrees. That way the increase in global T up over the ca. 60 years covered in the graph appears to only be ca. 1.0°C, when it is actually +1.2-1.3°C*

    Its bad enough when the lying politicians minimize the global warming problem or even pretend they’ve fixed things with a bogus treaty, but its even worse when scientists themselves start to fudge their data to minimize the problem.

    • George Kaplan says:

      I look at that curve and see an exponential, trouble is you couldn’t be sure until 50 years down the road, and you could equally fit a bell curve, S curve or straight line if those are what best fit your agenda.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi George,

        There is plenty of uncertainty, the climate scientist consensus for RCP4.5 is about 2.5 C of warming, but with good policy we can do better than that, what I call RCP 3.1 (roughly the average between RCP 2.6 and RCP4.5). That might keep us to 2 C of warming, though clearly further climate research is needed.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Got that wrong, should be RCP 3.6 not RCP 3.1.

        • George Kaplan says:

          Dennis can you provide a link to the analysis that comes up with the consensus you quote, and what is your cut of for warming – e.g. when history apparently ends in 2100, or the maximum we see before it declines again?

          • Dennis coyne says:

            Hi George

            That was AR5 from memory for multimodel mean in 2100. After 2100 it is likely RCP4.5 will be too high a rate of emissions. So mkxeel results will be wrong because tbe emissions scenario is too high. For that reason a scenario such as RCP3.6 about the average of 2.6 and 4.5 is probably more realistic.

      • notanoilman says:

        Looks like exponential to me. Anyone who can grab the data and do a curve fit?


    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Hightreker,

      There is variability in temperature over time.

      Atmospheric CO2 remained between 275 an 280 ppm for about 7000 years and over that time Global Temperatures averaged slightly more than the low temperatures of 1850 to 1900 when a number of volcanic eruptions resulted in lower temperatures than the pre-industrial average temperature (say 8000 BCE to 1750 CE).

      It all depends on what is considered a “normal” temperature. The 1961-1990 average temperature is pretty close to the pre-industrial (as I defined it above) temperature.

      See Marcott et al 2013.

  7. Fred Magyar says:

    Here’s one for the morons who are always talking about the great global greening and what great plant food CO2 is… Well, it ain’t!


    Estimated Effects of Future Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Protein Intake and the Risk of Protein Deficiency by Country and Region

    Danielle E. Medek,1,2 Joel Schwartz,1 and Samuel S. Myers1,3


    Crops grown under elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations (eCO2) contain less protein. Crops particularly affected include rice and wheat, which are primary sources of dietary protein for many countries.
    We aimed to estimate global and country-specific risks of protein deficiency attributable to anthropogenic CO2 emissions by 2050.
    To model per capita protein intake in countries around the world under eCO2, we first established the effect size of eCO2 on the protein concentration of edible portions of crops by performing a meta-analysis of published literature. We then estimated per-country protein intake under current and anticipated future eCO2 using global food balance sheets (FBS).
    We modeled protein intake distributions within countries using Gini coefficients, and we estimated those at risk of deficiency from estimated average protein requirements (EAR) weighted by population age structure.
    Under eCO2, rice, wheat, barley, and potato protein contents decreased by 7.6%, 7.8%, 14.1%, and 6.4%, respectively. Consequently, 18 countries may lose >5% of their dietary protein, including India (5.3%). By 2050, assuming today’s diets and levels of income inequality, an additional 1.6% or 148.4 million of the world’s population may be placed at risk of protein deficiency because of eCO2. In India, an additional 53 million people may become at risk.
    Anthropogenic CO2 emissions threaten the adequacy of protein intake worldwide. Elevated atmospheric CO2 may widen the disparity in protein intake within countries, with plant-based diets being the most vulnerable.

    • GoneFishing says:

      By 2050? Since they assume today’s diet and income inequality, why not assume today’s rate of population increase? Ooops, about 2.5 billion more people to feed anyway. Can we do that? Where do we put them? Something is going to give and I am not very confident in any prediction to 2050.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        No need to wait and see what will happen in 2050 given that there are plenty of people already at severe risk of malnutrition today, with a population of only 7.5 billion.
        Agriculture isn’t predicted to do all that well in 4C warming scenario and that seems ever more likely to occur. Looks more and more like keeping things below 2C is wishful thinking if not outright fantasy.

        Someone needs to write a book on Chaos Theory for Dummies…


        What is Chaos Theory?
        Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable. It teaches us to expect the unexpected. While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions, Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on. These phenomena are often described by fractal mathematics, which captures the infinite complexity of nature. Many natural objects exhibit fractal properties, including landscapes, clouds, trees, organs, rivers etc, and many of the systems in which we live exhibit complex, chaotic behavior. Recognizing the chaotic, fractal nature of our world can give us new insight, power, and wisdom. For example, by understanding the complex, chaotic dynamics of the atmosphere, a balloon pilot can “steer” a balloon to a desired location. By understanding that our ecosystems, our social systems, and our economic systems are interconnected, we can hope to avoid actions which may end up being detrimental to our long-term well-being.

        Yeah, good luck with that!

        Then there’s hyperbolic geometry and sea slugs. Was nice to know them…


        Sea slugs have at least the rudiments of brains; they generally possess a few thousand neurons, whose large size has made these animals a model organism for scientists studying basic neuronal functioning.

        Let’s elect Sea Slugs to Congress!

    • Javier says:

      This is all bad science. We have been measuring protein content from food for over 40 years now. In the meantime CO2 has gone from 330 to 410 ppm. How much has protein content in food reduced? Let me guess: Zero

      Oh, this is such an awful problem that they can’t show any past effect. Only promise us that some effect will take place in the future. But climate science has been promising all sort of ill effects for the past 35 years and failed. They are discrediting themselves.

    • islandboy says:

      Typical material to be expected from a site that discusses “Climate Alarmism”. I am pretty sure that if I tried hard enough I could rebut most of the points made in this hit piece but, I am not inclined to waste my time on such pursuits. I prefer to “waste my time” going through the EIA’s Electric Power Monthly and trying to extract some meaningful trends from that. I have completed my look at the latest EPM and it will be posted as soon as Dennis and I sort out some minor details.

      A quick look at the annual data shows that wind contributed ten times as much to the electricity mix in 2015 (4.7%) as it did in 2005 (0.44%). Looking at the monthly data for 2017, wind contributed more than 6.9% of the electricity since February this year, contributing 5.966% in January. If wind production were to grow at the same rate over the next ten years as it has for the previous ten, it would end up producing between 45 and 55 percent of US electricity.by 2026.

      If solar were to continue growing at the pace of the previous ten years for another ten years, it would end up producing roughly 36% of US electricity by 2026. If these rates of growth were experienced the US could see between 80 to 90 percent of electricity coming from wind and solar alone! Of course, this is ridiculous since it would leave less than 20% share for hydro, nuclear, and other sources, including fossil fuels.

      Below is a graph of total U.S. installed wind capacity, through end of 2016 from a page at the American Wind Energy Association web site, titled Wind Energy Facts at a Glance. Is this what has Team Koch worried? Couple exponentially increasing electricity production from wind and solar with a sudden transition to electrified transport and I could see the fossil fuel industries being in a real pickle. I hope the good guys in these industries are able to find good employment elsewhere, if they don’t retire first.

      • OFM says:

        I have high hopes for a fast transition to renewable electricity, and away from oil , but I just can’t see it happening fast enough to result in very many layoffs in the ff industries.
        People will almost for sure be retiring faster than the demand for oil and gas falls off, if indeed it falls off at all within the near future.

        The growing part of the world may find it expedient to stick with conventional cars as it grows richer, and there is not yet much in the way of real evidence that large trucks and other machinery that needs powerful engines can be run on batteries, at least not any time soon.

        • GoneFishing says:

          What if you had a central battery area in or next to your field with a powerline to that? You would have a couple of big batteries charging while you work the field then roll on over to the charging station and change the battery, back to work while the other batteries charge.
          Or maybe the battery station could be on a flat bed, a mobile one. All that would be needed for shared equipment would be the power hookup at each farm. You could basically run 24/7 with the right setups.
          Batteries will get cheaper as we move more to carbon technology.

          Of course you could always switch over to farming sunlight instead of food.:-)

  8. Doug Leighton says:


    “As conditions are close to a critical health threshold already today, a warming of a few degrees could strongly increase the risk of deadly heat waves.”


    • Doug Leighton says:

      Meanwhile the wildfires burn and,


      Thursday, August 3, 2017, 7:46 AM – British Columbia’s ongoing heatwave has already broken maximum daily temperature records, with one locale surpassing a record that was over 100 years old.


      • Doug Leighton says:

        And I just got off the phone with my Daughter in Italy where temperatures are projected to be 43+ Celsius (109+F) this weekend. Yeah, I know, it’s just weather.

        • Doug Leighton says:


          “Even if humans could instantly turn off all our emissions of greenhouse gases, the Earth would continue to heat up about two more degrees Fahrenheit by the turn of the century, according to a sophisticated new analysis.”


          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Doug,

            Typically 2
            “2 Degrees of warming” means 2 Degrees C, so that headline is kind of misleading.

            Also from that piece:

            Among Pincus’ and Mauritsen’s findings:
            Even if all fossil fuel emissions stopped in 2017, warming by 2100 is very likely to reach about 2.3 F (range: 1.6-4.1) or 1.3 degrees C (range: 0.9-2.3).
            Oceans could reduce that figure a bit. Carbon naturally captured and stored in the deep ocean could cut committed warming by 0.4 degrees F (0.2 C).
            There is some risk that warming this century cannot be kept to 1.5 degrees C beyond pre-industrial temperatures. In fact, there is a 13 percent chance we are already committed to 1.5-C warming by 2100.

            • Doug Leighton says:

              ““2 Degrees of warming” means 2 Degrees C, so that headline is kind of misleading.”

              Totally agree Dennis. Frankly if it weren’t for you Yanks, degrees Fahrenheit would not exits in any modern context. Of course nor would: miles, feet, inches, pounds, cups, teaspoons, etc. 🙂

              • GoneFishing says:

                At least the Yanks have a common language, not like the Europeans who seem to change languages every few hundred miles.

                Another study also published in Nature Climate Change the same day disagrees. Says it will be higher.
                Adrian Raftery of the University of Washington. “We’re closer to the margin than we think.”

                The study was published

                • Doug Leighton says:

                  Dennis — Meanwhile, close to home (Norway looks better every day),


                  Kamloops, B.C., saw an air quality health risk rating of 18 — on a scale that normally stops at 10. Rather a worry when viability is down to sub-kilometer distances, or should I say less than a mile. 🙂

                • George Harmon says:

                  The truth is exposed in the comments to that study. Thank you for posting.

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  At least the Yanks have a common language, not like the Europeans who seem to change languages every few hundred miles.

                  Yo, that’s a feature not a bug!

                  You should hang out with my extended family some time. We play this multi lingual game, imagine sitting down for dinner with about 8 polyglots who all speak different languages but with some overlap. The rule is everyone chooses a language and you can only speak in that language. Say I chose Portuguese, My brother chooses German and my sister chooses Hungarian. My sister says something to me in Hungarian and I speak to my cousin in Portuguese who then addresses my brother in English and my brother speaks to my sister in German… Its fun to watch people at the next table trying to follow our conversation when we do this after a bottle or two of wine at a public restaurant…


                  • GoneFishing says:

                    I know some Spanish and German, but amazingly had little trouble reading French research papers. Go figure.

                  • Bob Nickson says:

                    I installed a little browser extension to Chrome called TransOver which will translate any word or selection that you hover your cursor over.

                    After a little more than a year of spending maybe an hour or two a month of trying to read LeMonde just hovering over words that are new to me (which was all of them in the beginning), I can now mostly read and understand the front page of the French newspaper.

                    It’s been fun, and it’s been interesting to see how quickly you can pick up language vocabulary that way.

                    Unfortunately however, it’s increased my capacity to understand spoken French, or to speak it, exactly zero percent.

                    Cool little extension though.

              • Synapsid says:


                You’ll take my teaspoons out of my cold…

              • OFM says:

                Metric is FINE, until you realize that everything in the USA was built to the old system, until very recently.

                It’s a real pain in the ass to try to measure old lumber and old work with a metric tape.
                People with a few brains can do basic fractions in their head, and when you use the inch, half inch, quarter inch, eighth, and sixteenth inch, you can easily see and accurately read the tape. I millimeter is too big for detailed work by eye, and centimeters and millimeters are clumsy to read by comparison.

                The decimal inch works great.

                But we should have gone entirely metric and got it over with years ago.

                I’m sick and tired of maintaining two sets of mechanics tools, with good ones running well into the mid four figures for a decent set.

                Metric would be wonderful …… and is …….. except for all that old construction.

                • Nick G says:

                  I like metric, but…why base 10? Just because we have 10 fingers and toes??

                  The Sumerians started off our number system with base 60. We have 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 24 hours, 12 months, 12 inches….Base 12 would have been good. Then we could divide by 3 in a simple fashion. Think how annoying it would be if there were 20 hours in a day, for people working 3 shifts per day. For a while there the French had 10 hours in a day, and 10 days in the week, and 10 months in the year! Jeez! Talk about taking a good thing, and driving it into the ground.


                  • OFM says:

                    Base two is best suited by a country mile to the human eye.
                    Anybody who has ever actually WORKED extensively with both metric and fractional inch tools will swear this is true, unless he’s a liar.

                    You can’t see a tenth of a millimeter, lol, but you can see a sixteenth of an inch, and even a thirty second if your eyes are still ok.

                    Back when I was young, if the light was bright, I could read sixty fourths on a rule.
                    My best one went to one twenty eighths, but I could never read that scale, without a magnifying glass.

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  It’s a real pain in the ass to try to measure old lumber and old work with a metric tape.

                  It works the other way if you SCUBA dive around the world…

                  Try calculating your air consumption on the fly…

                  10 L tank at 200 ATMs = 2000 L and your air consumption is 20 L per minute at 10 meters depth, how long can you stay down?


                  80 cu ft tank at 3000 psi and your air consumption is 1220.47 cu in per minute at 33 FSW…

                  Now which of those calculations would you prefer to do in your head, if you were deep enough to be somewhat affected by N2 narcosis?

                  • OFM says:

                    Hi Fred,

                    I ‘m perfectly comfortable with the metric system, and I LIKE it. It’s obviously far easier to do calculations of almost any sort, as you point out.

                    And the only way I can keep up with how much a bushel is, is to keep a card nailed to the wall, that says this many pounds of corn, this many pounds of green beans, this many pounds of apples, etc, lol.

                    But by Sky Daddy, I am STUCK with damned near everything I own, and most of what I TOUCH , excepting newer machinery, being built to the old system.

                    If I couldn’t get building and plumbing materials, etc, built to the old standard, I would be in one hell of a fix, and so would about ninety five percent of all property owners in the USA. This is the REAL explanation for why we are so reluctant to finish the transition.

                    I would have to take ten minutes to cut off and toss close to a fourth of a sheet of metric standard plywood to make it fit where an old four by eight fits, if that’s all I could buy.

                • islandboy says:

                  I once did a fairly complex woodworking project that required lots of weird angles and fractions of an inch. The drawings for this “kind of open source” project had been converted to metric by some non US members of the internet forum that was participating in the design, Guess which measures I ended up using?

                  Metric is superior IMO. I recently watched a video presentation on metrication outlining how much waste is introduced by mistakes resulting in incorrect cuts using the imperial measures.

                  TEDxMelbourne – Pat Naughtin – Saving Millions with the Metric System

                  I don’t see the old standards as that big of a deal. An eight by four sheet of 3/4 inch plywood just becomes a 2438 by 1219 mm sheet of 19 mm plywood and a 6ft 6in x 2ft 6in (78 x 30 inch) door becomes a 1981 mm x 762 mm door. A 1980×760 mm door wood just add a 1 mm larger gap at the bottom or top and a 2 mm larger gap at the sides if it used to replace a 78 x 30 inch door. I can imagine people in a distant future, when everything is metric, wondering how these strange standard sizes originated.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Tks for that TED talk link, islandboy!
                    That’s a really great talk for so many reasons!
                    People who are opposed to metrification should be smacked upside the head with a couple of 50.8 mm X 101.6 mm, more commonly known in the US as two by fours 😉

                  • OFM says:

                    Ya don’t GET IT, Fred.

                    METRIC PLYWOOD is not SOLD in sheets that measure 2438 by 1219, lol.

                    And if you are remodeling an old house, and you are bright enough to do basic fractions in your head, you simply don’t make more than a few trivial mistakes in measuring and fitting materials, sticking to your inch tools.

                    You are apt to make a shit load of mistakes constantly converting back and forth.

                    As old hillbillies say, frogs wouldn’t bump their asses so much if they had wings and could FLY.

                    The reason we Yankees HATE THE FUCKING metric system is that we can’t just blow some pixie dust on our houses and machines and magically convert them to metric dimensions.

                    SO far I have been able to avoid purchasing a PASSABLY SATISFACTORY set of metric taps and dies that would set me back at least two thousand dollars by way of borrowing them as necessary, or buying them one piece at a time as needed.

                    My old set is in perfect condition, and fully adequate for anything on the farm, or in the garage- so long as it’s NOT METRIC.

                    An equivalent metric set , same brand name, costs six grand now. I paid maybe five hundred for my set decades back.

                    I’m not in any hurry to toss it.

                    Having said all this, I have also said we Yankees need to just eat the short term problems, and get on with the conversion, and be done with it.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    I do get it OFM, and I have done more than my fair share of cutting and building with imperial measurements with reasonably good results. I have always practiced ‘measure twice and cut once…’

                    Having said all this, I have also said we Yankees need to just eat the short term problems, and get on with the conversion, and be done with it.

                    If you haven’t watched the TED talk at islandboy’s posted link do so. I don’t think you can make any arguments defending imperial after that! The Aussies went over to using metric in their entire building industry in just two years.

                    I especially loved all the necessary measurements to build a house on the back of one business card. You can see it in the video. I might even make my own and have a couple printed up.

                  • islandboy says:

                    “METRIC PLYWOOD is not SOLD in sheets that measure 2438 by 1219, lol.”

                    Hey OFM, I was in South Florida for two days back in the fourth week of June and visited a Home Depot to look at what grades of plywood were available in 3/4 inch thickness, among other things. A lot of plywood and other types of sheeting is made outside the US in places like Brazil and China but, because of the size and importance of the US market is supplied in 8 x 4 foot sized sheets. I did see a lot of metric thicknesses though, 16mm (5/8″) and 18 or 19mm (3/4″) so does that make that “metric plywood”? 🙂

                    I’m seeing the same thing with plastic sheeting used in sign manufacturing coming in 3mm thickness instead of 1/8″. It means that the CNC router being used to cut the sheet has to be set to cut to a depth of 118 thousandths of an inch instead of 125. In the world of precision machining, seven thousandths of an inch is a big deal.

                    Here’s another fun video:

                    Neil deGrasse Tyson : America Inching Towards the Metric System

                    and another:

                    Nerd Nite #5: Metric System Lecture

                • scrub puller says:

                  Yair . . .
                  Metric is fine . . . provided people only work in millimeters or meters, forget centimeters they are of no practical use.

                  A bigger problem is that all measuring tapes are made for left handed people and this introduces errors even into the professional segment.


              • Dennis coyne says:

                Agree 100%.

                I prefer the metric system.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Sure it would be good in the long run but I don’t have the trillion dollars for the changeover. What politician will say that the conversion would cost about $7000 to every full time working person in the US.
                  BTW, it took Australia 18 years to convert to metric and there are no numbers for the costs the public and industry had to bear to make the conversion, just some government cost figures.
                  For the US, figure about 1 billion just to change the road signs and what do you do with all that wasted material and energy?
                  As far as the public is concerned it would not only entail a lot of cost but a lot of confusion, error and delay. You might as well be posting things in a foreign language, things they need every day and need to do correctly.
                  So let’s get some decent cost estimates for the whole system of changes and evaluate the chaos, time lost and errors in the system as people are forced to use measures and things for which they don’t have a full understanding.
                  Ask some person on the street how many megajoules he uses or how many meters it is to an object. It will be fifty to sixty years before the confusion and irritation dies away. It will also produce a lot of useless junk.
                  I have used both systems for many decades and merely use conversions, calculators and computers do it instantly. In the lab we would flip back and forth seamlessly between metric and English measurements because each had it’s place and use. Example: “I need 32 inches of tubing.” “How many grams per liter was that?” Temperature of the room was F, temperature in the instrument or reaction was C., temperature at the pilot plant or in industry was F or sometimes C but it was always that way at that place. Simple conversion when needed.
                  The two systems have lived together for a long time and conversion errors only occur when the people are too lazy and hurried to check or label things.
                  We live with hundreds of different technical and business languages right now. Change all those terms to a unified language?

                  • islandboy says:

                    Sounds to me like you haven’t watched the video:

                    TEDxMelbourne – Pat Naughtin – Saving Millions with the Metric System

                    If you have not, please do. Errors in conversion and other measurement errors, have costs in terms of human life. People die.

                    It is worthy of note that there are only three countries in the world that have not adopted the metric system.

                    Here’s another video including some stuff about the costs of NOT going metric, this time by an American:

                    Nerd Nite #5: Metric System Lecture

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    I watched it right before I wrote that but am not susceptible to used car salesmen either. Would rather take a more informed and thoughtful approach to trying to switch one of the largest manufacturing and productive countries in the world. Also I do not believe fully all the things he claimed. his NASA example was not a measurement problem but a management problem, a big one.
                    Believe it or not I am of a skeptical nature and need lots of actual evidence before I jump on board.
                    As I said, it might be good in the long run but one sales pitch without a lot of facts does not turn me. Some of the things he said also did not make sense to me.
                    My stance is it needs a lot of investigation and we should at least be cognizant of the actual costs to society before jumping headlong into a government forced project.
                    Machinists don’t work in fractions of an inch, they work in thousandths of an inch. So if we just use inches and thousandths of inches what is the difference. Cost. No need to change every bolt, nut, machine, program over so some politician can slap himself on the back. We already use CC for medical and mL and grams for laboratory. My scale does both.
                    Millimeter measurements on some wood products have been around for years. It’s slowly creeping in and everybody is confused for a while but they get over doing double duty and having extra tools.
                    I would much rather see a slow conversion than a fast one.

  9. Doug Leighton says:

    Of course our in-house (Xed out) clown will disagree but,


    “The Arctic Ocean is warming up fast and this is melting the sea ice from below. Sea surface temperature anomalies are well above 8°C in several parts of the Arctic Ocean… Arctic sea ice extent in 2017 is shrinking along a path that may look much similar to the years 2012, 2016 and 2007, when sea ice reached 1st, 2nd and 3rd place, respectively, regarding lowest extent. While sea ice extent may look similar to these other three years, sea ice thickness has fallen dramatically over the years.”


    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Doug,

      This is based on a blog post, any peer reviewed research suggesting Arctic Sea Ice will be gone by Sept 2017?

      • Javier says:

        any peer reviewed research suggesting Arctic Sea Ice will be gone by Sept 2017?
        Yes. This one:

        “When considering this part of the sea ice–volume time series, one can estimate a negative trend of −1,120 km3 year−1 with a standard deviation of ± 2,353 km3 year−1 from combined model and most recent observational estimates for October–November 1996–2007. Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3 (Kwok et al. 2009), one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer.”

        Maslowski, Wieslaw, et al. “The future of Arctic sea ice.” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 40 (2012): 625-654.

        Don’t believe your lying eyes. They are painting in white those satellites images because the ice is already gone and they don’t want us to know. Such skillful predictions.

        • Survivalist says:

          For a guy with such a litany of failed predictions you sure do seem hypercritical of the failed predictions of others. I believe you’re batting zero doc, as in not one of your predictions has been correct. You suck at math too, which is kinda weird considering you have a PhD in biological sciences. Research much?


          • Javier says:

            You sure like to talk about me.

            Maslowski sucks. He has been predicting the immediate end to Arctic sea ice since 2007. He was the one inspiring Al Gore to say the same. For being an expert that is being paid to study and gain knowledge about Arctic sea ice he’s doing awful. He clearly doesn’t understand very well the subject of his career. He keeps the same failed prediction for 10 years now despite the evidence telling the exact opposite. Talk about being wrong and insisting.

            • Survivalist says:

              “Evidently Javier was unhappy about NSIDC using daily data on sea ice extent to show that this year had the 2nd-lowest annual minimum on record. So, he decided to go with the September monthly averages for each year, and to start with 2007 to show a “trend” which, he says, shows “that Arctic sea ice has been increasing since that fateful September of 2007.”

              Gosh, Javier, what was that you were saying about “The trend is always determined by the choice of starting point and ending point“? Didn’t you “Do your homework“?

              Of course the trend isn’t determined by the choice of start and end points, but it’s strongly influenced by it. That’s especially true if you start (or end) with an extreme, which I discussed here. And that’s exactly what Javier has done: start, not just with the most extreme September average in the record, but one so extreme he himself refers to it as “fateful.”

              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.”


              You’re an embarrassment to the scientific community. I can see why you hide behind a moniker.

              • Javier says:

                That’s Tamino’s opinion, and nothing more.

                Real scientists that publish real articles in real scientific journals have reported a change of conditions in the Arctic that indicate a change of trend. Real peer reviewers have seen nothing wrong with the conclusions of those scientists from the available data. This means Tamino is WRONG, and a change of trend can be defended on the data available. He will be the last one to notice that the Arctic has undergone a change in conditions.

                “Statistical regression models show that a significant part of northern climate variability thus can be skillfully predicted up to a decade in advance based on the state of the ocean. Particularly, we predict that Norwegian air temperature will decrease over the coming years, although staying above the long-term (1981–2010) average. Winter Arctic sea ice extent will remain low but with a general increase towards 2020.

                Årthun, M., Eldevik, T., Viste, E., Drange, H., Furevik, T., Johnson, H. L., & Keenlyside, N. S. (2017). Skillful prediction of northern climate provided by the ocean. Nature Communications, 8, ncomms15875.

                Are you able to read that? Now tell me that Tamino knows more about Arctic sea ice than these scientists from the University of Bergen (Norway) and the University of Oxford (UK).

                Do you think scientists are going to wait until Tamino tells them that the trend is long enough? They are already figuring out that there has been a change of phase in the Arctic, as I did.

                You can go with Tamino watch the ice not melting a few more years.

                • Survivalist says:

                  You should take a maths class doc. Your 2007 to 2016 ‘trend’ is a joke. As are you.

                  • Javier says:

                    Your opinion only.

                    What matters is that the evidence supports my position. Expect the number of scientific articles on the non-melting of the Arctic to increase as the trend grows.

            • Survivalist says:

              “All in all it looks like 2015 will be the year of Peak Warmth for quite some time.”

              • George Kaplan says:

                I guess someone has to take down Javier and his like but doesn’t it feel bit like shooting fish in a barrel at times? We need that flat earth satirist to come back, there must be enough new material for him now.

              • Javier says:

                Yes, yes, exactly. ±1

        • Dennis coyne says:

          The standard deviation of the slope is twice as high as the mean estimate, so it is unclear how they got a six year interval.

          Based on that slope estimate we have very little idea when minimum sea ice extent will reach zero.

          We do know the 30 year trend has been decreasing for volume, area, and sea ice extent in September for the northern hemisphere.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        Dennis — My personal reference is: A Farewell to Ice by Peter Wadhams where he predicts the level of summer sea ice could reach zero in one or two years. Not being a climate scientist I can’t give an opinion on the credibility of his views (projections) and you’d be within your rights to be skeptical. Let’s just wait and see.

        • Doug Leighton says:

          BTW Peter Wadhams is professor of Ocean Physics and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambridge. He is best known for his work on sea ice. Some view him “off the wall” or downright crazy.

        • George Kaplan says:

          Also the US Navy have indicated such a possibility. I think if we had one year of weather like in 2012 or even 2007 on the thin ice we currently have, then it will be gone. Of course it may be that current conditions, moving towards a warm, humid maritime type climate, mean you can’t have weather like 2012 now (or it’s much less likely). I’m not sure this is really known. The problem is that research cannot possibly keep up with the speed that things are changing in the Arctic. When it comes to climate any noticeable, systemic change that happens in less than 50 years is effectively instantaneous in geologic time (i.e. it will look like a sharp boundary in any future geological records).

          I think Wadhams has retired, so emeritus prof. now.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Latest NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Concentration.
          Looking more like a slushy than ice cover. Anything less than bright white is below 100 percent ice cover. Blues are 70% and lower. Dark blue is fully open water.

        • Dennis coyne says:

          Hi Doug,

          I am also not a climate scientist.

          There’s a number of different scientific opinions.

          I would tend to go with the long term trend which looks exponential(negative).

  10. Hightrekker says:

    The “Self-Driving Car” is Only an Oxymoron


    “…Critical interventions, required to save lives and property, were counted separately; they occurred every 200 miles. Which makes your life expectancy, as a passenger in a truly autonomous car, approximately four hours.”

    Well, maybe—–

  11. Survivalist says:

    Weekly values for July CO2, red dashes, are moving sideways, as opposed to descending down the graph. Could be a shallow recovery this year in terms of annual CO2 decline.


  12. Survivalist says:

    “Average Arctic sea ice volume through July 2017 was 9.2 km3 a virtual tie (considering errors) with July of 2012. July 2017 volume was 61% below the maximum July ice volume in 1979, 47% below the 1979-2016 mean, and about 0.75 standard deviations below the long term trend line. While 2017 started well below prior years and remained so through May, ice loss during June and July was less than previous years. This is shown in Fig 8 which compares daily ice volume anomalies for several recent years (base period 1979-2016). The difference between 2012 (the previous record) is notable. While 2017 started out with much lower sea ice volume, 2012 had a much more rapid sea ice loss through May and June. Both 2012 and 2017 have very similar anomaly progression through July.”


    • Javier says:

      Yet Arctic sea ice extent is still above that of 2007 and 2012.

      And this means this year has seen the lowest melt in more than a decade since it started from the lowest maximum recorded. Despite all the warming during the winter you so clearly have been repeating here. Get that? Very warm, very low melt.


      • Survivalist says:

        It’s called volume Javier. Have you ever seen a crepe and a pancake with the same diameter? Viewed from above they both have the same extent. Viewer from the side you will see that the crepe is thinner than the pancake. It’s not exactly rocket surgery. See if you can get your head around it.

        • Javier says:

          Except nobody measures volume, so they really don’t know what the volume is. they use models based on what it is measured, extent, and surface temperatures. Predictions based on volume are even worse than predictions based in extent. Maslowski prediction that the Arctic sea ice would disappear in the summer of 2016 was based on volume.

          Let’s call “volume” a huge fudge factor so they can say the Arctic ice is still decreasing when the data clearly shows it is not.

          • Survivalist says:

            You can call volume whatever you like doc. And who’s ‘they’, the US Navy? You’re an embarrassment.

            • Javier says:

              Maslowski is the real embarrassment. They should get rid of him. He should have acknowledged that he was wrong years ago.

              • chilyb says:

                LOL, Javier.

              • Survivalist says:

                We’re talking about sea ice volume Javier. Nobody cares what you think about Maslowski. (Deniers tend to use the “change the subject” tactic — a lot. When the topic under discussion gets too hot for them, rather than admit any mistake they just switch to another. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/understanding-sea-level-rise/ )

                Let’s talk about sea ice volume. Here’s the US Navy link. You know, the folks with the submarines who collect upward-looking sonar profiles.


                “PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites.”


                Soon Javier will be telling us he’s got the Arctic sea ice figured out better than the US Navy, and some other random twat will chime in that the Navy is in it for the grant money.

                • Hightrekker says:

                  Science and observation is Satan!
                  It’s getting colder on Javier’s Planet– I wonder what color the sky is?

                  • Doug Leighton says:

                    Blue but his rose-colored glasses make him think everything is “rosy”.

                  • Nick G says:

                    I don’t think Javier is an optimist – he’s just an advocate for fossil fuels. If he were an optimist he’d think PO was no big deal. Instead, he describes it as a disaster. So, he dismisses climate change, and thinks PO is serious – that’s the profile of an oil industry advocate, who wants Drill, Baby Drill.

                  • Javier says:

                    that’s the profile of an oil industry advocate, who wants Drill, Baby Drill.

                    I couldn’t care less for the FF industry. There is no oil or gas in my country and very little coal. If we had common sense we should be going nuclear to have enough energy in the future.

                    The problem is that I have looked at the evidence and it is clear that oil is finite and we are approaching (or reached) its peak production. However the evidence for a climate catastrophe in the making is lacking. It is all based on assumptions and exaggerations, while what we are seeing is a moderate warming, a small sea level rise with no acceleration, and no decrease in sea ice for ten years despite huge increases in CO2. It is evident that it doesn’t work as we have been told. It is producing less effect than anticipated.

                    My natural (and trained) skepticism prevents me from believing in things that are not clearly supported by the evidence. It is my experience that I err less that way.

                  • Nick G says:


                    If you feel that Peak Oil is dangerous, then you should agree that we should move to alternatives to oil as fast as reasonably possible.

                  • Javier says:

                    Nick G,

                    And I agree that we should move out of oil and coal asap. We should move to gas as stopgap as we transition to nuclear and beyond. I do not oppose new renewables, but I have serious doubts that they can fit the bill of abundant cheap energy the world needs.

                    I do not fit the prepackaged debate where most people either choose the renewable-climate crisis side or the fossil fuels-non climate crisis side. They are clearly separate issues.

                    I am a climate realist. What we see is what we get. And an energy realist. Right now only nuclear appears capable of fitting the future energy needs. But I am not optimist. We have probably run out of time and are headed in the wrong direction.

                  • Nick G says:


                    If you want to have a positive role – helping develop a general consensus on where we are, where we’re going and the best private and public planning – then I suggest you make a point of telling people where you agree.

                    Before you criticize climate change ideas, point out that you agree that we should move out of oil and coal asap. Then, and only then, move into a detailed discussion of where you disagree…

                    So. I agree with you that we should move out of oil and coal asap.

                    If you suspect that the specific technologies we seem to be moving to (wind, solar) are inadequate, would you agree that it would make sense to incentivize the move in a way that does not specify technology? Specifically, a carbon tax that’s revenue neutral (perhaps rebated back to taxpayers in some way, so it doesn’t hurt the economy overall)?

                • Javier says:

                  The problem with volume is that it isn’t reliable, as Maslowski has discovered with his predictions.

                  As volume has to be modeled, because it isn’t measured, different models give different volumes.

                  Here you have DMI Arctic sea ice volume. It shows no significant change for the past 9 years with values very close to 5 x 1000 km3

                  So no change also in volume buddy. Stop the alarmism.

          • OFM says:

            There are lots of individual measures of the thickness of the sea ice made, to the best of my understanding……… More than enough by a factor of a hundred to know that the long term trend is that the thickness of Arctic sea is thinner and thinner………. so that if the trend continues, it will soon be all gone, in the late summer.

            You don’t have to measure the thickness of the entire sheet, taking a measurement every square kilometer.

            Any body acquainted with the abc’s of statistics knows that if you take a hundred properly selected random sample measurements, the average of the samples will accurately reflect the average of the whole.

            The ice is getting thinner, on average , year by year, over any time frame for which we have numerous sample measurements. I believe everybody who has spent more than a couple of hours reading up on Arctic ice either knows this is true, or else he has a major reading comprehension problem.

      • Dennis coyne says:

        Hi Javier,

        We call that natural variability.

        • Javier says:

          Yes Dennis,

          And it shows CO2 is not overriding natural variability, as we were told.

          The conclusion is clear.

          • Dennis coyne says:

            Nobody has ever said that CO2 overrides natural variability.

            That is a very poor reading of AR5, taking very small pieces of the report out of context.

            So you seem to have proven that an incorrect interpretation is “false”.

            It always was as nobody ever thought it was “true”. 🙄

  13. Adam Hufford says:

    The Ludlow, Baker, Daggett, Barstow areas have all experienced thunderstorms with flooding right now. Be sure to use caution if you are outside in these areas.

  14. Survivalist says:

    The linear rate of decline for July 2017 was 72,500 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year, or 7.4 percent per decade.


    • GoneFishing says:

      Ice extent is a BS measure since it considers anything over 15% ice cover as 100 percent. Sea ice concentration and volume are much more realistic and indicative of the state of the Arctic Ocean.

      • Javier says:

        The NSIDC disagrees. They use extent.

        • GoneFishing says:

          They also use ice concentration. Read the definition, maybe, just maybe some actual understanding can penetrate tween the ears. Some how I doubt it though. I have tried before and you just parrot the same things back.

          • Javier says:

            You are the one that shows no knowledge of what you talk about. You used to say that sea ice extent was for navigation purposes until I demonstrated you that NSIDC uses it for scientific purposes.

            Sea ice extent is just 15% sea ice concentration, you bonehead.

            Figure 1. Sea Ice Index Daily Product Processing Flow Chart.
            Create extent by mapping grid cells >15% concentration to ice

          • Javier says:


            GoneFishing says: The sea ice extent is for shipping purposes


            “Scientists at NSIDC report extent because they are cautious about summertime values of ice concentration and area taken from satellite sensors. To the sensor, surface melt appears to be open water rather than water on top of sea ice. So, while reliable for measuring area most of the year, the microwave sensor is prone to underestimating the actual ice concentration and area when the surface is melting. To account for that potential inaccuracy, NSIDC scientists rely primarily on extent when analyzing melt-season conditions and reporting them to the public.”

            I’m glad you are learning from me but you should show some respect for your teacher. Probably too much to ask from somebody like you, completely abducted by a climate doom cult.

            • GoneFishing says:

              Yes, NSDIC fully admits that they are in gross error when reporting extent versus area. They also do report concentration.
              ” Area and extent are different measures and give scientists slightly different information. Some organizations, including Cryosphere Today, report ice area; NSIDC primarily reports ice extent. Extent is always a larger number than area, and there are pros and cons associated with each method.

              A simplified way to think of extent versus area is to imagine a slice of swiss cheese. Extent would be a measure of the edges of the slice of cheese and all of the space inside it. Area would be the measure of where there is cheese only, not including the holes. That is why if you compare extent and area in the same time period, extent is always bigger. A more precise explanation of extent versus area gets more complicated.

              Extent defines a region as “ice-covered” or “not ice-covered.” For each satellite data cell, the cell is said to either have ice or to have no ice, based on a threshold. The most common threshold (and the one NSIDC uses) is 15 percent, meaning that if the data cell has greater than 15 percent ice concentration, the cell is considered ice covered; less than that and it is said to be ice free. Example: Let’s say you have three 25 kilometer (km) x 25 km (16 miles x 16 miles) grid cells covered by 16% ice, 2% ice, and 90% ice. Two of the three cells would be considered “ice covered,” or 100% ice. Multiply the grid cell area by 100% sea ice and you would get a total extent of 1,250 square km (482 square miles).

              Area takes the percentages of sea ice within data cells and adds them up to report how much of the Arctic is covered by ice; area typically uses a threshold of 15%. So in the same example, with three 25 km x 25 km (16 miles x 16 miles) grid cells of 16% ice, 2% ice, and 90% ice, multiply the grid cell areas that are over the 15% threshold by the percent of sea ice in those grid cells, and add it up. You would have a total area of 662 square km (255.8 square miles).”

              Even their example shows a huge difference between extent and area. So as I said, extent is a BS way of reporting how much ice coverage there actually isand NSDIC fully admits it.
              Live and learn Snowman.

              • Javier says:

                You seem to have a reading problem that anybody can see.

                Extent defines a region as “ice-covered” or “not ice-covered.”

                No. Extent defines area with ≥15% ice concentration.

                So as I said, extent is a BS way of reporting how much ice coverage there actually is and NSDIC fully admits it.

                No. What NSIDC (not NSDICk) says is that extent gives less error than area during the melting season, as area tends to underestimate ice due to surface melting.

                Extent is, according to NSIDC, a better way of reporting sea ice during the melt season, just the opposite of what you say. I’ll give you a D in reading comprehension.

      • George Kaplan says:

        GoneFishing – I think ice extent was introduced as part of a warning system to mariners, more than to follow climate change, and even in present days for radar, satellite data links and GPS it might still be useful for that. But by either area or extent global ice extent is the lowest on record for this day (extent by a long way, area about equal with last year) and has been falling fast the last couple of years. Volume should be the best parameter to check for ice disappearance, but there is no data for Antarctica, however with SMOS, CryoSat and IceBridge measurements now available the Arctic numbers are getting pretty reliable, and the model based values, like PIOMAS getting more accurate.

  15. Bill Franti says:

    Science loving liberals–what a fine spokesperson ya’ll have there.

    Gore Flies Nearly 3,000 Miles to Tell Us to Stop Using Carbon-Based Fuels

    • GoneFishing says:

      More like 32 gallons fuel per seat used to fly from Seattle to NY. 640 pounds of CO2. Not the 2600 pounds of CO2 in that BS article you put up here. They also carry a lot of freight and mail on those flights.
      Maybe you should stop stuffing your head with that crap and get down to the real world. Not asking you to be a liberal, just asking you to get real. You probably burn more fuel than that in a month just making extra trips to the store for those things you forgot to get because you wouldn’t make a list. Not very conservative of you.

    • Hickory says:

      I agree that with a point you are making Bill. Not so much about Al Gore, but more about flying.
      People fly around as if they are causing no harm.
      That is just big denial.
      Tearing a wide gash in the atmosphere with each flight.
      It is time to stop making excuses and rationalizing their exception.
      Its like shitting in your own drinking water or shooting drugs into your veins.
      No respect for life, even your own.

    • Lloyd says:

      Ed Begley Junior stopped flying at one point for this very reason: the optics of it.

      David Suzuki essentially gave him absolution, saying that it was more important for him to travel and speak.

      A Hummer with one rich New Yorker in it is an abomination.

      A Hummer taking 8 scientists across a glacier to do research is an appropriate tool.

      Not seeing the difference? Insincere argument.

      • OFM says:

        I am not in favor of so much travel, since so much of it seems to be a waste of time and resources, but per passenger mile, air travel is several times more fuel efficient and resource efficient that long distance travel by automobile, unless there are five or six people in the car.

  16. George Kaplan says:

    It’s 40 to 43 degrees in areas of Southern Europe today, I seem to remember relativity humidity around the Med was typically above 60% – isn’t that in the danger zone for maximum wet bulb temperatures that human’s can handle. Also what does this do current and coming harvests? Are we going to be able to cope with even one degree of sustained warming let alone three?

    • GoneFishing says:

      exposure to full sunshine can increase heat index values by up to 15°F
      Heat Index graph from NWS

    • George Kaplan says:

      43 in Seville tomorrow but only 13% relative humidity, so not in the danger zone (but literally off the chart), and then cooling off a bit.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        I’ll see that and raise you one: 50 degrees C in Abadan, Iran (That’s 122 F for the Yanks). Probably not a great August holiday destination for fair skinned maidens. 🙂

      • notanoilman says:

        HeHe, I am living in the red zone with overnight excursions into the orange – a tad on the warm side! I have experienced 45, in a desert area, and that was HOT!


      • George Kaplan says:

        Italians started their wine harvest over a month early. The European wine industry might be one of the first thing to go with the heat, starting at the south and moving north. French wines have been harvested two weeks earlier and the quality is better as a result but they are heading for a tipping point, I think some areas in Burgundy are becoming marginal for growing already and English vineyards are starting to win some awards for top wines now.


  17. Doug Leighton says:

    Don’t know if this has been posted before but,


    “We conclude that the Antarctic ice sheet contributed 8.6 ± 2.8 m to global sea level at this time [early Pliocene], under an atmospheric CO2 concentration identical to present (400 ppm). Warmer-than-present ocean temperatures led to the collapse of West Antarctica over centuries, whereas higher air temperatures initiated surface melting in parts of East Antarctica that over one to two millennia led to lowering of the ice-sheet surface, flotation of grounded margins in some areas, and retreat of the ice sheet into the Wilkes Subglacial Basin. The results show that regional variations in climate, ice-sheet geometry, and topography produce long-term sea-level contributions that are non-linear with respect to the applied forcings, and which under certain conditions exhibit threshold behaviour associated with behavioural tipping points.”


    • Doug Leighton says:


      “This study began the publication process in 2016 when year-end atmospheric CO2 averages hit around 405 parts per million. By end 2017, those averages will be in the range of 407 parts per million. Even more worrying is the fact that CO2 equivalent forcing from all the various greenhouse gasses that fossil fuel burning and related industrial activity has pumped into the atmosphere (methane, nitrogen oxides, CFCs and others) will, by end 2017 hit around 492 ppm…

      As a result, though conditions in Antarctica are presently cooler than during 4.23 million years ago, the considerably higher atmospheric greenhouse gas loading implies that there’s quite a lot more warming in store for both Antarctica and the rest of the world. A warming that, even if atmospheric greenhouse gasses remain at present highly elevated levels and do not continue to rise, could bring about a substantially more significant and rapid melt than during the Pliocene.”


      • GoneFishing says:

        Antarctica and the nearby southern ocean is now receiving about 45 w/m2 solar irradiance greater than it did 11,000 years ago. Add the effect of GHG on top of that, plus a reduced ozone layer allowing more UV radiation to surface and we have a recipe for melt.
        Of course on the flip side the Arctic is receiving that much less solar energy. So GHG will have to be the primary melt factor in that region with albedo changes adding on and doubling the effect. Soot in the north is causing some melt also. Even plant growth on the ice is heating it up.
        So instead of having melt at one pole and freezing at the other, we get melt at both ends and warming all over.
        That extra insolation from losing the aerosols in a few decades should really crank up the melt and the heat.
        I would advise against long term investments in coastal property.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      “We conclude that the Antarctic ice sheet contributed 8.6 ± 2.8 m to global sea level at this time [early Pliocene], under an atmospheric CO2 concentration identical to present (400 ppm).

      Flooding in Miami is no longer news — but it’s certainly newsworthy


      That’s why Miami floods regularly now, so much so that real estate agents are making long-term bets on property in the Miami area that’s higher above sea level.

      Sam Purkis, a marine geologist at the University of Miami, told Scientific American that such moves might not be enough.

      “What will happen, more than likely, is that you’ll have one big hurricane, and you’ll get a big inundation into the city,” Purkis said. “And that will serve to rot out the infrastructure — the sewer lines, the electricity, the telecoms. Everything that’s under the road. That becomes very costly to keep replacing every time this happens.” … [H]igher ground won’t be pleasant with “all of the rotting detritus and just general mayhem that that’s going to cause,” Purkis said. “So by the time the city starts to flood, it’s probably not great to be in the high areas either.”
      This isn’t just happening near Miami. Across the world, and particularly on the Gulf Coast, sea levels are rising fairly quickly.

      I’ve been living in the greater Miami area for over 20 years and have seen these floods becoming more and more frequent.

      • Javier says:

        And how much of that is due to land subsidence and how much due to sea level rise? Local tide gauges can tell you that. On coastal areas with very heavy construction and high volumes of underground water extraction, land subsidence is the major problem. And you ain’t going to fix that even if you manage to fix the climate.

        The only workable solution the Dutch managed to implement it centuries ago.

        • Survivalist says:

          “And how much of that is due to land subsidence and how much due to sea level rise?”

          I’d be happy to provide you with some links to great reads that explain it to you but I don’t think you’d understand due to your minimal understanding of math.

          • Javier says:

            Pass them to Fred. He seems to think Miami flooding troubles can be attributed to sea level rise. He has an attribution problem.

  18. Doug Leighton says:


    “The Paris Climate Agreement of 2016, which saw 195 nations come together in the shared goal of ameliorating climate change, set forth an ambitious goal of limiting global temperature rise to less than two degrees Celsius. Since then, many have wondered, is that even scientifically possible? Unfortunately, the odds aren’t looking good.”

    “The paper posits a 95 percent chance that global temperatures will increase by more than two degrees Celsius, and a less than one percent chance they will not exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius…

    The team looked at statistical data from 1960 to 2010 and found that temperatures over the next 80 years will likely increase from two to 4.9 degrees Celsius, with a projected median of 3.2 degrees Celsius. It is most likely (a 90 percent chance) that global temperatures will fall somewhere in the middle of the range.”


    • Doug Leighton says:

      BTW my Daughter in Italy is reporting temperatures up to 44C (that’s 111 Fahrenheit) though I understand it went a bit above that in Rome (I expect Xed Javier is predicting an imminent ice age). Massive fires around here are clearly visible in NASA satellite images and I got almost no sleep last night owing to the smoke. There’s no relief in the immediate forecast, with temperatures still high on Thursday and Friday, and no rain expected until mid-month. Smoke inhibits the transmission of sunlight and is keeping daytime temperatures in check (somewhat).

      • GoneFishing says:

        Time for a vacation Doug.
        Artesian wells around here stopped again. We are getting moderate rains but I guess it will take a few years to catch up again, if ever. Luckily get enough showers so fire index is low.

        • Doug Leighton says:

          “Time for a vacation Doug.” I agree though I’m not sure what a vacation is when you’re retired. Actually I’d be in Norway right now but for the fact I really hate August crowds (on roads and in airports). Maybe I should go to Italy. 🙂

          • GoneFishing says:

            Vacation as in the act of vacating, going elsewhere.

          • notanoilman says:

            Come down here and enjoy the beautiful thunderstorms – absolutely no chance of a forest fire either!


    • GoneFishing says:

      The trend of research seems to keep edging up the predicted temperatures. Wondering when this asymptotic approach will intersect reality (2100?). 🙂

      • George Kaplan says:

        I think it would be natural to start with quasi-linear models, then go to non-linear but monotonic, and then add in the more complicated chaotic type functions. Also modelling the clouds needs really big computers, so the models have been and still are limited by the fidelity there. Is it just an accident that each increase in fidelity makes things worse or is that an inevitable property of a complex system starting to go unstable, and/or an inevitable consequence of the scientific method applied to complex systems?

        • Doug Leighton says:

          George — Any way you slice it, the more variables you invite into your model, the more complex things become, particularly the interactions. And, if there is non-linearity among predictors, that will further complicates things. Personally I think the only really useful guide to the future is (geologic) history. The problem with that is we’ve altered the variables so quickly, not on geologic time scales. Of course you are well aware of this.

          • notanoilman says:

            The only valid question is “are we fucked or are we really fucked?”


        • GoneFishing says:

          What happens if we get an oscillating melt on Greenland? The cold fresh melt water enters the Atlantic slowing or stopping the AMOC, which in turn makes northern Europe and northern Asia colder (trapping heat further south). This then slows the melt of Greenland ice which starts the AMOC again, which melts more ice, slowing the AMOC…..
          Northern Europe and other nearby regions would have oscillating warm and cold periods making agriculture very poor and destabilizing the ecosystem. This could go on for hundreds or thousands of years until the Arctic stabilizes, if ever.

          And that is just one scenario for one region. The problem may not be definable, more like analyzing a battlefield situation. What we don’t know could very well rear it’s ugly head in ways we can’t anticipate.

          • George Kaplan says:

            Instability is the added problem on top of the trend you get the three and five sigma events increasing in probability by orders of magnitude. One bad year and lots of things die, and maybe nothing comes back no matter how good the next year. Oscillation might be one solution to the AMOC, but I think we are transitioning between two states for the Arctic – covered in ice or ice free, I don’t think there’s a stable point in the middle, so maybe the oscillation would only work during the change over.

            • GoneFishing says:

              Right, however the variability of weather could become large enough to hide the climate change signals.
              Sure climate might head for a stable state but we do not know the context of that state. With much more energy in the system, it will be a much different weather range.

              • Javier says:

                If natural variability can hide the CO2 signal, then the CO2 signal is not overriding, but added. That’s axiomatic.

                If CO2 warming is just added warming to natural warming, then the catastrophic outcome scenario becomes not the worst case scenario, but unrealistic.

  19. Doug Leighton says:


    The Trump administration has issued its first written notification that the US intends to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate agreement.


    • GoneFishing says:

      I thought the US president’s job was to enforce policy not outright make policy. I did not think he could make or break treaties without senate approval.

      • Hightrekker says:

        GF- It’s late stage capitalism.
        The Bad Clowns are running the show.
        It is what is on the other side of the wall we are about to crash into that is important for the survivors (if any).
        We should of abandoned that late enlightenment document long ago, and got something that works.

        • GoneFishing says:

          There are Good Clowns?

          • David F. says:

            it’s not called the Paris Treaty for a good reason.

            it’s not a treaty but just an agreement that was never ratified by Congress.

            not defending Trump, but in cases like this, he can simply undo what Obama did when he agreed to the “2015 Paris climate agreement”.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              it’s not a treaty but just an agreement that was never ratified by Congress.

              Have you actually read it? Do you even know what it says and what the United States, (Not Obama) along with 195 other signatory nations agreed to?

              Only Syria and Nicaragua did not sign. Syria because they are embroiled in a civil war and Nicaragua because they thought the agreement did not go far enough to to reduce the effects of climate change.


              • nonomykitty says:

                Thank you for providing that link. Wow! I never would have thought the public would be able to legally view something like this. We are so used to our politicians making these big deals behind closed doors, then not letting us know anything about them until after the consequences have harmed our jobs & economy.

                • Survivalist says:

                  It’s called Google. Duh!
                  Type ‘Paris climate change agreement’ into Google.
                  That link from Fred is number 2. Number 1 is a Wikipedia link. This information is not exactly carved in a stone tablet and hidden on the dark side of the moon.
                  Stay in school kids!

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  Tim Minchin’s Storm the Animated Movie


                  “Does the idea, that one afternoon on WikiFuckingPedia, might enlighten you, frighten you?”
                  Tim Minchin, ‘STORM’

                  • David F. says:

                    I googled it. Duh!
                    There are zero results for Paris Climate Treaty. Wow!
                    I wasn’t commenting on the content of the “accord” or “agreement”.
                    It’s not a treaty and therefore did not have to be ratified by Congress.
                    It’s a minor point, but it is true.

                    I understand perfectly well that many persons agree with the contents of the “agreement”.
                    The validity of the contents doesn’t make it a treaty.
                    Again, a minor point.

  20. islandboy says:

    Kingston records hottest day in 24 years

    The Meteorological Service of Jamaica is reporting that yesterday, Thursday, was the hottest day in Kingston in 24 years.

    Maximum temperature at the Norman Manley International Airport was 36.9 degrees Celsius.

    Relative humidity right now is 60% so it feels hotter. Today felt like another scorcher. I remember when I was a pre-teen always thinking Kingston was hot whenever my family used to come in from the rural parts for a day trip. I don’t remember it feeling this hot. Anyway as Javier would say, it’s just weather. Nothing to worry about!

  21. Bob Frisky says:

    I’m starting to think this August cold spell may be remembered in the future as marking the beginning of the predicted long term cool trend resulting from the lower sunspot activity. More and more private sector climate scientists are picking up on this also.


    Sunspot progression favoring a period of colder winters and shorter growing seasons to return next 2-4 years. #AGwx #Natgas #Energy


    We’re watching the incoming deep solar minimum; the last time it happened, the four cold-sided U.S. winters occurred during the recession.

    • Hightrekker says:

      Come now, my delusional friend.
      One need not be ideologically crippled for life–
      You will need to scream in a fetal position for a while, but reality is refreshing, and you don’t have to lie to yourself any longer.

      Top 12 warmest years (NOAA) (1880–2016)
      Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
      1 2016 0.94 1.69
      2 2015 0.90 1.62
      3 2014 0.74 1.33
      4 2010 0.70 1.26
      5 2013 0.66 1.19
      6 2005 0.65 1.17
      7 2009 0.64 1.15
      8 1998 0.63 1.13
      9 2012 0.62 1.12
      10 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
      10 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
      10 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10

    • GoneFishing says:

      I see Canada has avoided having any weather at all. Same for the rest of the world and the oceans?

    • Hickory says:

      According to the Nat Weather Service official forecast for Kansas City, Mo (which is smack dab in the middle of the frozen blob) the high temps during the period in question will be in the low to mid 80’s.
      Also, please take note that the forecast is from the ‘weather’ service, not the climatological bureau.
      Bobs post is a great example of why everyone really should try to get all the way through 6th grade.

    • George Kaplan says:

      Bob Frisky, are you suggesting a) that the next 2-4 years in central USA is of some kind of special importance to world history, b) that the sunspots don’t go in cycles and therefore there won’t be an opposite and bigger effect after the minimum, c) that impact of sunspot activity isn’t swamped by other cyclic phenomena like ENSO and the non cyclic trends of rising greenhouse gases and falling global ice cover?

      • Bob Frisky says:

        These are questions you should tweet to @bamwxcom and @commoditywx. They along with some other Twitter meteorologists are the ones suggesting a connection between current solar activity and probable future cold trend.

        • George Kaplan says:

          But it was you who said: “I’m starting to think this August cold spell may be remembered in the future as marking the beginning of the predicted long term cool trend …”, my questions were related to that. Do you have twit references to a source for that, or is it all your own work?

    • Survivalist says:

      Hi Bob, outside of USA is this place called ‘the rest of the planet’. Maybe you’ve heard of it?


      Second warmest July on record. 2016 is warmest. 2017 is second warmest. 2015 is 3rd warmest.
      2017, so far, is second warmest year on record. There is no cooling trend. It’s easy to see.

      • Bob Frisky says:

        The important thing here isn’t any of the past temperatures. Instead we need to focus on the strong prospect for future cold based on the low solar activity and near certainty at this point of a below normal August for most of the country, based on weekly temperature outlooks. The research by @commoditywx shows cold winters are more common if we have a cold August.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Values??? Strange undefined labeling of vertical axis.
          Is this global or local?

          So where is the chart showing August temperatures versus solar irradiance. What is the connection here? Any?

          • Bob Frisky says:

            The values are the U.S. population weighed CDDs. The connection is the low sunspot activity may be responsible for the cold August.


            44/49 States won’t be cooking this August according to ECMWF monthly model. Unusual cool period ahead.

            • Survivalist says:

              Please try to locate place known as ‘the rest of the planet’. Look into it.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Yeah and what’s happening in all those provinces in Northern Canada?

            • GoneFishing says:

              That’s really cool too. The “data” is not temporally ordered. It’s put in descending order.
              Why would one weight cooling degree days using population? Makes no sense. No wonder they were just called values.

              • GoneFishing says:

                Of course one could just say that the Jetstream is descending which it often does. Nothing new here.

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  Why would one weight cooling degree days using population? Makes no sense.

                  Maybe the Jet Stream specifically targets populations of Trump supporters and keeps them cool…

                  Some of the anti climate science shit posted around here recently has gotten way beyond ridiculous! It is great comedy though.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Yes Fred, sadly we have a serious infestation of MeltFearitis and Baloneyum. No amount of KNowLedgite seems to cure the problem. Maybe this site is becoming a model of humanity.
                    One can’t blame the poor or the non-developed countries. They are too busy just surviving and have not had an opportunity at an education.
                    However, those who have had good circumstances and educational opportunity and still persist in illogical or patently false mental pursuits have no excuse.
                    It is imperative for us to assess the extent of the problem and track it. For if it is gaining ground then possibly nature is bringing the human mental anomaly back to ground state. That would be a tremendous addition to the science of evolution, if aberrations could be removed naturally without removing the species. However, we would have no need for that knowledge any longer.
                    Prepare to mark and defend your territory.

        • George Kaplan says:

          “Instead we need to focus on the strong prospect for future cold based on the low solar activity and near certainty at this point of a below normal August for most of the country.” – why do we need to do that, this isn’t a US weather blog? There are lots of places you can go to look in much better detail at that sort of thing, and I suggest you do.

  22. Longtimber says:

    What could possibly go wrong?
    ” Russia can turn around and sell all the natural gas it wants to customers in Asia. Left undiscussed in the moronic American media is the American gas industry’s hidden role in pushing the sanctions so it can sell liquefied gas overseas — which would only end up raising the price for American gas customers to heat their homes.”

    • OFM says:

      One reason I will never be able to think of myself as a liberal is that liberals as a faction have usually had their heads up their asses so far they couldn’t recognize daylight in terms of Darwinian reality on the global scale when the game is or was international power politics.

      I almost puked in class on several occasions, listening to some idiot tell his students that the old USSR was the shining future of mankind, while ignoring the existence of the Iron Curtain, Stalin’s purges, the Gulag, etc, and emphasizing the ( many and real but comparably trivial ) shortcomings of our own society.

      This is not to deny that so called conservatives aren’t even worse. Mostly they are, especially in environmental terms.

      The people of the world will do VERY WELL INDEED for themselves to realize that anytime they are dependent on any particular country for their energy needs, they are at very high risk of being crushed like a bug underfoot at the whim of the leadership of the energy exporting country.

      Russia could shut off gas and oil exports within a matter of a few hours, if Putin were to so decide.
      Western Europe would necessarily have to go to martial law and the most extreme of austerity measures simply to survive short term.

      There are some VERY GOOD and VERY REAL reasons why the USA has such a HUGE military establishment, one of them being that it has meant nobody has ever been able to cut off our access to the imports we are hooked on, at least not until very recently. We can’t bully China , not these days, and the Chinese have us by the balls when it comes to certain minerals, at least for the short to medium term. Hopefully we will have sense enough to subsidize the rare earths mining industry so as to solve that particular security problem.

      I am not by any means trying to imply that we need the MIC as it exists ( too big, too expensive ) today, but rather than only idiots deny it is necessary that we have it, or that we risk getting our asses kicked so hard our noses bleed, economically and militarily as well.

      The best and most rational course any and every energy importing country can pursue is to do everything possible, as a practical matter, to reduce the need for imported energy.

      Wind power, solar power, tidal and geothermal power, new generation nuclear power, conservation, efficiency, etc, need to be near the top of priorities lists in every country all over the world, and they need to be TOP TEN priorities in any country that is a net energy importer.

      If I were a German or French citizen, I would not be opposed to shutting down the nukes, but I would give SERIOUS consideration to maintaining them on standby status, because having them available could someday be the difference between economic chaos and getting by ok during a political crisis that could escalate to the point gas and oil quit moving in international markets in normal quantities.

      • Hightrekker says:

        Liberals are the worse:

        Us radicals aways though the USSR was a conservative, repressive State.
        We looked to Catalonia in 1936 as kinda going the right direction:

        • Trumpster says:

          Hi Hightrekker,

          I ‘ll watch the you tubes later.

          My real point is that both SO CALLED hard core liberals and SO CALLED hard core conservatives are apt to have their heads up their ass, and ignore facts as obvious as the noonday sun, lol.

          Both words have either already are else are fast becoming about as useful as the word facism, about which Orwell had this to say.

          It’s a word that anybody may use uses to bad mouth anybody else, with no real meaning any more. This is true, I have known many cases of it happening, with both sides using it to bad mouth the other side.

          Your comment is a somewhat unclear to me,because I don’ know exactly who these radicals are, the ones you mention. Radicals come in various flavors too.

          You would have to be pretty radical indeed, in the eyes of the people who generally identify themselves as conservatives, to call the old USSR conservative. This definition of conservative implies total government control of just about everything. Conservatives as a group generally recognize that the government MUST control some things, such as the borders, the post office, the military, etc, but don’t want the government controlling anything more than necessary.

          Some nit wits who are in the conservative camp want the government to control the details of our day to day lives, but conservatives that are politically sophisticated dismiss this sort as nincompoops, although they are quick to recognize that they are useful idiots and want them handy on the days we hold elections.

          Real conservatism, in the eyes of most followers of the philosophy, means limited government.

          And ya know what? 😉
          Real liberalism in many respects means limited government as well.

          A conservative who is politically sophisticated but scientifically illiterate probably believes the government should be doing relatively little on the environmental front.

          But one who is politically sophisticated and scientifically literate understands that our environmental problems are life and death issues, and that ONLY the government can force solutions to be implemented in a timely fashion.

          The problem is that such enlightened conservatives are mostly inhibited from saying in public what they know to be true, due to tribal loyalties, just as most liberals are inhibited from admitting what they know to be true about Democratic politicians, etc.

          I don’t see myself as a member of either camp, and just say whatever I believe is TRUE or factual, and so I get a lot of responses that enable me to identify errors and blind spots in my own thinking.

          There are ways of getting thru to the people in both camps, and enlist their support of sensible policies, like getting away from using fossil fuels as fast as we reasonably can.

          The best way to present this case to a typical “man on the street” type of conservative is to gently and indirectly introduce him to the facts in respect to his own personal enlightened best interests.

          So for instance- Recognizing the FACTS that VERY FEW people actually work in the fossil fuel industries, and that the average working man or woman does NOT own much in the way of stocks and bonds, and virtually NOTHING in the way of fossil fuel stocks and bonds, in more than one case in several thousand…….

          It’s my intention to prove to this man on the street that it is very much to his advantage to support the wind and solar energy industries, the electric car industry, clean air laws, etc.

          YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT GENERALITIES such as economic freedom and free markets if you want to win him over. You AVOID that sort of argument, because it’s the Koch brothers primary argument.

          You point out to him that wind and solar power mean local control, local jobs, local tax revenues. You point out that when wind and sun replace coal and gas as generating fuel, the price of these fuels is LOWER , everything else held equal, and that since coal and gas are cheaper, so is his heat bill, his electric bill on average and his grocery bill, lol.

          You point out , without preaching, that when people aren’t allowed to put mine wastes in rivers and streams that people who live DOWNSTREAM don’t have to spend so much money on water treatment plants, and that a man who wants to take his kids fishing can do so near home if the river nearest his home is CLEAN rather than polluted.

          It never ever ever ceases to amaze me how STUPID the average over educated nose in the air environmentalist is when it comes to the very simple business of winning friends and VOTERS.

          Making fun of the man on the street who voted for Trump has the sure effect of encouraging him to vote for Trump, or somebody like him, AGAIN.

          Attack a man’s culture, and you have lost him. Bait the hook with his own economic and health self interests, and he will swallow it, damned near every time.

          • HuntingtonBeach says:

            “My real point is that both SO CALLED hard core liberals and SO CALLED hard core conservatives are apt to have their heads up their ass”

            OldMadDonald aka KGB Trumpster, clearly you have a hard time seeing and breathing(“Making fun of the man on the street who voted for Trump”).


            Trumpster says – “YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT GENERALITIES such as economic freedom and free markets if you want to win him over”

            Donald Trump Is The Fast-Food President

            The Trump administration is taking the reins off low-wage employers. It’s a stark reversal from the Obama years.

            Trump also rescinded an executive order from Obama that would have made it harder for firms to secure federal contracts if they have a documented history of wage theft.



            Trumpster says – “when people aren’t allowed to put mine wastes in rivers and streams that people who live DOWNSTREAM”

            “never ever ever ceases to amaze me how STUPID the average over educated nose in the air environmentalist”

            “Bait the hook with his own economic and health self interests, and he will swallow it, damned near every time”

            Trumpster, if your head was in a position to see and hear. You wouldn’t have fallen for the Trump con.

            • OFM says:

              Thank you , HB.

              I know I can continue to count on you to help me prove my arguments, without fail, so long as I can provoke you into making more comments.

              Keep it coming. Now I do not believe YOU personally are capable of understanding that your sort of talk is a NET positive for the Republicans, and a net loss for the Democrats, but
              I am hopeful that some other people who read this site will take a few minutes to think seriously about my political opinions.

              It doesn’t really matter if they AGREE with me, or don’t. They will on average be a little better at communicating with the political opposition and finding common ground and that DOES matter.

          • Hightrekker says:

            Now don’t be getting postmodern on me— you know where everything has the same value, and every position is as valid as the next.
            And I could care less about “converting” anyone to my ideas–
            At this point, it is of no concern if one is paying even minor attention.
            Just look at the intelligence of the average man, and realize half the population is dumber than that.
            I live in rural red Central Oregon.
            I interact with humanity on a daily basis.
            I’m increasing my knowledge of guns, trucks, and dog breeds by the locals, and all kinds of sports information.
            Mitonuclear compatibility? Not so much.

            However, I did attend a breakfast with the local atheist group today-

            • OFM says:

              Hi , Trekker

              I am not free to travel but if you ever have business down my way, you are welcome to stop by for a day or a week, as a guest.

              You have a lot to say that I want to hear, but this forum is not all that well suited to it. Face to face over food and drink makes for fast and pleasant communications.

              • Hightrekker says:

                Thanks OFM–
                If I’m in the area, lets get together.
                I’m taking care of some friends ranch down in NoCal for a few weeks.

  23. George Kaplan says:


    Here is an interesting site from the UK Met Office:


    • Doug Leighton says:



      “The risk associated with any climate change impact reflects intensity of natural hazard and level of human vulnerability. Previous work has shown that a wet-bulb temperature of 35°C can be considered an upper limit on human survivability. On the basis of an ensemble of high-resolution climate change simulations, we project that extremes of wet-bulb temperature in South Asia are likely to approach and, in a few locations, exceed this critical threshold by the late 21st century under the business-as-usual scenario of future greenhouse gas emissions. The most intense hazard from extreme future heat waves is concentrated around densely populated agricultural regions of the Ganges and Indus river basins. Climate change, without mitigation, presents a serious and unique risk in South Asia, a region inhabited by about one-fifth of the global human population, due to an unprecedented combination of severe natural hazard and acute vulnerability.”


  24. Survivalist says:

    Average temperatures for the twelve-month period from August 2016 to July 2017 were:
    -most above the 1981-2010 average in the Arctic;
    -much above average offshore of West Antarctica, over much of North America, and over south-western Europe, the Middle East, north-western and central Africa, and eastern and southern Asia;
    -higher than average over most other areas of land and ocean;
    -lower than average over only a few oceanic and land areas.

    2017 extended the spell of exceptional global warmth that has now lasted since mid-2015. It was:
    -0.45*C warmer than the average July from 1981-2010;
    -the second warmest July on record, by a margin of about 0.1 *C;
    -a little under 0.1*C cooler than July 2016.


    • Javier says:

      Yes, that was a big El Niño.

      • Survivalist says:

        El Nono is over.
        2017 extended the spell of exceptional global warmth that has now lasted since mid-2015. It was:
        -0.45*C warmer than the average July from 1981-2010;
        -the second warmest July on record, by a margin of about 0.1 *C;
        -a little under 0.1*C cooler than July 2016.


        “All in all it looks like 2015 will be the year of Peak Warmth for quite some time.” – Javier

        In reality 2015 will be in third place behind 2016 and 2017.

        • Javier says:

          Temperatures are going down since February 2016 (quite close to 2015). Let’s see when the cooling stops.

          • Survivalist says:

            That’s a chart for anomaly. Temps are not going down. They are going up, but not by as much as before.

            Imagine you’re in an elevator with Javier. The elevator is going up faster than usual. It begins to slow down. The elevator is still going up but not as fast as before. Javier turns to you and says ‘ah yes I see what’s happened! We’re going back down!’


            • Javier says:

              Hmm, your reasoning is faulty. The anomaly has a zero in the 1981-2010 average. As temperatures anomaly this year are lower than last year, it is obvious that temperatures are also lower.

              Otherwise explain how the anomaly values can decrease without changing the zero and temperatures still increase.

              The only reason to use an anomaly scale is that we are much better at measuring temperature differences than absolute temperatures. But temperatures still go down when they go down in the anomaly scale.

              Why, do you think temperatures can only go up? Talk about flat earth.

  25. Trumpster says:

    Grinnin’ and readin’


    “By taking the step, legal experts say, Mueller is indicating that he has found evidence of criminal activity and that the investigation will extend beyond Trump’s fired national security adviser Michael Flynn.

    “We don’t know exactly what these developments portend, other than that there’s actually some significant criminal charges being considered,” said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas law school.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      OldMadDonald aka KGB Trumpster the country is in this nightmare because of people like you and their pre-election antics. Your a political fool who can’t see or hear because of the location of your head.

      • Trumpster says:

        Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

        I stick to principles, and fight the long term fight. We’re rid of HRC, which is some consolation, although I really did expect her to win.

        Now I am working short term to get rid of Trump. Long term my goal is to return control of the country to the people, which in effect means the Sanders faction of the D party.

        HRC is or was merely more or less a Trump wannabe in terms of her REAL loyalties when it comes to banksters and multinational corporations, lol.

        If she hadn’t been so fucking ARROGANT and STUPID as to spend critical time making secret speeches to banksters rather than campaigning on the REAL issues that decided the election, she would be president today.

        Trump’s the bigger scumbag by a factor of a hundred, but he nevertheless had sense enough to campaign on the issues that decided the election, while HRC was nowhere to be seen in the last three big states that put Trump in the WH.

        YOU will never get it, but half of the people in this country have about as much use for HRC as they do for a dose of the clap. At least a quarter of the ones who voted FOR HER in my personal opinion voted not REALLY for her, but AGAINST Trump.

        This comment is not for YOU, HB, but for those who might read it who are thoughtful enough to understand that Trump HIJACKED the R party, because the R foot soldier base was sick and tired of R policies, and that HUGE slices of the D base were sick and tired of D party policies that can only be described as REPUBLICAN LITE.

        The country didn’t want EITHER of these to fuckups. But the cards fell so that they were the nominees, and Trump won because Clinton has concrete between her ears, when it comes to understanding the people. She ‘s an arrogant elitist of the first order, and every day ordinary people see her for the fraud that she is, which is why there was never any real FIRE or enthusiasm in the hearts of any of the people who voted for her.

        Now MAYBE in the future, Democrats who are interested in WINNING will remember her loss, and that if it hadn’t been for her career long flipflopping and career long baggage train, and her hypocrisy, and her condescension , etc etc, there would be a D in the WH NOW…………. and throw their support to candidates more likely to win the hearts and votes of the people.

        I don’t for an instant believe she won the popular vote for any reason OTHER than that TRUMP was her opponent. Any Republican other than the two or three most hard core right wingers of the lot would for sure have beat her. Trump was the WORST candidate EVER in terms of the support of the R party itself, and in terms of his reputation as an individual, and he STILL beat her, although only by a fluke result in the electoral college.

        The REAL mood of the country is reflected accurately by the control of the country by the R party, for the most part. The country does not WANT the liberal D cultural revolution, which was forced thru by the courts, and has repudiated it at the voting booth.

        This will change of course, but not for a while yet……….. not until ENOUGH of the two older generations are displaced by younger voters.

        The cultural revolution is ok with me, I’m just pointing out the facts as I perceive them to be.

        • Hickory says:

          OFM- anyone who didn’t perceive that H Clinton was a better choice than the embarrassment named Trump is just an example of the profound failure of the American education and culture (church/ media/ etc).
          Simple as that.
          Not saying she was perfect, just immeasurably better suited to be the president (900% better).
          Failed country.

  26. Doug Leighton says:

    Attention all armchair astronomers (alliteration intended 🙂 ):


    “The prospect of a universal pathway towards the ingredients for life has implications for what we should look for in the search for life in the Universe,” says co-author Andrew Coates, also from UCL, and co-investigator of CAPS.”


    • Fred Magyar says:

      Ok! I see your: “Attention all armchair astronomers alliteration”

      And I raise you an: Enigmatically elusive ‘elements et energetic emanations’…


      Imagine planting a single seed and, with great precision, being able to predict the exact height of the tree that grows from it. Now imagine traveling to the future and snapping photographic proof that you were right.

      If you think of the seed as the early universe, and the tree as the universe the way it looks now, you have an idea of what the Dark Energy Survey (DES) collaboration has just done. In a presentation today at the American Physical Society Division of Particles and Fields meeting at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, DES scientists will unveil the most accurate measurement ever made of the present large-scale structure of the universe.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        LOL. Yeah, that was a cool result Fred. The field of astronomy is too big to keep abreast of all the news (ha ha) although for every hour spent here I spend five reading stuff on astronomy/astrophysics. As you know my (primary) focus is neutron star research but confess the math associated with this field has mostly moved beyond my ken. Twas OK when my wife was around to help me with that but, alas, those days have past.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Yeah, slightly off on a tangent here but what I can’t completely wrap my head around is the fact that in this day and age, where science with the help of The European Space Agency’s Planck mission, is able to accurately determine the age of the universe to be 13.82 billion years old or LIGO is capable of detecting gravitational waves…


          measuring the gravitational waves caused by the collision of two black holes of masses 19 and 32 times that of the Sun. Their merger formed a new black hole of 49 solar masses and converted the remaining two solar masses into gravitational wave energy. The resulting signal, detected by LIGO on 4 January 2017, was tiny. It lasted about a tenth of a second and distorted space by only 0.000,000,000,000,000,001 metres. The signal was measured by LIGO’s two detectors in Washington and Louisiana. Each detector is L-shaped, with 4km long legs either side. At the end of each leg is a mirror with a laser passing back and forth, which measures the distance between the mirrors and can therefore pick up any distortion caused by a gravitational wave.

          Yet we have complete imbeciles coming here and elsewhere to dispute the capabilities of climate scientists to measure sea ice extent in the Arctic and tell us that sea ice volume is on a diminishing trend line.

          Though I’m guessing if pressed they would just as proudly argue against the age of the universe or the existence of gravitational waves as well! At the very least they would claim with absolute certainty that measuring those things is far beyond the capabilities of our science… BAH!!

          • GoneFishing says:

            That sure is some damping system.

          • Barry says:

            ¨only 0.000,000,000,000,000,001 metres¨
            You had better convert that to inches for OFM´s benefit!

            • GoneFishing says:

              It’s smaller than an electron. Could be a time ripple too as space displaces forward in time concentrating properties then snaps back to it’s original place, would simulate a wave force. 🙂

            • Trumpster says:

              That’s 0.o00,000,000,000,000,039.37 inches, close enough for guv’ mint work, unless I miscounted the zeros. 😉

              I suffer from crosseye which you newfangled fellers call dyslexia, and it makes it hard for me to read long strings of numbers accurately. 😉

              Inches work just fine for ME. I can do any carpentry and plumbing fraction calculations in my head or on a pad as fast as I can metric, unless the numbers are large.

              I might even go so far as to say metric is for people who can’t handle fractions. I have an old poster someplace from my long hair days that says that reality is for people who can’t handle drugs. -)

              I keep hammering away at this tempest in a teacup to impress on idealists why IDEALS are so slow in being realized or implemented in the real world.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Dark matter and dark energy are quite mystical in their properties and non-effects or non-existence.

        • Hightrekker says:

          CERN has not been kind:

          In the paper published today, based on data recorded between 2012 and 2015, CAST finds no evidence for solar axions. This has allowed the collaboration to set the best limits to date on the strength of the coupling between axions and photons for all possible axion masses to which CAST is sensitive. “The limits concern a part of the axion parameter space that is still favoured by current theoretical predictions and is very difficult to explore experimentally,” explains the deputy spokesperson for CAST, Igor Garcia Irastorza. “For the first time, we have been able to set limits that are similar to the more restrictive constraints set by astrophysical observations,” he says.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Give rise to organics? Pesky replicants. Once they get a foothold (or finhold, or winghold) it’s tough to get rid of them. Luckily, they seem to have produced a version that is ant-life and doing a muddled job of eradication. Maybe the next version will be more effective and efficient.

  27. George Kaplan says:

    PIOMAS numbers for July are out, this year is no longer lowest for the day, which record is now back with 2012, which had a couple of big storms in August. The average annual value is still lowest and continues to drop about in line with the linear trend from December, the decline accelerated in the first half of July but slowed a lot in the second half and, unless there is stormy weather like in 2012, is likely to continue to slow, but looks likely still to fall below the quadratic fit for the values from 1979 to 2016.

    • George Kaplan says:

      – running average:

    • George Kaplan says:

      On the other hand global sea ice extent is falling through the floor (not so much area though). Antarctica extent has declined sharply when it should be increasing and the Arctic extent is falling quite quickly as ice is being compacted against North Greenland and the Canadian archipelago.

  28. Javier says:

    Record coldest July temperature registered in the Northern Hemisphere was established July 4 at Greenland summit. At -30.7°C this is the coldest ever temperature registered in the month of July.

    This year Greenland is gaining a lot of ice at its surface, far more that is lost through calving and melting, so this is likely to be a year of mass gain for Greenland. This is in a year that has seen lower than average Arctic sea ice melting, as despite starting at the lowest maximum registered in March, there is already more ice than for the same date in 2007 and 2012.

    July has been unusually cold for the Arctic. Not only Greenland has seen lower than average temperatures. Also Finland has seen its lowest July temperatures for the past 20 years.

    Eye on the Arctic: Unusually cold month of July in Finland

    I wonder why we only get one side.

    • Trumpster says:

      It’s to be expected that even in a world that is warming up, there will be some new record lows recorded, even an all time low once in a long while.

      I didn’t find a list for the first week of July in a thirty second search, but I found this for past week at weather dot com.

      Several daily record highs were set Thursday, Aug. 2, including: Medford, Oregon (109 degrees), The Dalles (108 degrees), Portland, Oregon (103 degrees), Eugene, Oregon (102 degrees), Olympia, Washington (96 degrees), Seattle (94 degrees), Santa Maria, California (88 degrees).

      Smoke covering much of the region kept temperatures below all-time record levels on Thursday.

      Dozens of daily record highs were set Wednesday, Aug. 2, including: Portland, Oregon (103 degrees), Medford, Oregon (112 degrees), Salem, Oregon (107 degrees), Eugene, Oregon (102 degrees), Seattle (91 degrees), Quillayute, Washington (98 degrees) and Reno, Nevada (104 degrees).

      As best I can see, we are experiencing new daily record highs at least twice as fast as we are new daily record lows, and probably three or four times as fast, but I haven’t really tried to find out.

  29. Javier says:

    Food for thought.

    “Many people argue that human-caused climate change will have a catastrophic negative impact on the earth and thus human well-being and many people also argue that green energy policies (e.g., taxing carbon emissions) will have a catastrophic impact on the economy and thus human well-being. However, these arguments are hardly ever heard coming out of the same person’s mouth (quadrant D below). Similarly, many people argue that the concern over climate change is overblown and many people argue that green energy policies will be a boon to the economy by creating clean-tech jobs. But again, these are hardly ever the same people. Why is this? I think it is just a manifestation of people wanting the world to be simple. We don’t want conflicting information, nuance or shades of gray. We want nice neat conclusions, in other words, we want “facts”.”

    • Hightrekker says:

      Looks like one of those libertarian charts from the 80’s.
      Simple graphics for simpletons.

    • islandboy says:

      With due respect to your Phd., I think that what you and people who think like you are doing is extremely foolhardy. We are running the most risky uncontrolled experiment in the history of mankind by changing the concentration of various gases in the atmosphere. If the majority of climate scientists (Phds.) are right we could end up with a planet that is unfit for the vast majority of life forms that currently exist (think Venus), a mass extinction event of epic proportions. If they are wrong, as you and your ilk suggest then, no biggie!

      So on one side we have no problem and on the other the end of life as we know it. How do you rationalize that as grounds to just continue BAU and lets see what happens? What kind of risk assessment is that? Do you have another identical planet (a control) on which these changes are not happening? I guess there could be one on the other side of the sun that we’ve missed because it’s always behind the sun but, I don’t think so!

      • Javier says:

        I agree with some of the things you say, but disagree on others.

        On the uncontrolled experiment you are right. But that is the way we are. We have never planned our next move. Nuclear energy was a byproduct of nuclear weapons, and then we proceeded to build so many of them that we could extirpate advanced civilization. We are not doing anything about that. Every progress in medicine, agriculture, and energy has had as a byproduct a big increase in population, that is pushing wildlife to the brink of collapse. We are not doing anything about that. On CO2 emissions everybody agrees on the benefits of fossil fuels. Without them our lives would be a lot more miserable. But not everybody agrees on their dangers. Nature carries an open article:
        “Prove Paris was more than paper promises”
        “No major industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges to control the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. Wishful thinking and bravado are eclipsing reality.”
        So again, we are not doing anything about that.

        So yes on the uncontrolled experiment, but little hope we are going to change that. Still you can defend we should try to change our ways, and I will wholeheartedly agree. But shouldn’t we make sure , damn sure, we have chosen the right cause to fight this fight?

        The CO2 hypothesis of catastrophic climate change is based on several assumptions that are not being supported by evidence. All we are getting is a moderate warming, a moderate ice melting, and a moderate sea level rise, that coincides with the best time for humankind on any measurement we might choose (the worst for wildlife, but we have demonstrated we don’t care): life expectancy, poverty, wealth, percentage of population that travels, agricultural output, war casualties, number of wars. Pick any human index that matters to people and is easy to see that this is the best of times.

        It is no wonder that the rest of the developing world is not sold to the idea of catastrophic climate change and agrees to sign in exchange for money or no compromise for decades.

        I also disagree with your belief that if they are wrong then, no biggie! The costs for following a policy that is not the most rational are enormous. As the Nature article says:
        “Japan promised cuts in emissions to match those of its peers, but meeting the goals will cost more than the country is willing to pay.”
        And on top of that is the opportunity cost if you are aware of economic costs.

        I am a rational person, and I have been where you are, thinking that climate change was a serious problem, a few years ago. But the evidence is unclear to say the least. I do not advocate doing nothing. The best bang for the money is investing in new energies development and climate change adaptation, while we get a more clear idea of what is coming. If it all ends being a false alarm it would be better not to have seriously damaged our economy for nothing.

        • islandboy says:

          “If it all ends being a false alarm it would be better not to have seriously damaged our economy for nothing.”

          I’m sorry. This is Kock brothers inspired right wing meme and exposes you as either a victim of their propaganda or a purveyor of same. How about looking at the costs being borne by the City of Miami to try to keep certain areas of South Beach from being inundated at high tide? I’m sure there are costs attributable to the burning of FF all over the world that have not been and are not being accounted for.

          Here/s a scenario for you. You and your skeptic (denier) colleagues are right but, we waste money and “seriously damaged our economy for nothing”. Civilization will survive and the wasted money will be viewed as a stimulus package by the people who benefited from it. Maybe that’s the real problem the right wing or more specifically the Koch brothers and their ilk have. This would be a stimulus package that harms their interests and benefits some other group of people. In the end, on irrecoverable damage is done.

          On the other hand the skeptics (deniers) could be wrong but, nothing is done to try and mitigate global warming. We pass some tipping point and runaway warming causes several meters of sea level rise, rendering the most heavily populated and developed areas of the globe uninhabitable and causing a mass extinction that includes most of the food chain with obvious implications for homo sapiens. In other words, we’re all dead. That seems to be a risk you’re willing to take and I am not.

          Fortunately, you and your colleagues are outnumbered. Unfortunately, you guys have an insane amount of old money (Koch brothers) supporting your point of view so, you get more “air time” than you otherwise would.

          • Javier says:

            You have a curious view of the situation. I don’t know who the Koch brothers are, but they are constantly mentioned by alarmists as if they were cartoon villains. Very childish.

            And you have got it all wrong about me. I am not particularly favorable to fossil fuels. They smell bad and produce contamination when burned. They have lots of uses, and I think it is not particularly bright to burn them to get a meager return of their high energy density. In terms of energy I am pragmatic. Whatever it works. But without dogmatisms, because we already have examples of what energy poverty does to people. Here in Spain some people have died from fires because they cannot pay the electricity and have to use bonfires and candles. The utilities are being blamed but the real reason is that the government imposed renewable policies that are increasing electricity prices. I think we should go full nuclear, like the French did, but even them are undoing it on dogmatism without a clear alternative.

            So it is not that I argue against the supposed climate crisis because I defend an energetic model. I do it because the supposed climate crisis doesn’t exist, and that is a very serious problem in itself because it is diverting a lot of funds from where they are really needed, like conservation, and leading to a lot of wrong decisions. The bill is not going to be small and it is not going to be paid only in money.

            We have a good example with diesel vehicles in Europe. Based on consensus science that diesel vehicles produce less CO2 they were pushed all over Western Europe. Now it turns it was a lie. Diesel vehicles are a lot worse for the environment, and we have a very serious contamination problem in every big European city. A problem that is costing a lot of lives. Watch out for consensus.

            So no, it is not only a question of money. Pursuing the climate doom proposed solution might end up costing lots of lives and damaging further the environment. Already we have a growing problem with wind turbines recycling.

            • islandboy says:

              “You have a curious view of the situation.”

              I have a curious view of the situation? Yeah! Right! Whatever!

              “I don’t know who the Koch brothers are, but”

              Google is your friend. You could start with the following videos on Youtube:

              Who Are the Koch Brothers and What Do They Want?

              Who are the Koch Brothers?

              Koch Bros scandal: Bill Maher interviews Jane Mayer

              • Javier says:

                I’m interested in Peak Oil and Climate Change. I am not interested in who is who in American politics and culture.

                After reading a little about the Russian issues I’m convinced McCarthy and Salem were not outliers. It is just the way Americans are.

                • islandboy says:

                  If you are truly interested in Peak Oil and Climate Change, you should be interested in the Koch brothers and their ilk because, they are spending millions of dollars in a well orchestrated campaign to influence how the public thinks about theses matters. See the last video of the three linked above (Bill Maher)

                  You might even find that Koch funded activities are the basis for your own skepticism hence my suggestion that you are either a victim of Koch brothers propaganda or a purveyor. We are not talking about petty amounts of influence peddling and money here.

  30. Hightrekker says:

    Clean Coal’s Flagship Project Has Failed

    Who could of possibly thought this would happen?

    • GoneFishing says:

      The big coal producers were against it from the beginning. They knew it would never be practical.

      • Trumpster says:

        It was always perfectly obvious to me at least , that the clean coal tech used in the experimental plant would never be affordable. CCS can work in theory, but efficiency and conservation measures work as well for at no more than a third of the cost.

        My personal take is that the whole project was a smoke screen borne out of a boondoogle fathered by people who saw an opportunity to make some money out of running the experiment, and that the FF industries were fully supporting it, no matter what their mouthpieces might have said in public. This gave them a lot of cover enabling them to continue BAU longer than otherwise. A dollar spent on CCS out of their lobby budget probably saved them a thousand times as much in DELAYED pollution control regulations .

        Now maybe someday somebody will discover an industrial USE for CO2 by the thousands of tons, other than injecting it into old oil wells to increase production, and then Carbon Capture will work.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Congress offered money to pursue the carbon capture “clean coal” project.

          Here is how CCS works. Plant a tree.

          Here is how to stop using fossil fuel. Make electricity from PV, hydro, wind turbines, tide, geothermal.

          However, I think the biggest solvable problem we face is the reception in modern cell phones. We may be capable of actually solving that one. just turn off the cell towers. 🙂

  31. HuntingtonBeach says:

    Can Human Beings Survive The Impending Climate Crisis?

    Although climate change may now rank alongside ISIS as the world’s most feared security threat according to a new Pew report, the horrors that global warming will unleash in the future, are far “worse than you think” warns David Wallace-Wells.

    In fact, according to research out this week, there is only a 5 percent chance that Earth will stay under the 2C mark by century’s end: “We’re closer to the margin than we think. If we want to avoid 2C, we have very little time left,” warns Adrian Rafters, a University of Washington academic: “The public should be very concerned.”

    According to the UN’s report, we will hit 4 degrees of warming within the next 80 years, and such a temperature rise will usher in changes not seen since the last Ice Age. And, to make matters worse, 4C is only the median projection: the upper end of the curve goes as high as 8C.

    And, that doesn’t even include the ……..


    • Hightrekker says:

      The Puffington Host is not one of my go to sources when it comes to science– but if you are into homeopathy or anti vax news, it is appropriate.
      Disclaimer: In 2000, at the Dim Convention in LA, I worked with people doing content for the Puffington Host– so I guess I’m guilty.
      The fools gave me a all access pass to the Dim Convention.

      Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites


      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        Maybe your confused, Arianna Huffington didn’t start the Post until May of 2005 with two major focuses of left wing politics and environment. Her success came from linking major news articles from other sources and turning it into a blog. After she sold it for about $600 million. It has gone down hill with the use of FaceBook. Now it’s loaded with video’s and advertising without any reader input.

        Personally I contribute Obama’s first win to the Huffington Post. $600 million was a cheap price for the conservatives to pay to destroy it. If there was a statement in the article you disagree with, then dispute it.

        If it was just up to scientists, climate change wouldn’t be the problem it is today or in the future. The reason it’s hasn’t been addressed is politics and the self interest of the fossil fuel invested. Websites like HP are only a conduit for the facts to get out to the public. Don’t shoot the messenger for trying, because the next thing you know. Everything will be fake news and you will be sweep up into a totalitarian regime.

        • Hightrekker says:

          It wasn’t the Puffington Host then— but she was actually trying to put out good political content at the time.
          It was kinda exciting times actually. There was a small possibility of reformist politics having some minor effect.
          And we were in the street, which is always empowering (try it if you haven’t).
          It grew into the delusional rag its current state is in.
          I got the Dim Convention Pass from another political group, that I can’t mention.

          • HuntingtonBeach says:

            I attended the anti war march back in 2003 in down town LA. A lot of police and weird protesters. That was enough for me. Oh yes, back in the good old days of shock and awe. How sweet it was back then.

            • Hightrekker says:

              I’ve been gassed on 3 continents.
              But after the 60’s, the victories became fewer.
              I was in lock down in Ward Valley.
              We won that one.

              On June 15, 1990 the Bureau of Land Management published the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the construction of a Low-level Nuclear waste repository to be located at Ward valley California. The company applying to construct and operate the repository was U.S. Ecology. An eight-year struggle between government agencies and opponents of the nuclear waste dump ended with the dump being blocked.

    • Javier says:

      Can Human Beings Survive The Impending Climate Crisis?

      Crisis? What crisis?

    • GoneFishing says:

      “Can (modern)Human Beings Survive The Impending Climate Crisis?

      No way, they can’t even survive without their cell phones let alone a real crisis. They are done, complete toast.

  32. JN2 says:

    Flash Drought In US High Plains May Have Already Destroyed Half Of This Year’s Wheat Crop.


    Italy is also in drought, Rome has switched some fountains off after receiving only 25% of normal rainfall so far this year. Olive and grape harvests to suffer…

  33. GoneFishing says:

    The changing face of war, civilians are the primary target.

    Modern warfare is often less a matter of confrontation between professional armies than one of grinding struggles between military and civilians in the same country, or between hostile groups of armed civilians. More and more wars are essentially low-intensity internal conflicts, and they are lasting longer. The days of set-piece battles between professional soldiers facing off in a field far from town are long gone. Today, wars are fought from apartment windows and in the lanes of villages and suburbs, where distinctions between combatant and non-combatant quickly melt away.

    Civilian fatalities in wartime climbed from 5 per cent at the turn of the century, to 15 per cent during World War I, to 65 per cent by the end of World War II, to more than 90 per cent in the wars of the 1990s.

    Children are not spared. It is estimated that 500,000 under-five-year-olds died as a result of armed conflicts in 1992 alone. In Chechnya, between February and May 1995, children made up an appalling 40 per cent of all civilian casualties; Red Cross workers found that children’s bodies bore marks of having been systematically executed with a bullet through the temple. In Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina, almost one child in four has been wounded.


    So if you thought the world was getting more civilized, think again. Of course the big one, nuclear war, is primarily against civilians both direct and collateral. Apparently conventional war is very similar.

    • OFM says:

      And yet this is statistically the safest time in history, in terms of the likelihood of any particular person dying as the result of violence, because Leviathans, nation states, control most of the world where most of the people live, and the violence is concentrated in relative handful of specific and mostly smaller countries.

      My perhaps overly cynical belief is that certain groups of people hate each other enough that they WILL fight to the death, in order to either wipe out the other side, or to enslave it, and that there is no real reason to expect this situation to change anytime soon, except when one side or the other grows powerful enough to exterminate or enslave ( maybe not literally, but effectually ) it’s enemies.

      But there is hope for the long term, as the various peoples of the world become more prosperous and better educated………. assuming such progess continues.

      Most of us think of colonial empires as being the SOURCE of wars and genocides, etc, and there is a huge amount of truth in this belief, but it’s also true that colonial empires have had a great deal to do with SUPPRESSING war and genocide, once established.

      It’s pretty likely that even in North Korea, soldiers would very quickly put a stop to any significant number of local people making war on each other. Civil wars are the result not OF bad government, in terms of understanding the IMMEDIATE problem, but rather the FAILURE of governments.

      Long term, bad governments are a major cause, maybe THE major cause, of civil war. I’m expecting a civil war in Venezuela pretty soon now as the result of the Maduro regime being so corrupt.

      There’s a good case to be made that if the people of that unfortunate country had a stock of weapons such as the average American has, Maduro and his homies would long since be GONE. ( Now if THIS remark fails to result in some howls of rage from folks afraid of their shadows I will be SURPRISED. Old HB and his like minded friends will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead hands, lol if they want them. )

      Some Indian heap big fella or another once upon a time raised hell about having his wife burnt at HIS funeral, proclaiming it to be the way things were DONE in India.

      And the British governor/ soldier who put a stop to the practice said the way things were DONE in the British Empire was that men who burned their wives were to be HANGED.

      It’s highly amusing to contemplate the assertions of people who say the Chinese are very peaceable, because they have no significant history of holding colonies, while FAILING to realize that the SO CALLED country or nation that we think of as China was thru often as not actually a BUNCH of separate countries/ localities controlled by one or another government or strongman in conflict with the neighbors, and that these separate governments basically meant, defacto, that there were SEVERAL countries in existence within the boundaries of what these unthinking people think of as ONE country. The various governments occasionally managed to unify most or nearly all of what we think of as China, for various periods of time, and at those times only, it would be appropriate to think of China, historically, as one country.

  34. Javier says:

    Ted Nordhaus: Demons Under Every Rock
    The Ever-Expanding Definition of Climate Denial

    “a cadre of climate activists, ideologically motivated scholars, and sympathetic journalists have started labeling an ever-expanding circle of people they disagree with climate deniers.

    Then in December 2015, Harvard historian and climate activist Naomi Oreskes expanded the definition further. “There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late,” Oreskes wrote in the Guardian, “one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power.”

    Oreskes took care not to mention the scientists in question, for that would have been awkward. They included Dr. James Hansen, who gave the first congressional testimony about the risks that climate change presented the world, and has been a leading voice for strong, immediate, and decisive global action to address climate change for almost three decades. The others—Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley—are all highly decorated climate scientists with long and well-established histories of advocating for climate action. The four of them had travelled to the COP21 meeting in Paris that December to urge the negotiators and NGOs at the meeting to embrace nuclear energy as a technology that would be necessary to achieve deep reductions in global emissions.

    So it was only a matter of time before my colleagues and I at the Breakthrough Institute would be tarred with the same brush.

    Advocates, of course, will be advocates. But the fact that those claims are now uncritically repeated by journalists at once-respectable publications like the New Republic speaks to how far our public discourse has fallen, and how illiberal it has become. Fake news and alternative facts are not the sole province of the right wing.

    a word once reserved only for Holocaust denial, mirrors a contemporary political moment in which all opposing viewpoints, whether in the eyes of the alt-right or the climate left, are increasingly viewed as illegitimate.”

    Well, go f*** yourself for thinking it was OK for others to be labelled as deniers, but not you. Every revolutionary movement ends up devouring the least radical of their fathers. Once you start insulting, disqualifying, and depersonalizing your opponents, there is no end to that.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Javier is not their opponent. He would not even qualify to get in the ring with their secretaries.

        • Hightrekker says:

          He couldn’t be their water boy.
          I’m not talking about Gunga Din.

      • Javier says:

        I am very humane to them. I am being treated much worse here.

        • Hightrekker says:

          I must give you credit—
          You are incapable of being embarrassed– don’t know if that is a sociopathic trait, or just being ideologically crippled.

        • Survivalist says:

          The only thing happening to you here is that your failed predictions are being exposed. Grow a hide.

          A key feature of personality disorder is to seek sympathy while at the same time being abusive.

          • Javier says:

            Oh no, that I like. Everybody can see how close my predictions are. That early 2016 instead of 2015 is the peak warmth is actually pretty good considering that we are talking weather and climate. And we will see Arctic sea ice next September, but so far so good.

            After all if what I interpret is so close to reality, I cannot be very wrong. I am reaffirmed every time you post my predictions. Alarmist predictions have been failing completely for decades.

            • GoneFishing says:

              “Alarmist predictions have been failing completely for decades.”

              Where’s the ice Snowman? Afraid of a little melt?

              • Javier says:

                The warming wasn’t a prediction. It was an observation.

                The prediction was that we should get 0.2°C/decade:

                “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.”

                That was AR4 in 2007. After only 10 years the failure is so evident and big that AR5 does not contain a warming prediction. Which means IPCC doesn’t know how fast the world is going to warm, yet predicts all sort of calamities from that unknown warming rate.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Yep, you are hitting on two cylinders again. The warming wasn’t 0.2C/decade it turned out to be 0.4C for the decade.
                  Survivalist is right you can’t do simple math. You also can’t read a graph and I will add have real problems with complex concepts like bigger and smaller.
                  Done talking to you, I am not into being a remedial elementary school teacher.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Survivalist is right you can’t do simple math. You also can’t read a graph and I will add have real problems with complex concepts like bigger and smaller.

                    LOL! it took me a while to figure that out for myself but I’ve also officially retired from trying to help the cognitively impaired. I’ve decided to leave that job to the professionals.

                    Entre las distorsiones o ilusiones cognitivas existen las mas conocidas como la, ambiguas, distorsionada, paradójicas, y ficticias.

                    Some people will insist until they are blue in the face that the line segment on the right is shorter than the one on the left even if you provide them with the actual lengths in mm.

                  • Javier says:

                    Survivalist is wrong. Except for the El Niño warming that is now dissipating, the 21st century warming is not significant (2003-2013).

                    That is a significant problem for CO2 hypothesis.

                  • Survivalist says:

                    2017 is second hottest on record. 2016 is hottest. 2015 is 3rd hottest. (Remember your failed prediction about 2015 being “the year of Peak Warmth for quite some time.”? Did you just pull that one out of your ass or was it based on some rigorous research at your climate lab?)

                    First half of 2017 ranks 2nd hottest globally, behind 2016

                    Surface air temperatures for July 2017
                    “July 2017 extended the spell of exceptional global warmth that has now lasted since mid-2015. It was:
                    – 0.45*C warmer than the average July from 1981-2010;
                    – the second warmest July on record, by a margin of about 0.1 *C;
                    – a little under 0.1*C cooler than July 2016.”


                  • Javier says:

                    Temperatures peaked in February 2016, instead of late 2015.

                    Maslowski predicted the end of Arctic sea ice in 2016±3, and he failed. My Peak Warmth was at 2015±1, and it won’t be surpassed for >10 years.

                    Temperatures are going down slowly since February 2016 since we didn’t have a La Niña to speed things up. Already half of the El Niño increase has waned. It is likely that the entire El Niño warming will be undone.

                    Your minutia analysis hides the fact that nearly all the 21st century warming has been due to a big El Niño and is now being undone. Where is the CO2 warming?

                  • @whut says:

                    Javier has no response to the ENSO El Nino model here:

                    This explains the natural variability in global temperature due to El Nino and further proves the strong impact of AGW.

                    Again I will be presenting this research at this year’s American Geophysical Union meeting.

  35. GoneFishing says:

    Look like much of the world will have reduced food production with some northern countries getting increased production as the globe warms.


    One thing that is very evident is this is turning into a blame/pay game. That will wreck the effort to switch energy and turn off pollution in the developed countries. The fact is that efforts made to be less polluting and more sustainable save and make a lot of money so the payment process seems frivolous at best. Maybe many of these countries should stop warring with themselves and others and then get down to the business of survival.

    • Javier says:

      After 40 years of global warming, the entire world has increased its food production. I wonder why alarmists have such disregard for evidence, probably because it doesn’t support their theses.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Disagreeing with UN and IPCC reports again. Making grandiose claims with no supporting references or reasoning. Feeling weak and tired lately? Can’t quite keep up the effort anymore? Vitamins and a good outdoor exercise program and you should be back up to speed in a few months. Take your time, get healthy again.


        ALTHOUGH catastrophic weather phenomena receive wide media coverage, it should be noted that far more agricultural production is lost in pockets of chronically poor rainfall or other adverse weather during otherwise average years. In addition, climate is characterized by persistence, i.e. a tendency for “good” or “bad” years to occur in runs, which highlights the need for storage of food, and particularly affects livestock (see graph at right).

        Finally, due to population growth, agriculture had to expand more and more into marginal land, including those with soils with poor water storage capacity. Such areas are more vulnerable to irregular rainfall, resulting in more frequent “drought” even under relatively stable climatic conditions. This increases even further vulnerability to climate change.


        • Javier says:

          This is like the reduction in protein content from food. After >40 years of global warming you have nothing to show. Still you try to scare the little children.

          Now let’s imagine UN and IPCC coming out truthful and openly saying: Evidence so far shows no ill effect from global warming after more than four decades, but give us your money because we are convinced that many decades into the future it is going to be a serious problem. Our computers, programmed by us, agree with us.

      • OFM says:

        I’m an ag professional although I do not have a doctorate. You don’t need one to understand that while some climate change has been good for some farmers in some places, more climate change has been very bad for a LOT more farmers, over the last half century or so.

        And you don’t even have to be an ag professional to understand that most of the places with the best soil, the best climate and the best water resources, etc, are already occupied by farmers, who have spent generations developing the infrastructure needed . Moving agriculture north or south from the temperate zones is going to be a Herculean job, if it can be accomplished at all, one that dwarfs the job of say building out the wind and solar industries and the electric grid to handle mostly renewable electricity.

        We can adapt to some extent, but it will take only another degree or two of heat to pretty much wipe out a lot of farmers at lower latitudes who are already dealing with as much warmth as their crops can efficiently accomodate.

        I won’t be able to grow apples on my place if we get two degrees, although pecans would do fine and I would be borderline for some cold hardy citrus, lol.

        THE VAST bulk of the increased food production we have enjoyed since about WWII is the result of vastly increased acreage, vastly increased use of pesticides and manufactured fertilizers, improved crop varieties, mechanization,irrigation and so forth.

        It’s impossible to quantify any increase due to greater warmth, on a global basis, at least not without the expenditure of vast amounts of time and money trying to gather and crunch the available data, which is probably inadequate in any case to do a good job.

        But it is very likely that warming has had a net NEGATIVE effect on total food production.

        And Javier, if you were even CLOSE to being intellectually honest, you would admit that everything I have said in this comment is rock solid.

        It’s absolutely obvious that you cherry pick your evidence to an extreme seldom encountered in this forum.

        And you are the only scientist I can bring to mind who apparently has little or no use for the precautionary principle.

        It’s one thing to be absolutely sure of yourself, if you really are that sure. It’s another altogether to be so intellectually arrogant that you just casually dismiss the grave concerns of virtually every professor of physics or biology I have ever met, personally… and the total runs into more than I have fingers and toes, lol.

        Or maybe the simpler explanation is the better one. Maybe you’re just a troll out to create as much doubt among the audience as you can, so as to slow down the growth of the renewable energy industries, and keep the FF industries in the deep black as long as possible.

        Now having said this much, I will stand by you to the extent of saying that with the exception of forced climate change, just about everything I can remember you posting here is either on the money, or at least worthy of consideration.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          It’s one thing to be absolutely sure of yourself, if you really are that sure. It’s another altogether to be so intellectually arrogant that you just casually dismiss the grave concerns of virtually every professor of physics or biology I have ever met, personally… and the total runs into more than I have fingers and toes, lol.

          The Chaos of Predicting Climate Change [Video]
          A live Webcast Wednesday will discuss the necessity of chaos theory and supercomputers in modeling climate change

          “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” – Mark Twain

          • Javier says:

            It is not a question of who (or how many) has what opinion, but of what the evidence supports. Most scientists, probably including those you speak about haven’t checked the evidence themselves as it is outside their specialty subfield, so their opinion is just a second hand opinion.

            Mark Twain is correct. If you make a list of the things that are actually known regarding global warming, and of the things that are assumed, you would be surprised. What is going to get climate scientists in trouble is what they know for sure but just ain’t so.

            • OFM says:

              I can assure you, Javier, that it is an absurdity on your part to assume that professors of physics, and professors of biology, have not examined the evidence for, and against, forced warming.

              There is nothing closer to the typical biology professors heart than the overall welfare of the biosphere, and professors of physics are eminently qualified to pass judgement on the evidence, especially the ones I have met, since they are especially interested in the field. I have met about six or seven physics professors personally in the course of my own modest informal study of the climate question by way of attending various gatherings organized for discussion of such matters. Two or three others I met in the course of my own formal studies, or as part of my own work. I live in the boonies, but there are half a dozen reputable universities within a two hour drive, and there are many such events open to the public, generally for free, or for a modest admission fee. I don’t know how many biology professors I have met, but the total exceeds twenty. I have taken classes taught by at least a dozen, over the course of the years. Ag guys take about as many biology classes as med students, lol, maybe more. More than anybody BUT biology majors.

              Take notice that Javier said NOTHING about what I said about WHY food production has been steadily increasing for the last century or so. He knows better. His only option in this case is to change the subject, or ignore it altogether.

              Take notice that he has not even ATTEMPTED to deal with the fact that he is casually disregarding the precautionary principle.

              He IS making an EXCELLENT case when he argues that warming is not occurring as FAST as it has been predicted to occur by the more pessimistic climate scientists. Hardly anybody will even bother to dispute this obvious fact.

              His game is to convince casual readers and less than scientifically sophisticated readers that since the RATE of warming is less than predicted by SOME scientists, that warming is a trivial or at the most minor issue, and that it will REMAIN a trivial or at most minor issue.

              Those of us with a deep enough understanding of such matters understand that virtually all the evidence, considered in light of well understood physical laws , indicates that warming WILL CONTINUE, and that the rate is extremely likely to accelerate, and that a HUGE component of warming is already built in, because there is a substantial TIME LAG involved, a time lag best measured in decades , rather than years.

              It’s very easy for people to ignore any time lag measured in decades, because we are hard wired primarily to deal with short term rather than long term problems, and because most of us are totally overwhelmed with a constant barrage of information, to the extent we habitually to tune most of it out.

              • GoneFishing says:

                So 0.5 C rise since 2000 is not enough for you OFM?
                See chart above 08/06 3:36AM

    • notanoilman says:

      The trouble with that graph is that it only takes in 1 parameter, temperature. It totally ignores rainfall, rainfall pattern, soil, length of day, length of growing season etc etc. It also ignores loss of protein yield and increased ratio of plant growth to crop yield (more green bits, less food). If those nice green ares fall on rocky ground or swamp or desert then the crop yield will be a tad lower than predicted.


      • George Kaplan says:

        Exactly so: 100% increase in Labrador and northern Norway is pretty much nothing compared to a 50% drop in Brazil, and the I think the increased variability isn’t being properly included – one bad week that kills all the crops isn’t compensated for by one good week that gets a bit higher growth.

  36. Survivalist says:

    August 5th- 5,961,697 (3rd place behind 2012 and 2007)
    Falling fast.

  37. Doug Leighton says:

    Interesting tidbit that perhaps you’re all already aware of (apart from Xed out Javiar of course).


    “It’s important to accurately characterize the soils and state of the land surfaces. There’s a strong correlation between soil characteristics and release of carbon dioxide and methane. Historically, the cold, wet soils of Arctic ecosystems have stored more carbon than they have released. If climate change causes the Arctic to get warmer and drier, scientists expect most of the carbon to be released as carbon dioxide. If it gets warmer and wetter, most will be in the form of methane. The distinction is critical. Molecule per molecule, methane is 22 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide on a 100-year timescale, and 105 times more potent on a 20-year timescale. If just one percent of the permafrost carbon released over a short time period is methane, it will have the same greenhouse impact as the 99 percent that is released as carbon dioxide.”


    • Doug Leighton says:



      “There are currently 125 fires burning across the province, including a “monster fire” at Elephant Hill. Sixteen of the fires burning now started on Friday, bringing the total number since April 1st to 884.” The province’s largest single fire has burned more than 110,000 hectares and heavy winds are expected to fan the flames again this weekend.

      • Doug Leighton says:



        “Following months of below-average rainfall, or in some locations no rainfall at all, across Italy, many towns are considering extreme measures to aid water conservation efforts. Rome received only nine percent of its normal precipitation during the month of June and has received no rainfall since Jun. 30. This has resulted in a devastating drought overtaking most of the peninsula. Across the country, drought has resulted in agricultural losses exceeding 2 billion euros ($2.4 billion).”

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Yep, Italy is pretty much comprehensively fucked!

          You can download a full drought report for Italy from the European Drought Observatory here:


          Sapore di sale
          Sapore di mare
          Un gusto un po’ amaro
          Di cose perdute
          Di cose lasciate
          Lontano da noi
          Dove il mondo è diverso
          Diverso da qui

        • GoneFishing says:

          Wait a second here, Rome only received 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) in June and none in July. Usually they get 35 mm in June and 17 in July. So they are 46 mm short ( 1.8 inches) for the two months.
          With a dry spring preceding this, it is very dangerous.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Drought continues to scorch the landscape in parts of South Dakota, North Dakota and Montana, but the hot, dry conditions have also led to a much more severe problem for Montana: wildfires.

            According to the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), the Lodgepole Complex fire in Montana has burned more than 270,000 acres, the largest fire in the state since the 1910 fires. That fire is now reported to be 95% contained, but as of Aug. 2, NIFC said 14 wildfires are actively burning in Montana, affecting a total of 321,724 acres.
            (Last few weeks it was South Dakota burning)

            Adding to large wildfires that burned in Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Florida earlier this year, as of Aug. 2, the U.S. has seen a total of 5.28 million acres ravaged by wildfire, according to NIFC. This is the second-highest year-to-date total, topped only by 6.05 million acres that burned during the same period in 2010.

            To give you an idea of what 5.8 million acres is, it’s about the area of New Jersey. Now this is happening every year, so since it takes trees and bushes more than a year to grow, it’s got to be mostly new areas that are burning. Only thing that grows fast enough to burn every year is grass.
            Historically the rate of forest fire burn was much higher being between 8 million acres and 20 million acres burned each year in the early 1900’s. Although fires are on the increase lately.
            Forests area in the US has been fairly fairly stable with slight increases.
            Places out west like California have been showing steady increases in burned acres.

        • George Kaplan says:

          If they call this one Lucifer, they’re kind of short of places to go for the next, hotter ones – maybe “Plasma”, but then what?

      • Doug Leighton says:

        Sorry guys, 110,000 hectares equals 435 square miles (rounded of course) and bigger than your average campfire. 🙂

  38. Doug Leighton says:

    Finally found a thorough analysis of open biomass burning in a Journal of Geophysical Research Paper, something I’ve pondered over for years (First published: July 2014) which seems appropriate seeing we’re seriously into wildfire season. I expect our in-house know-everything-about-everything authority will refute the conclusions in this Paper and unfortunately, because I’ve Xed him out, I won’t benefit from his infinite wisdom. I apologize for the length of material I’ve decided to include.


    ABSTRACT: This paper examines the effects on climate and air pollution of open biomass burning (BB) when heat and moisture fluxes, gases and aerosols (including black and brown carbon, tar balls, and reflective particles), cloud absorption effects (CAEs) I and II, and aerosol semidirect and indirect effects on clouds are treated. It also examines the climate impacts of most anthropogenic heat and moisture fluxes (AHFs and AMFs). Transient 20 year simulations indicate BB may cause a net global warming of ~0.4 K because CAE I (~32% of BB warming), CAE II, semidirect effects, AHFs (~7%), AMFs, and aerosol absorption outweigh direct aerosol cooling and indirect effects, contrary to previous BB studies that did not treat CAEs, AHFs, AMFs, or brown carbon. Some BB warming can be understood in terms of the anticorrelation between instantaneous direct radiative forcing (DRF) changes and surface temperature changes in clouds containing absorbing aerosols. BB may cause ~250,000 (73,000–435,000) premature mortalities/yr, with >90% from particles. AHFs from all sources and AMFs + AHFs from power plants and electricity use each may cause a statistically significant +0.03 K global warming. Solar plus thermal-IR DRFs were +0.033 (+0.027) W/m2 for all AHFs globally without (with) evaporating cooling water, +0.009 W/m2 for AMFs globally, +0.52 W/m2 (94.3% solar) for all-source BC outside of clouds plus interstitially between cloud drops at the cloud relative humidity, and +0.06 W/m2 (99.7% solar) for BC inclusions in cloud hydrometeor particles. Modeled post-1850 biomass, biofuel, and fossil fuel burning, AHFs, AMFs, and urban surfaces accounted for most observed global warming.


    • Doug Leighton says:



      “The next mega-droughts and subsequent active wildfire seasons for the western U.S. might be predictable a full year in advance, extending well beyond the current seasonal forecast and helping segments of the economy related to agriculture, water management and forestry…Over the past 15 years, parts of the western U.S. have experienced severe drought conditions and an increasing number of wildfires that take a toll on people and ecosystems. The team’s research shows that in addition to contributions from natural forcings and global warming, temperature differences between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans play a role in causing drought and increasing wildfire risks. The new findings show that a warm Atlantic and a relatively cold Pacific enhance the risk for drought and wildfire in the southwestern U.S.”


    • farmboy says:

      Some more on what is causing the disruption in the water cycle which in turn traps more heat and the vicious cycle progresses.

      If I’m understanding him right microbiologist and climate scientist Walter Jehne places more emphasis on the historical destruction of forests instead of the highly politicized increase in CO2 concentration as the primary driver of climate change.

      Even if you disagree with his conclusions I think most readers on this site would benefit from his perspective on the whole of the water cycle and the importance of maintaining and increasing plant cover (especially trees) as well as carbon sequestration by soil biology which maintains the “sponge” for water infiltration and water holding capacity of the soil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4ygsdHJjdI

      • GoneFishing says:

        I have not gotten through the over two hours of Jehne’s talk yet. Just consider what happens to land that is deforested. Often it is desert, with human activity it will be infrastructure and farmland. Desert has a much different albedo and water cycle than forest. Human caused deforested areas have a range of albedos and a much different water cycle than a forest. So I can see there is strong logic to pursuing the change in water cycle due to loss of over 1/3 of our historical forests. Maybe I will finish the video later tonight. Now I have to pursue some more physical tasks around the old homestead. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

  39. Javier says:

    NOAA has a sea ice product that compares current Arctic sea ice with the ten year average and spread. It shows exactly what I have been saying all along.

    Ten years of no Arctic sea ice melting (and counting). Currently sea ice is slightly above the ten year average.

    Ten years of dramatic comments and posts by alarmists for nothing. Many polar scientists have been fouled by Nature showing that their arrogant security on an Arctic catastrophe hid a lack of understanding.


    • Survivalist says:

      Meaningless cherry picked drivel from Javier. As usual.

      “The average July extent was 1.58 million square kilometers (610,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average, and 270,000 square kilometers (104,000 square miles) above the previous record low July set in 2011. July 2017 tracked 250,000 square kilometers (97,000 square miles) above the July 2012 extent and 20,000 square kilometers (7,700 square miles) above the July 2007 extent.”


      July 1969 to 2017
      Slope= -7.4% per decade


      • Javier says:

        The image is by NOAA. Accuse them of cherry picking.

        The advantage of a 10 year average is that is more responsive to yearly changes. Next year we will see that 10-year average go up as 2007 is dropped, and in 2023 it should go significantly up when 2012 is dropped from the average. A comparison might then show the 2013-2022 average being above the 2003-2012 average.

  40. Javier says:

    OK alarmists, now you have to get rid of your pets.

    America’s beloved dogs and cats play a significant role in causing global warming, according to a new study by UCLA.

    Pet ownership in the United States creates about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, UCLA researchers found. That’s the equivalent of driving 13.6 million cars for a year.


    That’s a real “sacrifice” they are asking, but it is necessary to control climate.

    Scientists are really outdoing themselves in their race to see who makes the most ridiculous and outrageous claim. People are going to start laughing at them.

    • Javier says:


      • Survivalist says:

        I love puppies and kittens. They make great gloves.

      • Amanda Di Gironimo says:

        ==Connecting the dots==

        now that we are aware of this news the dots to connect begin to get much clearer. this is since that federal court just ruled the federal government agents can and will come into your home to kill your dogs, if they are not licensed the way they want you to. of course cuz they are the feds they can make up any rules they want about the license. they could get to you, just cuz they felt like it! so connect the dots, the law’s are now in place, for if we get a democrat president again, that president has the authority they need to invade homes to kill dogs to try to end climate change. of course this would actually do nothing about the climate, just give democrats more control of everybody’s life. its a very very scary thing to think about for the future though.

        video news of this court ruling here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxgrob5uZZ0

        • George Harmon says:

          That is a very scary piece of news, but just remember we have our Second Amendment specifically to prevent the tyranny of the federal government against ordinary citizens. If not already, I would encourage you to arm yourself in case the feds ever show up at your door asking for your dogs.

          • OFM says:

            I’m armed to the teeth already, and thinking about buying some fangs that will fit right over my own inadequate canines, lol.

            And if circumstances should warrant my doing so, I will disperse my arsenal in such a fashion that it can’t be found even with ground penetrating radar. Seriously.

            Where are the howls of rage that this sort of comment should provoke in a forum dominated by big D Democrats?

          • Fred Magyar says:

            If not already, I would encourage you to arm yourself in case the feds ever show up at your door asking for your dogs.

            So instead of simply complying with current existing laws to obtain a licenses for their pets, we now have rabidly insane morons on this site proposing citizens arm themselves to engage in shootouts with Federal Law Enforcement Agents?!

            BTW, just for the record, a dog or cat license is directly tied to the requirements for rabies vaccinations and have been a separate requirement by law for quite some time. Maybe someone needs to vaccinate George Harmon and Amanda Di Gironimo…

            Though I have to admit, this little gem, is pure comedy gold!

            for if we get a democrat president again, that president has the authority they need to invade homes to kill dogs to try to end climate change.

            Amanda, you should run for ‘Dog Catcher in Chief’

            • Bob Frisky says:

              There were several instances of a “call to arms” going on over the weekend it seems. First you had the NRA suggesting the time is right for NRA members to shoot up the New York Times. Then there was an ex Navy SEAL saying patriots need to prepare to take down the Soros/Communist/Liberal Deep State about to come after President Trump. Now the feds have permission to eliminate our dogs. Society just seems so ripe for a revolution.

              This is the message from that ex Navy SEAL.


              • Nick G says:

                Wow. Amazing to hear someone suggest that “patriots” should attack parts of the federal government to protect “their” president.

                It’s true: if democracy is destroyed, the people who destroy it will be wrapped in the flag.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                I’ll bet that post quickly got Mr. Marcum to the top of an FBI domestic terrorist watch list. Sounds like Frisky Bob supports the notions espoused by Mr. Marcum so he might soon be added to a similar list.

                BTW, just for the record, whatever your personal views or ideology, it might be behoove you to remember that the Communist Party is a legally established political party in the US. Therefore suggesting physically harming anyone affiliated with that, or any other political party, is considered at the very least, incitement to violence and therefore constitutes a Federal crime. Oh and George Soros is not a member of the Communist Party.

                I’m sure that the FBI already knows who is hiding behind
                that cute little Bob Frisky handle…

                As for our beloved President, it seems he is already on the FBI’s shit list as well, and he can only blame himself for being there. Deep State indeed!

  41. CameronB says:

    58% of Republicans say college is bad. She explains why they feel that way (VIDEO)

    It is shocking that 58% of Republicans think negatively about college. Demos President appeared on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd and explained how that came about that should disturb us all.

    Anti-intellectualism of Republicans explained


    • OFM says:


      I know TONS of republicans, from all over the country, although I seldom ever see any of them personally anymore. Damned near every last one of them wants his or her kids to get a college education, or at least get a nice job as the result of taking a year or two of classes at the nearest community college. Ditto virtually the Democrats I know of course.

      It’s actually pretty goddamned rare to run into anybody in this country anymore who thinks going to college is BAD for you , or for their kids, as opposed to maybe being a waste of money.

      Now if you ask a cherry picked group if you think a college education is good or bad in respect to some very narrow criteria, such as future earnings, you might get such a response in a poll. Many people have come to understand that a degree based on study of the history of poetry, or Greek pottery, or the history of film, is not necessarily very helpful in earning a living, lol.

      I have a professional degree, two of them, and I never managed to earn nearly as much money either farming, on average, or teaching as I earned as a tradesman, from time to time, when I really worked at a trade.

      If you want to see some Baptist SQUIRM, and change the SUBJECT, you can have a LOT of fun edging the conversation around towards biology and evolution, when you are enjoying a church social with a few Baptist ministers and their KIDS – preachers who preach the Seven Days of creation, even as they display great pride in THEIR OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN graduating from local universities such as Duke and Wake Forest and going on to med school, lol.

      Somehow or another , the kids and the parents manage to remain on good terms, even though the kids obviously know their parents are hopelessly ignorant of physical reality. Mostly both parents and kids manage this by avoiding touchy subjects such as evolution

      Gave up teaching making fourteen grand, annually, once upon a time and went to work in the nearby nuke and made well over fourteen grand in the next fourteen WEEKS,doing trade work, lol. Never went back to teaching of course.

      IF I could find a paying customer, and IF wanted the money, I could run some of my equipment and make as much in two days as a typical teacher makes in a week even now.

      Now I could have made a good money, being a good manager, farming on a larger scale, but that would have meant devoting my life to it, rather than doing it when I wanted, to the degree I wanted. It’s altogether possible to farm on a relatively modest scale and spend MONTHS at a time off the farm, if you are an orchardist for example.

      • George Harmon says:

        There’s absolutely no surprise in my mind that increasing numbers of conservatives (note: I’m not talking about Republicans or RINOs) view the entire public university/college institution in a big negative light.

        Just think about this, we now live in an era where college students can get so upset over things like a national election not going their way that they feel they need special crying rooms, aroma therapy, comfort animals, Playdoh “safe spaces” and so on, just to cope with life. Then, they can claim extreme “anxiety” whenever they like so they can get exams and classes postponed. While all these things only serve to make a mockery of the educational system, leftist faculty just encourages it, since they believe it improves the chances of being able to indoctrinate impressionable minds toward communistic ideals.

        The only path to a solution, as I see things, is reaching the many permissive bleeding heart lefties who lack the courage or spine to tell their children NO while using discipline and fear appropriately. If we don’t correct that behavior, I am terrified the world is bound to just keep getting more and more insane.

        • Nick G says:

          Wow. People who think it’s good to terrify their children, in the name of good parenting.

          It does seem to be a good example of how toxic culture is transmitted from generation to generation.

  42. Fred Magyar says:

    58% of Republicans say college is bad.

    Anti intellectualism and anti science go hand in hand with authoritarianism, fascism, and ultra nationalistic xenophobic propaganda. That is what the current Republican party, the Trump Administration and their supporters together with the fossil fuel lobbies funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers stand for. It explains why we have the most anti intellectual President ever to hold that office, in the White House today.

    This does not bode well for the stature of the USA on the global stage at time when more than ever we need a scientifically literate population and leadership that understands the global challenges and has the vision and the courage to take us into the future.

    Instead we seem to be heading for a new age of deliberate un-enlightenment!

    To be clear, I do not see the Democrats rising to the occasion or being much better, they seem to be stuck just as much in the past and clinging to the old status quo paradigms.

    Perhaps it is time for a complete overhaul of the system, the first step might be the elimination of the electoral college and some completely new political parties with a new generation of pro science platforms and intellectuals who understand the complexities of the current global reality and have the courage to find a new path forward!

    • Doug Leighton says:

      “…the first step might be the elimination of the electoral college and some completely new political parties …” Would it be realistic to elect people as “independents” without any party affiliation. It seems to me a relatively small number on “free thinkers” could wield a lot of power especially on issues where the established parties are almost equally divided. Or perhaps you’re stuck with the existing system until the end of time? Why aren’t there more political parties in the US? I believe there are eight or so represented in the UK House of Commons. Five in Canada. Eight in Norway.

    • OFM says:

      “Perhaps it is time for a complete overhaul of the system, the first step might be the elimination of the electoral college and some completely new political parties with a new generation of pro science platforms and intellectuals who understand the complexities of the current global reality and have the courage to find a new path forward!”

      Damned WELL SAID !

      It might not be necessary to start ENTIRELY over though. The Sanders wing of the D party would be a hell of an improvement over the BAU wing of the D party, which itself is infinitely better than the R party.

      Things are looking up on the Mueller Trump front.


      ” The convening of a separate grand jury in Washington suggests the Mueller team – working in a suite of offices a few blocks’ walk from where the 20-odd jurors sit – is going to be making extensive use of it. It will not be hospitable terrain for the president. Trump won only 4% of the vote in the District of Columbia.

      “This sets the scene of action for criminal trials, where charges will be laid, in the worst possible jurisdiction for Trump,” said Scott Horton, a lecturer at Columbia Law School. “Compared to Virginia, Republicans in DC are few and far between.”

      The grand jury is also clear evidence that the inquiry is widening, not tapering off. It suggests that the special counsel is exploring possible crimes committed inside the District of Columbia. ”

      Trump has made the ultimate mistake in dealing with cops. He has insulted the integrity of the legal professions at the very highest levels, and no amount of bribery or bullying will ever be enough to prevent the people at the top from fighting to preserve their position in the GRAND SCHEME.

      The stakes are no less than the measure of the future power and influence of the judicial branch, which is SERVED BY the investigative agencies such as the FBI.

      The rot is pretty deep, but it is not so deep that the federal courts and the FBI are willing to cut deals with Trump.

      The R congress critters will do all they can to protect him, but I’m hoping it won’t be enough. There’s a good chance now that he will be forced out of office.

  43. Survivalist says:

    Shallow decline in CO2 for the last four weekly means (red Bars)

    Week beginning on July 30, 2017: 406.41 ppm
    Weekly value from 1 year ago: 403.54 ppm
    Weekly value from 10 years ago: 382.68 ppm


  44. OFM says:

    Now goddammint , if this link does not finally penetrate the armor plate skulls of some of regular members who can’t seem to grasp the fact that we must recognize that religion is a REAL phenomenon, and EXTREMELY important to a HUGE portion of the voting public, and that political success is dependent on winning the VOTES of the religious community, well I might as fucking well give up pointing out this obvious truth as a lost cause.


    I double dog dare the guys who constantly poke fun at the religious community to read this link.

    • Nick G says:

      I don’t anyone here has argued that religion is not an important thing in politics. There’s no question that the oligarchs who control the Republican Party have gained much political power by mastering the art of manipulating people of faith.

      Personally, I think religious faith can be a powerful force for good. On the other hand, blind following of false leaders can cause great harm…

  45. George Kaplan says:

    The FAO food index is about 90% correlated with oil price, but over the last few months that has broken down and the index has been rising sharply. In the past social trouble has started around 210, but there may be an inflation effect on that. A $25 increase on oil price would probably take the index above that, but it may go on increasing anyway. I haven’t seen an explanation for the rise and typically those analyses take about a year to come out, but you’ve got to think the droughts and heat waves hitting some of the big food producing regions have an impact.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Sounds like the vertex of a tipping point.

    • notanoilman says:

      George ISTR that you are in the UK. Would you do me a small favour and post a reply with your local time. I need to check the difference between posting time zone and that which I see in my browser.


      • George Kaplan says:

        At the 3rd stroke it will be 7.24 am – breakfast just coming, yummy.

        • notanoilman says:

          Great, thanks, gives me the information I needed to confirm, hope to put something up soon that will interest people. Need a little time to dig into and analyse my data, might be in the next edition.


    • Jeff says:

      It´s cereal and dairy products that are on the rise, sugar is down: http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/

      “The FAO Cereal Price Index averaged 162.2 points in July, up almost 8 points (5.1 percent) from June and 14.1 points (9.5 percent) from July 2016. Cereal prices have risen consistently over the past three months, driven by stronger wheat prices and, to a lesser extent, also firmer rice quotations. Wheat values rose the most in July, as continued hot and dry weather deteriorated spring wheat conditions further in North America, fuelling quality concerns, particularly for higher protein wheat. Seasonal tightness also provided some support to rice quotations, although gains were capped by a slowdown in demand. Instead, maize values remained largely steady, as support provided by a more rapid pace of foreign purchases by China was outweighed by improved weather conditions in the United States.”

      “The FAO Dairy Price Index averaged 216.6 points in July, up 7.6 points (3.6 percent) from June and 74.3 points (52.2 percent) above its value in July 2016. Despite this latest increase, the Index is still 21 percent below its peak reached in February 2014. International prices of butter, cheese and Whole Milk Powder (WMP) increased, but those of Skimmed Milk Powder (SMP) declined. Tighter export availabilities pushed butter prices to a new high in July, widening the spread between butter quotations and other dairy products further. While strong buying activity from Asian importers also underpinned cheese and WMP quotations, SMP prices were weighed down by slack demand and prospects of larger releases from the intervention stocks in the EU.”

      I think/guess that it’s mainly cereal price that correlate with oil price as well as political instability. Global cereal stocks are at record high (http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/). Unlikely that food prices rise significantly before the socks are brought down, perhaps in 2019/2020?

      • George Kaplan says:

        The best correlation (R squared 0.86) is actually with the average food index, dairy and cereal are next (both about 0.74), then oils and meat (0.7 and 0.66) and last sugar, which is all over the place (0.41).

        • Nick G says:

          You might want to look at the correlations between other commodities. Copper, for instance, is a well known economic indicator.

          • Jeff says:

            Oil is used as a direct input in modern agriculture to power machinery, gas and oil as an indirect input in pesticides and fertilisers. Also, crops are converted to biofuels if there is money to be made. There is causality, not just correlation, between food and energy prices. Food prices can therefore rise if the oil price rises, regardless if there is a recession or not.

            • Nick G says:

              The relationship between the cost of oil and the cost of farming is pretty weak. Ethanol does create a significant link between the two, but…I would estimate that most of the correlation is due to covariance of commodity prices. James Hamilton did a good study of that, showing how oil prices tended to vary with other commodities – I’ll see if I can find it. You can also find it on econbrowser.com.

              • Jeff says:

                Well, FAO don’t agree with your estimate but perhaps you are more knowledgeable in this subject?

                “Historical trends indicate an evident link between food prices and energy prices (FAO,
                2011a). Between 2007 and 2008, world oil prices dramatically increased, reaching close to US$
                150 per barrel at its highest peak (Chantret and Gohin, 2009). According to FAO, the higher
                fuel costs increased the cost of producing and transporting agricultural commodities (FAO,
                2008f). Recent studies have further established that energy was one of the key drivers that
                caused food prices to surge to their highest levels in nearly 50 years (Headey and Fan, 2010;
                FAO, 2008f). FAO’s The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008, noted that higher food
                prices affected food access, which drove millions of people into food insecurity, worsened
                conditions for many who were already food insecure and threatened long-term global food
                security (FAO, 2008a). According to the report, in 2007, seventy-five million more people
                were added to the total number of undernourished relative to 2003-05 (FAO, 2008a). A food
                sector that is less dependent on fossil fuels could help stabilize food prices for consumers
                and reduce financial risks for food producers and others involved in the food supply chain.”

                from Energy-Smart Food at FAO, available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/an913e/an913e.pdf

                • Nick G says:

                  Interesting – I’ll take a look.

                  It’s useful to keep in mind that the US used to keep food prices artificially low with subsidies. Then they switched to helping US farmers with the opposite tactic: raising food prices by diverting 40% of corn production to ethanol blending requirements.

                  So, under the previous regime farmers in developing countries were hurt by US exports that were priced too low, while consumers got used to lower prices. Then US exports rose in price, and developing world consumers felt the pain of rising prices, even though those prices were still substantially lower than they were, say, 30 years ago.

          • George Kaplan says:

            I can only find two instances of social unrest caused by copper prices – one was in Russia a long time ago when the currency was devalued, and one to do with workers not getting a bonus when prices were high, I don’t think it compares at all with food. If you have a correlation to post please do so, I have no more interest in copper.

  46. Javier says:

    Let’s clarify a little the issue of sea level rise and Miami’s flooding troubles.

    This is a politically controversial issue as the official position is that Miami’s troubles are due to sea level rise, and any information that land subsidence is also having a big impact is met with fiery contestation:

    Miami New Times: Sorry, Daily Caller, Sea-Level Rise Is Real and Miami Isn’t Just “Sinking” Because of Too Many Condos

    However Shimon Wdowinski, from the Florida International University, that published an article on rising sea level hazard in Miami Beach:
    Wdowinski, Shimon, et al. “Increasing flooding hazard in coastal communities due to rising sea level: Case study of Miami Beach, Florida.” Ocean & Coastal Management 126 (2016): 1-8.

    …has also studied land subsidence in Miami using Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) observations, and reaches the following conclusions:

    – Preliminary InSAR results detected localized subsidence, up to ~3 mm/yr, mainly in reclaimed land located along the western side of Miami Beach.
    – Although the detected subsidence velocities are quite low, their effect on the flooding hazard is significant, because houses originally built on higher ground have subsided since the city was built, about 80 years ago, by 16-24 cm down to flooding hazard zones.
    – The combined effect of subsidence and SLR further expose the subsiding areas to higher flooding hazard than the rest of the city.

    The results show a good correlation between the subsiding areas and some of the tide flooded areas (Figure below) in the western part of the city.

    The report has been presented at the Florida Atlantic University 3rd Sea-Level Rise Summit “Connected futures from Alaska to Florida.” May 3-5, 2016. Fort Lauderdale.

    The contribution of land subsidence to the increasing coastal flooding hazard in Miami Beach

    It looks to me that ~3 mm/yr of land subsidence is no small amount, considering that Miami Beach 8723170 tide gauge shows only a mean sea level trend of 2.39 millimeters/year

    If Miami citizens place their hopes to contain sea level rise through CO2 reduction emissions they will be sorely disappointed. But hey, who cares about science, when you have a political agenda to push.

  47. Doug Leighton says:

    Fred – Fear not, life will go on.

    “Known as the “gateway to hell”, the Danakil Depression in Ethiopia is scorchingly hot and one of the most alien places on Earth. Yet a recent expedition to the region has found it is teeming with life…In short, Danakil looks like an alien planet and is completely unique on Earth. It is somewhat similar to active hydrothermal zones like Yellowstone in the US, but it is much hotter and its waters are much more acidic. In fact, Danakil’s waters have an average pH of 0.2, which is almost unheard-of in any natural setting…

    In March 2017, Cavalazzi’s lab and their colleagues found life in Danakil, after they managed to isolate and extract DNA from bacteria. They found that the bacteria are “polyextremophiles”, which means they are adapted to extreme acidity, high temperatures and high salinity all at once. It is the first absolute confirmation of microbial life in the Danakil acidic pools.”


    • Fred Magyar says:

      Truly amazing stuff! Tks for the link!

      • Synapsid says:


        The article calls the critters bacteria but this is the BBC. Wouldn’t archaea be more likely in these conditions?

        • Fred Magyar says:

          To be fair, all the extremophile organisms identified in the Danakil Depression , are microbial life forms, I think most are indeed archaeans or prokaryotes, meaning they lack a defined cellular nucleus but others may be bacterial or eukaryotic. I actually read a paper about them a while back, don’t have a link handy at the moment I’ll try to find it later if I can.

          Here’s a reasonably good and succinct explanation from Wikipedia as to what encompasses organisms that we generally call extremophiles:

          Most known extremophiles are microorganisms. The domain Archaea contains renowned examples, but extremophiles are present in numerous and diverse genetic lineages of bacteria and archaeans. Furthermore, it is erroneous to use the term extremophile to encompass all archaeans, as some are mesophilic. Neither are all extremophiles unicellular; protostome animals found in similar environments include the Pompeii worm, the psychrophilic Grylloblattidae (insects) and Antarctic krill (a crustacean). Many would also classify tardigrades (water bears) as extremophiles but while tardigrades can survive in extreme environments, they are not considered extremophiles because they are not adapted to live in these conditions. Their chances of dying increase the longer they are exposed to the extreme environment.

  48. Hightrekker says:

    Inteesting Math:

    “The reason gasoline consumption continues to increase despite the rapid growth of EVs is that the population continues to grow”. No it’s not. The reason is that there are 30 million registered ICE’s in CA compared to only 245,000 EV’s sold in CA from 2011 thru 2016.
    And CA has 50% of the EV’s in the US.


    • Nick G says:

      It also might have something to do with the “Chicken tax”, which greatly encourages the promotion of SUVs:

      “The chicken tax is a 25% tariff on potato starch, dextrin, brandy, and light trucks imposed in 1963 by the United States under President Lyndon B. Johnson in response to tariffs placed by France and West Germany on importation of U.S. chicken…

      Eventually, the tariffs on potato starch, dextrin, and brandy were lifted,[4] but over the next 48 years the light truck tax ossified, remaining in place to protect U.S. domestic automakers from foreign competition (e.g., from Japan and Thailand).”


  49. Hightrekker says:


  50. Hightrekker says:

    “BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2017 and deduced some interesting data about global fossil-fuel consumption — data not made explicit at all in the review. The essential results are as follows:

    Firstly, for the world consumption of oil-equivalent we have:
    7 Gt in 1990
    8 Gt in 2000
    10 Gt in 2007
    11 Gt in 2012
    11.4 Gt in 2017
    Certainly no sign of any decrease recently.

    Secondly, for fossil fuel’s share of global energy we have:
    88% in 1990
    87% in 1995
    86% in 2015
    A miserably small decrease over time. “

    • Doug Leighton says:

      Hightrekker — Succinct dose of reality. Great post.

    • islandboy says:

      Fret not my little snowflake!

      China installed 24.4 GW of solar in first half of 2017, shows official NEA data

      Cumulatively, China now has 101.82 GW of installed solar PV capacity, and encouragingly the national curtailment rate was 37 billion kWh as of June 30 – a reduction of 4.5% YOY. However, some regions and provinces are still embroiled in unsustainably high curtailment solar rates – rising to 26% in Xinjiang and 22% in Gansu.

      AECEA believes that China is on course to surpass last year’s installation figure of 34.54 GW, with the share of distributed generation expected to increase in 2018 – partly because next year’s FIT reductions make it even more imperative for developers to avoid curtailment, and distributed generation is inherently built in areas with a robust grid and good connection, hence the shift.

      How long can this kind of growth in renewables continue before it starts to have a demonstrable effect on carbon emissions?

      • Doug Leighton says:

        Yup, and EVs currently make up a staggering 0.2 percent of the total light-duty passenger vehicle share around the world. How long can this kind of market share continue before it starts to have a demonstrable effect on carbon emissions?


        • GoneFishing says:

          Just consider that those numbers from Hightrekker are after we have implemented a lot of energy saving efficiencies into general usage.

          “Looking across all 18 nations in the chart above, the IEA says:

          “Efficiency has more than countered growing populations and preferences for larger dwellings in reducing absolute energy use among the countries evaluated.” ”


          The dark side of the equation is that a couple of billion people are raising their life styles so that soon there might be two billion cars on the road and billions of more appliances, more factories, more, more, more. Also world population is on the increase.

          So Tesla and other producers better get cracking if they even want to dent the problem. There certainly will be a demand for electric cars and motorcycles.
          Personally I want a flying car, but I’ve only done that a couple of times for short distances so far.:-) Otherwise I flew aircraft which is just so commonplace.

          • Doug Leighton says:


            “The global number of cars on the road and kilometers flown in planes will nearly double by 2040, according to a report released on Monday by research house Bernstein. Cars are projected to reach the two billion mark by 2040, while air travel kilometers are set to hit 20 trillion in the same period. Bernstein said it expects most of this transport growth to happen in emerging markets like China and India, as global populations are set to rise by another two billion over the next 25 years to 9.2 billion. Although China (gasoline demand) in particular will remain the most important market over the next decade, India (diesel demand) is set to become the most important market over the next 25 years.”


            • OFM says:

              I really doubt the number of cars in the world will ever double unless the larger part of all the new ones are electrics. Peak oil is a real coming thing, the only question can be when, not if.

              Unless not only cars but also trucks, construction equipment, air craft, farm machinery, and so forth all go electric, there is a distinct possibility that oil will get to be very expensive within the next couple of decades.

              Of course if this happens, it would have the effect of boosting the sale of electric cars…….. unless oil gets to be so expensive that the result is a new economic crash…… which could be bad enough that the sale of electric cars crashes as well.

              My personal opinion is that electric cars will sell like ice water in hell within the next twenty years, barring an all around economic collapse. My guess is that most of them will probably be pretty small and have a rather short range, because that sort will be the cheapest, and most of the cars sold will likely be sold to people just getting to the point they can own their first car.

              A man or woman who has never owned a car before will probably be happy with one that will go forty or fifty miles on a charge in most cases.

            • Doug Leighton says:

              OFM — You may be right. The global number of cars exceeded one billion in 2010, jumping from 980 million the year before. There are 1.2 billion vehicles on world’s roads now and about 90 million are added each year. China’s car population has been exploding (increasing by about 27.5 per cent per year) while the U.S. has seen a less than one per cent increase in its vehicle population, roughly in line with most developed economies.

              According to Daniel Sperling at UC Davis Institute of Transportation, a vehicle population of 2 billion would require the world to produce at least 120 million barrels of oil per day, up from about 87 million today. This seems unlikely. The claptrap about electric vehicles will remain that until numbers reach significant numbers. While most countries have difficulties making electric cars reach 2% or 3% of their total car sales at least Norway keeps pushing the bar higher: 42% of its new vehicles registered being plug ins.

              • GoneFishing says:

                Doesn’t matter anyway if we don’t have enough to eat.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Sung to the tune of 100 bottles of beer…

                100 million barrels of oil in the ground, 100 million barrels of oil
                Take a million out and pass it around, there’s 99 million barrels of oil in the ground!

                99 million barrels of oil in the ground, 99 million barrels of oil
                Take a million out and pass it around, there’s 98 million barrels of oil in the ground!

                98 million barrels of oil in the ground, 98 million barrels of oil
                Take a million out and pass it around, there’s 97 million barrels of oil in the ground!

                • HuntingtonBeach says:

                  1367 watts per square meter a day, 1367 watts per square meter

                  Take one day and pass it around, there’s 1367 watts per square meter per day

                  Take another day and pass it around, there’s still 1367 watts per square meter per day

                  Try it again, take another day and pass it around, there’s still 1367 watts per square meter per day

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    That’s TOA, I say TOA.
                    Let me tell you, some goes away.
                    Down here on earth I get 1000 at noon OK?
                    It’s a lot less for the rest of the day.
                    And at night it’s a whole different story.
                    For the sun’s on the other side in all it’s glory.

          • Longtimber says:

            Sept 5th – Leaf 2.0 rollout… No one wants cars. crossover’s sell . Model 3- 50K USD affordable family car ?

        • OFM says:

          It’s almost a sure thing that the price of oil will spike sharply for one reason or another, within the next five or ten years, maybe sooner, and stay high for quite some time, before it comes down again, if it comes down again.

          And when it does…….. electric cars and plug in hybrids are going to be sold out months in advance.

          By then, they will be cheap enough that they will be price competitive right off the showroom floor.

          Two things are really holding up the sale of electric cars NOW. One’s the initial price of them, because they ARE still more expensive up front by a mile than ordinary cars, everything else equal. Sticker price on a new Chevy Impala starts about 28,000. There’s a big difference between the payment on twenty eight and thirty five or forty, considering the Impala is a pretty nice car , even if you do have to put gasoline in it. People who buy NEW cars aren’t thinking much about repairs and routine maintenance.

          This will continue to be true for some time.

          The other one is that people are creatures of habit, and most of us won’t do the unusual thing if it involves a lot of money. We wait until we see our friends, neighbors, and co workers do it first. It’s one thing to be the first person in the social circle with a new eight hundred dollar PHONE, it’s another altogether to be saddled with a five hundred dollar or larger PAYMENT on a car that MIGHT not last or MIGHT let you down.

          • Doug Leighton says:

            Meanwhile, about 90 million petrol and diesel fueled cars and light trucks are added to the world’s roads each year.

            • GoneFishing says:

              If we get two billion vehicle in the world, then giving each vehicle 15 feet of length the total distance of vehicles would be 30 percent longer than all the roads in the US (paved and unpaved).

              Even using lane miles, then each vehicle would have about 22 feet of space on US roads.
              Let’s hope they don’t all try to migrate here.

              As it is we might predict 500 million cars here by say 2040 to 2050. That would give cars about 86 feet of lane length per.

              Right now there are over 236 million registered vehicles in the US. If they all got on the road at once, it would clog up very fast. Luckily, they are usually sitting around.

              Too many cars already? In some places now and soon.

    • Nick G says:

      Yeah, exponential growth is not intuitive. People always overestimate how fast things will grow to start, and underestimate how quickly they’ll grow later.

      EVs are the future of cars, and wind/solar is the future of electricity. They appear to be starting slowly, but…

  51. Survivalist says:

    An interesting interactive chart here with options for displaying the years you want to see.
    2017 is well below the 1981-2010 median, and tracking 2007 quite closely.

  52. GoneFishing says:

    Is fossil fuel use being underreported? Paul Beckwith skeptically examines the differences between observed levels of carbon and the reported levels of emissions.


    If YOU think that 25+ years of global climate change policy meetings (IPCCs & COPs), & today’s much discussed growth in clean energy & efficiency are reducing global fossil fuel usage & thus greenhouse gas emissions then YOU are sadly mistaken. No sugar-coating. The cold hard data, displayed in charts for you & discussed in this video is brutal, but you need to see it for yourself. Fossil fuel growth is backed by enormous government subsidies & the emissions are climbing like there is no tomorrow. No tomorrow, not just for your grandkids but for your kids, and even for YOU.

    • farmboy says:

      He’s got a point that coal burning is likely being underreported, but why no mention of all the CO2 from degrading soils grassland fires and slash and burn practices or from warming oceans.

    • Doug Leighton says:


      Close to home, since April 1, B.C. has seen 892 wildfires, which, so far, have burned 591,000 hectares (that’s 2281.86 square miles folks). Now the scorched land will absorb more sunlight. Now dead trees will rot and continue producing CO2 for years instead of oxygen. Meanwhile, the weather situation in the coming days is not favorable, with hot and dry conditions expected to persist, along with a rising risk in the next three days for thunderstorms and dry lightning across the province. It will take decades for these forests to reach pre-fire levels of carbon uptake and storage. And, that’s not counting destroyed homes and damaged wildlife habitat.

      • notanoilman says:

        Ugh, read that as
        1 B.C.
        took a while for my brain to re-register and understand what you were talking about 🙁


      • George Kaplan says:

        Doug – hope everyone is still staying healthy. Has there been any info. on how these fires are influenced by the pine bark beetles infestation? The areas of the fires seem to be matching the areas showing the most dead trees that I see. There’s a great video showing the history of the infestation but I can’t find it at the moment, but this pdf shows it as well.


        • Doug Leighton says:

          George – I’m certainly no forestry expert but have spoken to a few and this is the short version: You’d think all those millions of acres of dead pine forest killed by the beetle infestation would be a wildfire waiting to happen but, apparently, that’s not the case because the wood is rotting and “punky” (a condition caused by fungal infection) and no longer contains much in the way of pitch, sap, or oil and therefore not especially flammable. Live, especially young, pine trees on the other hand are filled with pine oil, etc. and burn explosively. BTW the “pine beetle” has now evolved and is now destroying other species, especially spruce but almost everything — even hardwoods like cottonwood.

          • notanoilman says:

            Just another factor that cuts against the cornucopian view of increased temperatures/CO2 will boost yields 🙁


  53. Trumpster says:


    “While both political parties have denounced the rising cost of prescription drugs, neither Democrats nor Republicans have done much to address the problem. But this summer, a new tool to restrict the rising prices of drugs developed with taxpayer dollars has been introduced by the two U.S. senators who don’t belong to either party.

    The mechanism works like this: Drug manufacturers who take federal money to develop drugs must keep their U.S. prices in line with the prices they charge in other economically advanced nations — typically much lower than drug prices in the U.S

    The system would prevent pharmaceutical companies from effectively double-charging U.S. consumers by using their tax money for research and then charging them some of the steepest prices in the world at the pharmacy. Pharmaceutical companies, who pour millions of dollars into both the Democratic and Republican parties, are against the idea, which is perhaps why the fix is being pushed by Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, the only independents in congress.”

    The BAU Clinton faction of the D party is in one vest pocket of big pharma, and the R party is in the other.

    BAU in DC is the reason Trump is president today. The country is SICK of bau politics, and enough people voted for Trump , mistakenly taking him for an outsider, to put him in the WH.

    Nobody I know personally, except a few old women, believes that HRC would really have done anything against the wishes of the big banks, big pharma, or any other big industry, excepting the coal industry.

    So far as I can see, the ACA aka OCare has resulted in basically zero reductions in the actual cost of health care. It simply shifted the cost of providing the highest cost care in the world onto the shoulders of voters in order that low earners would have coverage……….. which had ONE HELL of a lot to do with Trump winning the WH, and the R’s mopping the floor right across the board with the D’s AGAIN.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.

      WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.

      The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.

      “Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” a draft of the report states. A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.

      The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air. “Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change,” they wrote…….


      • notanoilman says:

        I get the feeling the scientists are trying to get this out before it gets edited/censored/buried.


        • Tony Cowley says:

          More often than not, it is in all the best interests of a government to compel its citizens into fully believing a hokem theory, merely because doing so increases everyone’s dependence on big government as well as increases their likelihood of willingly parting with their money in the name of “protection”. As such there’s obviously deep political interest in promoting the climate change theory, despite what the president may say in public. Few government agencies will deliberately pass up an easy chance of extracting ever higher tax revenue while eliminating more personal freedoms.

          • Nick G says:

            That’s what the fossil fuel industry would like you to believe.

            What personal freedoms are you worried might be threatened by electric vehicles and solar power?

            • Tony Cowley says:

              Climate change treaties force countries into giving up sovereignty. Furthermore climate change can be used by governments to move people from their homes or restrict what they can legally do on their own land.

              • Nick G says:

                How do treaties force giving up sovereignty? How would climate change be used to move people? Have you seen examples of this happening? What land restrictions are you concerned about, specifically?

              • GoneFishing says:

                Tony, you need to look into trade treaties. Those are enforceable. So far there are no enforceable climate change agreements. It’s just the world trying to work together to face a global problem.

              • Hickory says:

                Hi Tony,
                Would you mind if I pumped toxic waste in to the groundwater aquifer that you get your water from?
                I would do it from my land, next to yours. But its my land so I should be free to fuck it up (and air and water) however I like, right?
                If I did that, would you them like to take away some of my sovereignty?

          • islandboy says:

            Just a reminder as to the kind of people who are behind the views being espoused by “Tony Cowley”. These people spend millions of dollars on shadow organizations like “think tanks” to spread their message of fear and mistrust of government, the ultimate goal being to establish a government that suits their own selfish interests. They do not care very much about the planet or the vast majority of it’s population just so long as their fortunes are growing.

            I doubt very much “Tony Cowley” is in their league so, he is either a victim of Koch brothers propaganda efforts or he is a part of their well orchestrated (mis)information efforts.

      • Javier says:

        Climate changes. Big deal.
        But no drastic impacts.

    • Nick G says:

      As far as I can tell, that’s a terrible idea.

      US drug companies fund most of their R&D internally, as far as I know. The profits from US sales pay for that R&D. The rest of the world gets a free ride. It’s analogous to the free ride that many countries get from the US military umbrella.

      Forcing US prices down to the levels charged to the rest of the world seems to be precisely analogous to the fairy tale of killing the golden goose, searching for that golden egg.

      • OFM says:

        Nick I hate to say so in so many words, but you sound like a goddamned Koch brother mouthpiece this time.

        You’re saying we OUGHT to pay double, triple, even more for the same exact fucking drugs that people get in other countries ………so the one percenters who own and run the pharma industry can live like Oriental princes………. holy SHIT.

        You talk about about good management of public issues continuously, and you generally make excellent sense, although I personally believe your glasses are a little on the rose tinted side, and that you are not helping the cause of the environmental camp by painting too rosy a picture about how easy it will be to change over to a new economic model.


        How about the rest of the world pulling it’s fair share of the load?

        Has it ever occurred to you that Trump was able to hijack the R party,because he was viewed as an OUTSIDER, and that SUBSTANTIAL portion of the voters in this country rejected HRC for Sanders because she is a BAU Republican Lite Democrat, and that another substantial portion of the D base voted FOR Trump in order to vote against her?

        And this voting against her was MOSTLY because she was seen (correctly imo, but seen that way right or wrong ) as in the vest pocket of big business, rather than truly being for the PEOPLE of this country ?

        I don’t have my links handy, from my research, on this computer, but I will post some shortly, maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow, about the way the drug industry actually WORKS in the USA, and who actually pays the bills.

        You are the LAST person I ever expected to hear voice such an opinion, the VERY last, in this forum at least.

        You seem to believe in efficient markets, so …… let us here in the USA deal with the goddamned drug companies the way the REST of the world deals with them………. as equals, rather than as VICTIMS or serfs.

        They will STILL make plenty of money.

        I better just shut up for the moment.
        Responding to this insanity will take a while, since I don’t have access to my notes tonight.
        Back later.

        • OFM says:


          ” The taxpayer not only shells out at the pharmacy but often plays a critical role in funding these drugs in the first place. In other words, the public pays twice.

          Although the pharmaceutical industry justifies routine overcharging by pointing to the huge, and uncertain, costs of research, the truth is that the government historically took, and continues to take, the greatest risks.

          Since the 1930s, the National Institutes of Health has invested close to $900 billion in the basic and applied research that formed both the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, with private companies only getting seriously into the biotech game in the 1980s.

          Big Pharma, while of course contributing to innovation, has increasingly decommitted itself from the high-risk side of research and development, often letting small biotech companies and the NIH do most of the hard work. Indeed, roughly 75% of so-called new molecular entities with priority rating (the most innovative drugs) trace their existence to NIH funding, while companies spend more on “me too” drugs (slight variations of existing ones.)”

          “But if Big Pharma is not committed to research, what is it doing? First, it is well known that Big Pharma spends more on marketing than on R&D. Less well known is how much it also spends on making its shareholders rich. Pharmaceutical companies, which have become increasingly “financialized,” distribute profits to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks designed to boost stock prices and executive pay.”


          “Prescription drugs are a massive market: Americans spent $329.2 billion on prescription drugs in 2013. That works out to about $1,000 per person in the U.S., as John Oliver pointed out in his show on Sunday night.

          Oliver also mentioned that nine out of 10 big pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than on research. León Markovitz of Dadaviz found and graphed those figures from healthcare research firm GlobalData in the graphic below. The amounts spent on sales and marketing are shown in orange, while the amounts spent on research and development are in blue.”

          Go to the link, I understand I am not supposed to copy entire articles.

          • OFM says:

            I better reply to my own comment because adding too many links in one comment screws up for some reason.


            “From Robert Reich:

            But pharmaceutical companies don’t own up to the fact that you and I are already paying twice for new drugs. Not only do we pay high and rapidly-escalating purchase prices for them. We also pay through our taxes. You see, a portion of federal tax revenues goes to support drug research.
            For example, eight of the 10 most popular drugs produced by one of America’s largest pharmaceutical companies were developed at the National Institutes of Health, which is a huge taxpayer-funded research complex. Most of today’s anti-cancer drugs also have come courtesy of the National Institutes of Health. Drug companies do research and development, of course. But they devote only 12-and-a-half percent of their incomes to it, on average. They spend more than twice that on advertising and marketing. Much of the rest is profit. And drug companies are very, very profitable. During the recent downturn, the nation’s top 10 pharmaceutical companies reported a 33 percent increase in profits.”

            “Like everything in medicine there are complexities in the issue, but at the center it comes to something pretty simple: The pharmaceutical companies told us that we need to pay ultra-high prices for patented medications so they have the money to develop more wonder drugs. And we said something like, “OK, take what you need.”

            So here I’d like to ask two questions: What are we getting in exchange for these extraordinary costs? And is it time to revisit the bargain?

            First, let’s talk about how much we pay. Like almost everything in medicine, “we” in the U.S. pay much more for prescription drugs than almost anyone else in the world. Name-brands always cost more than generics, but the name-brand drugs cost far more in the U.S. than in the rest of the world.
            Medication and Dose Price in the US Price in Canada
            Abilify 20 mg $40.51 per pill $4.33 per pill
            Effient 10 mg $12.59 per pill $2.96 per pill
            Humalog Insulin 100 units/ml $12.47 per ml $2.78 per ml
            Pradaxa 150 mg $5.64 per capsule $1.78 per capsule
            Spiriva 18 mcg $10.98 per capsule $2.34 per capsule
            Xarelto 20 mg $11.60 per pill $3.06 per pill
            On page 17 you’ll find the above table which is an analysis of the consolidated statements of income for Pfizer. You can see from the first line that Pfizer reported just over $67 billion in revenue in 2011. A few lines down you can see that they spent just over $9 billion on research and development that same year. OK, $9 billion is a lot of money. It was nearly 14% of their total revenue.

            But what’s really interesting is that you can see that Pfizer spent more than twice as much on Marketing (selling, informational and administrative expenses) as they spent on research; over $19 billion! And look at their profit for that year. They made just over $10 billion in net income (after taxes) which, by the way, is more than they spent on their research for that year.

            So the cost of research wasn’t exactly eating all of Pfizer’s income pie in 2011. But that’s one pharmaceutical company’s financial statement for one year. How about the rest of them?

            As I said before, I went over 13 years of financial reports for 12 major pharmaceutical companies and here is some of what I found:

            -The combined total revenue for all 12 companies over 13 years was about $5.35 Trillion.

            -The Combined total profits for these companies was about $1.05 Trillion.

            -All 12 pharmaceutical companies spent a total of $887 Billion on research.

            -The total amount they spent on marketing was nearly twice what they spent on research: $1.59 Trillion.

            Here’s the same information in two graphs: ”

            anybody can go to the link directly. The rest of the link presents some extremely damning information about the ways drug companies report their revenues, for instance take over money can be presented as research money and marketing money can be made to look like research money.

            In order to get it, you will have to read the link, it’s too involved to summarize easily in a few words.


            an excerpt

            Certner had a different take:

            “I would say we’re the only country in the world that doesn’t use the marketing power the rest of the world does” to bring prices down, he said.

            The elephant on the sidelines is the U.S. government itself, which would have significant negotiating power — if it were allowed to negotiate, which it’s not. This part of the issue is one of the wonkiest subjects to have percolated into the 2016 presidential race, with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both promising to combat high drug prices by allowing Medicare to negotiate. Among Republicans, using the government’s bargaining power against the drug industry is a non-starter.

            • OFM says:



              “LONDON (Reuters) – U.S. prices for the world’s 20 top-selling medicines are, on average, three times higher than in Britain, according to an analysis carried out for Reuters.

              The finding underscores a transatlantic gulf between the price of treatments for a range of diseases and follows demands for lower drug costs in America from industry critics such as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

              The 20 medicines, which together accounted for 15% of global pharmaceuticals spending in 2014, are a major source of profits for companies including AbbVie, AstraZeneca , Merck, Pfizer and Roche.

              Researchers from Britain’s University of Liverpool also found U.S. prices were consistently higher than in other European markets. Elsewhere, U.S. prices were six times higher than in Brazil and 16 times higher than the average in the lowest-price country, which was usually India.

              The United States, which leaves pricing to market competition, has higher drug prices than other countries where governments directly or indirectly control medicine costs.”

              Now this last quoted paragraph is ample evidence that the author is either afraid to spell out the naked truth, or too ignorant to KNOW the truth.

              The company that has a patented drug has a fucking monopoly on a product that all too often does not HAVE any competition in the market place, meaning a particular drug is effectively marketed in terms usually described with the word MONOPOLY.
              But he goes on to say “In fact, U.S. prices for top brand-name drugs jumped 127% between 2008 and 2014, compared with an 11% rise in a basket of common household goods, according to Express Scripts, the largest U.S. manager of drug plans.”


              “In order to pay for a monthly prescription for Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, an insurer in the United States pays, on average, $215 per customer. Yet the same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23. ”

              I may be wrong, but it’s my impression that the average citizen there lives about as well as anywhere in the world , give or take a few dollars or euros.

              I have hundreds of links and copied articles, but no access to them at the moment.

              These should suffice to make my point that there is no good reason why we shouldn’t deal with drug companies, collectively, the way the countries of Western Europe deal with them.

              After all, at least half of the regulars here occasionally point out how fucking BACKWARD the USA is , compared to these same Western European countries, lol, and how if we were even half way civilized, we would do things the way THEY do, lol.

              • Hightrekker says:

                Top 15 Pharmaceuticals by revenue:

                (It may surprise you how many are European)

              • islandboy says:

                OFM, I see what you have outlined in your posts as the essence of pure unadulterated evil, ruthless profiteering from the suffering of others. The only pills I take are vitamins. I hope that I never have to depend on patented pharmaceuticals to remain alive, healthy and free of discomfort.

                • OFM says:

                  Hi Islandboy,

                  Of course I wish you a long and carefree life, but if you ever do have a bad accident, or catch any one of a dozen plus communicable diseases, or get cancer, etc, the odds are pretty high you will need treatment based on drugs that were patented at one time.

                  But except for the latest generation of antibiotics, it’s a well known secret ( ha ha ) that generics work as well as patented drugs most of the time.

                  And in the case of troubles between the ears…… a joint, or maybe a glass of wine, is as often as not just as effective as anything big pharma sells.

                  My own physician prescribes pills about as freely as any doctor around, but he tells me that over ninety percent of his prescriptions are for generics, because there is usually a generic that is just about as good as anything still under patent, with the only real exceptions being drugs for highly specific diseases such as a particular kind of cancer, etc.

                  The physician I used to go to, a Cuban refugee, often said that eighty percent of all his patients would get well without even coming to see him, and that half of the remaining twenty percent would get well quicker, because he prescribed a drug. Only the last ten percent would get worse or fail to get well in his estimation, without treatment. What he was saying, in essence, is that most of what doctors do these days is unnecessary, and even counter productive in a lot of cases.

        • Nick G says:


          I didn’t say I approve of the current system. Right now medical research in the US totals around $165B, and about 65% of that comes from private drug companies. US R&D is just under 50% of the total for world R&D, and it’s likely that much of the R&D in the rest of the world is funded by selling in the US at US drug prices.

          I’d greatly prefer that the NIH dramatically expand it’s R&D budget (which currently is around $32B), and if (and only if) that happens, I’d be happy to see private drug companies reined in. And, if there were a way to reduce US drug prices and raise drug prices in other countries, that would be great. But blindly reducing US drug prices alone, while making no provision for expanded federal R&D, seems misguided. So far, I haven’t heard *anything* about expanding federal R&D from the people who are proposing US price controls. Until that’s part of the package, it seems like a bad idea.

  54. Doug Leighton says:

    Now this is SUPERCOOL PLUS. I’ve always said that before we’ve managed relegate ourselves to the dustbin of history humans will make some truly interesting discoveries.


    “Technology advances in the past half-century allowed scientists to study these compact stellar objects from space using different wavelengths of light, especially those much more energetic than the radio waves received by the Cambridge telescope. Several current NASA missions continue to study these natural beacons…
    The Neutron star Interior Composition Explorer, or NICER, is the first NASA mission dedicated to studying pulsars. In a nod to the anniversary of Bell’s discovery, NICER observed the famous first pulsar, known today as PSR B1919+21…
    Many nuclear-physics models have been developed to explain how the make-up of neutron stars, based on available data and the constraints they provide,” said Goddard’s Keith Gendreau, the principal investigator for NICER. “NICER’s sensitivity, X-ray energy resolution and time resolution will improve these by more precisely measuring their radii, to an order of magnitude improvement over the state of the art today.”


    • notanoilman says:

      What I fail to understand is, if the jets come from the poles and the pulsar spins about the axis, ie through the poles, how does that sweep the jets to produce the pulses? Anything that you can point me at that can un-puzzle me on this?


      • Doug Leighton says:

        NAOM — Maybe start with ASTROPHYSICAL JETS. The subject of RELATIVISTIC JETS, observationally associated with central black holes of some active galaxies, radio galaxies or quasars, and also by galactic stellar black holes, neutron stars or pulsars is a fascinating subject. Google RELATIVISTIC JETS FROM NEUTRON STARS and see what comes up. The Wikipedia stuff is also a good place to start. YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT ME TO GET STARTED IN THIS.


        • notanoilman says:

          Thanks, tagged that to read later. “YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT ME TO GET STARTED IN THIS” hehe, that’s why I asked for a pointer to the subject instead, thought you would probably point me to one that was most useful.


      • Synapsid says:

        NAOM, you don’t know your peril. Heed his warning.

  55. Hightrekker says:

    Wildfire. In Greenland.


    (is it just me, or are things getting more surreal by the minute?)

  56. Cats@Home says:

    Overflow crowds argue for, against proposed science standards for Nebraska public schools
    By Joe Dejka / World-Herald Bureau Aug 7, 2017


    A former Nebraska teacher of the year voiced his support Friday for proposed science standards that include teaching public school students about climate change.

    Michael Fryda, a science teacher at Westside High School and 2010 Nebraska teacher of the year, said climate change is “established scientific fact.”

    He was among several educators who urged members of the Nebraska State Board of Education to adopt the standards during a meeting that drew an overflow crowd.

    Critics testified, too, questioning whether manmade global warming is settled science.

    “Global warming is a hoax,” said Paul Meyer, former member of the Millard School Board.

    Nearly 70 people attended the meeting at the State Office Building in Lincoln — about 20 were bumped to an overflow room where they watched a livestream.

    Testimony took about 90 minutes.

    Board President Pat Timm told the testifiers that all their comments “will be taken very seriously.”

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Board President Pat Timm told the testifiers that all their comments “will be taken very seriously.”

      Seriously, eh?! Before they take people like the commenter below seriously they should listen to this little skit…
      Dara O’Briain with home truths about quackery

      Larry Johnson · Pleasanton, Nebraska
      Wait a minute. Where is the sea level increasing? I know people that live on the coast and they say the sea is no higher now than it was 50 years ago. According to most all science reports the earth temperature hasn’t changed in the past 17 years.(unless you believe Al Gore) If his prediction was true, Florida should be under water by now. Droughts have not increased. According to the world health organization drought is no worse now than years past, there is just more people living in the drought areas so we hear about it more. Arctic ice, increasing in some areas and going down in others. Climate may be changing, but it has always been changing. Carbon Dioxide has been higher at other times in history than it is now. Thank god for the climate skeptics.


      • GoneFishing says:

        Sack? You are going to need a full containment facility the sixe of Wyoming!

  57. George Kaplan says:


    One of the last bits of fast ice attached to Greenland is just breaking, should be fully detached and moving to the Atlantic melt zone tomorrow. I don’t know the process of how this forms, but I’d guess there needs to be a few years for it to get properly attached and hard, so maybe we won’t see any more. Also I don’t know if this frees up any glaciers, but there look to be a few around there. (you might have to copy and paste the link)

  58. Doug Leighton says:

    This is quite revealing. It’s even worse than I expected.



    • GoneFishing says:

      Once people with their businesses and governments get involved you know the game is on.
      China? Got caught before finding ways around refrigerant rules and getting paid for it. There is a big advantage to underreporting in China from what I have read. Maybe someone can clarify that.
      Don’t want to be down on them if they are actually being up front.

      New World Order? Hah, lucky if we just get Old World Disorder.

      At least we can have some confidence in the atmospheric testing and data, right? Now the denier avalanche will really get rolling.

  59. GoneFishing says:

    It’s starting, power from the Sahara to feed European demand. Biggest hurdle is the local political situation.

    Giant Tunisian desert solar project aims to power EU

    • OFM says:

      I used to be a hard core doomer, but in recent years, due to the extraordinarily fast growth of the renewable electricity industry, and to birth rates falling so far so fast, I have grown cautiously optimistic that there’s a pretty good chance for industrial civilization to survive in many and maybe even most parts of the world.

      Overshoot is as real as it gets, and we’re deep into overshoot, no question. But that doesn’t mean the WHOLE world has to suffer economic and ecological collapse.

      We REALLY need to be putting the pedal to the metal on efficiency, which gets very short shrift in the ongoing discussion of our environmental and economic problems.


      “Energy efficiency is the low hanging fruit: an easy win among the raft of measures needed to tackle climate change. Today, energy efficiency improves by about 1.5 per cent every year. Translated into an equivalent reduction in coal-fired power stations, simply doubling the annual rate of improvement in energy efficiency to 3 per cent per year would set us on a sustainable path.”

      “Philips Lighting CEO Eric Rondolat has called this “The 3% Syndrome”. In terms of reducing carbon emissions, greater energy efficiency could deliver fully two-thirds of what needs to be done to meet the bold commitments agreed at COP 21 in Paris. This incremental gain in energy efficiency improvement would unlock huge benefits – for the planet, its people, business and society.”

      I don’t see any reason at all why we can’t improve energy efficiency by three percent a year, in terms of TECHNOLOGY, or in terms of earning an excellent return on the necessary investment.

      But in order to speed up the process, we need some kick ass political action.

      I’m a big believer in the Invisible Hand, and in markets, and so forth, but this doesn’t mean that I think the HAND and markets will solve our environmental problems QUICK ENOUGH.

      • Hightrekker says:

        I’m more into the invisible fist.
        It seems more representative of capitalism.
        I used to think the difference between user and exchange value was the essence of capitalism.
        But it is really the alienation of labor.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          But it is really the alienation of labor.

          Capitalism/Communism and the entire concept of labor/jobs are completely obsolete!

          “an economic operating system designed by thirteenth-century Moorish accountants looking for a way to preserve the aristocracy of Europe has worked as promised. It turned the marketplace into one giant debtors’ prison. It is not only unfit for the needs of a twenty-first-century digital society; central currency is the core mechanism of the growth trap.”

          ― Douglas Rushkoff, Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus: How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity

          “And spend they did. Money circulated faster and spread wider through its communities of use than at any other time in economic history.8 Workers labored fewer days and at higher wages than before or since; people ate four meals a day; women were taller in Europe than at any time until the 1970s; and the highest percentage on record of business profits went to preventative maintenance on equipment. It was a period of tremendous growth and wealth. Meanwhile, with no way of storing or growing value with this form of money over the long term, people made massive investments in architecture, particularly cathedrals, which they knew would attract pilgrims and tourists for years to come. This was their way of investing in the future, and the pre-Renaissance era of affluence became known as the Age of Cathedrals. The beauty of a flow-based economy is that it favors those who actively create value. The problem is that it disfavors those who are used to reaping passive rewards. Aristocratic landowning families had stayed rich for centuries simply by being rich in the first place. Peasants all worked the land in return for enough of their own harvest on which to subsist. Feudal lords did not participate in the peer-to-peer economy facilitated by local currencies, and by 1100 or so, most or the aristocracy’s wealth and power was receding. They were threatened by the rise of the merchant middle class and the growing bourgeois population, and had little way of participating in all the sideways trade. The wealthy needed a way to make money simply by having money. So, one by one, each of the early monarchies of Europe outlawed the kingdom’s local currencies and replaced them with a single central currency. Instead of growing their money in the fields, people would have to borrow money from the king’s treasury—at interest. If they wanted a medium through which to transact at the local marketplace, it meant becoming indebted to the aristocracy.”

          ― Douglas Rushkoff, Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now

          • Hightrekker says:

            Very cool!
            Now no one needs labor.

          • GoneFishing says:

            So who will build the solar power plants and the wind turbines, if no one works?

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Ah, mon ami! Do not confuse work with jobs.
              I’m actually doing some work right now so I can’t really address this question perhaps I’ll come back to it later this evening.

              • GoneFishing says:

                Whatever works for you.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  So I can only assume that work is something for which you don’t get paid. Taking that another step means no money in the future.

  60. Eulenspiegel says:

    No threat about this here , so a little competition for Tesla in the future?

    They are taking big words – it look likes they plan to have cars with goodenoughs new solid state glas battery working in 5 years.

    A little bit of a game changer for all ICE cars, about 4 times denser energy storage than today lithium batteries, faster charging and more safe. Even low and midrange aviation will be possible with this energy storage.

    • Hightrekker says:

      I would not hold your breath.
      Can’t seem to get beyond lithium ion with anything that scales.
      But we shall see—- I hope it works out.

      • Eulenspiegel says:

        The papers from Goodenough inventing this is one thing –

        But why does a big company like Toyota makes a bold statement to deliver these things 2022 (let it be 2024)? Especially when their former line was hydrogen cars.

        It’s not some startup company making loud noises to get investors money.

        • Hightrekker says:

          I agree.
          It does give credibility.
          But we have been disappointed many times in the past.
          The Japanese commercialized lithium ion in the early 1990’s– it has been a long time.
          But lets hope– battery technology is a huge bottleneck currently.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Hey look how long it took just to get some new Star Wars movies.
            It is taking literally forever to get a rail line rebuilt near me.
            So have patience on the big stuff, there is a lot of money to be made on improved batteries. That means motivation.

  61. Hightrekker says:

    Interesting day at the Dog Track down on Wall.
    We shall see if this continues.

  62. Trumpster says:

    This one is for all the guys who spend so much time, and have so much fun, poking fun at people who take their religion seriously.

    I posted the link up above someplace, about HRC wanting to be a preacher, and this link ain’t from some Trumpster outfit in Russia, or from PODUNK , Middle of the USA, or my own backwoods hillbilly farm country.

    It’s from The Atlantic, one of the most respected publications in the country, and in the world.

    All I can say is HAR HAR HAR, to those of you who voted, but not for Trump, unless you voted Green, as I did, because you voted for a person you have frequently described as a member of a CLASS using words such as ignorant, superstitious, uneducated, insensitive, homophobic, xenophobic …….. I ‘m sure I could think of some others, and I still double dog dare any of you to read the link and comment on it, lol.

    Goddammit, you guys need to THINK a little, and post such comments in forums that WILL NOT BE READ by any body with a passing interest in current and future conditions in the oil and gas industries.

    I know a BUNCH of backwoods Baptist preachers, and every last one of them has a cell phone these days, and every last one of them is a potential candidate for a heart transplant. They would pay lip service to GOD, in the event, but they invariably put their LIFE in the hands of surgeons, if they need surgery. The number of exceptions to this remark is so small as to be entirely trivial. Not a single one of them is foolish enough to handle a copperhead.They are PRACTICAL people, and virtually always find a way to interpret scripture to suit the present day needs of their followers, because the more prosperous their followers are, the more prosperous THEY are.

    The older kids at a fundamentalist church these days are as apt to be enjoying a little porn on their cell phones as they are to be studying scripture, lol. RIGHT ON THE PREMISES, no less. They know more than their parents, nearly every time, about getting access, and hiding it.

    I KNOW , because I was a kid at church once, and we TALKED about it all the time, except for the most uptight girls. Among all the ones known to me, no more than half at the MOST, were virgins the day they got married. The most daring of the younger boys would often have picture or two in their wallet clipped from a skin magazine, and the older ones had stories to tell…… true stories,mostly, if embellished.

    It was simply ASTONISHING how many girls would get pregnant the first week or two they were married, lol.

    Now when this sort of people run across your remarks, it STRONGLY predisposes them to present you the middle finger, by way of rejecting YOUR culture, out of hand.

    This MATTERS, because there are tens of millions of them…….. MORE THAN ENOUGH to swing the results of elections in just about any place in the USA, even in a place such as LA or New York, if the contest is competitive.

    There is a huge and fertile field out there, that religious people and atheists can farm together, with excellent results. It’s commonly referred to as COMMON GROUND.

    I have never YET met a Baptist preacher with more than three or four followers who believes that it doesn’t matter how we treat the earth, and the things that live in and on it. ALL the ones I have met emphasize that there is an end coming, but they ALL say it will arrive like a thief, maybe today, maybe next year, maybe next century or next millennium.

    They as a class or group say in the meantime that we should exercise good judgement, and common sense.

    They are NOT opposed to common sense measures , such as a clean water law, or a clean air law, etc, so long as it is explained to them in honest and respectful language. They SUPPORT such measures, right across the board, as you will discover if you actually TALK to them, so long as they are acquainted with the actual FACTS.

    Sure there are exceptions, but they are so few it’s very unlikely that I will ever meet one of them, personally. The media seek out these exceptions, and use them to portray the GROUP as ignorant, backward, etc.

    I could drive a hundred miles, and find some, because that’s about how far it is to the current day edge of coal country from my home, and there are plenty of POORLY educated people in coal country who really do believe that there is a war on coal, and so they are predisposed to believe anything promoted by their PERCEIVED cultural enemies , the big D Democrats.

    Now I’m hoping my old buddy HB will chime in at this point.

    I’m afraid he is about to give up on helping me, but maybe he’s just resting up and will get back into the game in a day or two. I guess I ought to apologize to him for saying all the nasty things about him I have said, but if I were to do that, he would of course use my apology to try to prove he’s right, and that I’m wrong, lol.

  63. Trumpster says:


    If Trump didn’t make a HABIT of talking foolishness this way, I would be willing to accept the premise that he is trying to talk to Dough Boy in terms he understands.
    But he’s not, he’s just the idiot he is.

  64. Hightrekker says:

    Before Christmas, it is likely the US ultra-right elite will be faced with a choice: stick with Trump, corralled behind a wall of former generals and hamstrung by a potential impeachment. Or switch to the plan as it was in early 2016 – a socially conservative, libertarian presidency headed by Pence.

    As we watch it unfold from Britain, one parallel with our own situation becomes obvious. In both countries, an elite group has forced a proactive break with globalisation: “America first” and Brexit are both attempts to save national free-market projects at the expense of ditching multilateral systems and rules.

    But once the external constraint is ditched, the modern right has this unresolved dilemma: the levels of economic freedom it wants always produce levels of discontent that require political freedom to be curtailed. The Brexit-boosting types here and the Steve Bannon types in the US share a fantasy about the kind of market-driven society they want to live in, but can see no way to achieve it other than through a period of chaos.

    What they created, between June and November 2016, was two unstable democracies – unstable not because their institutions are weak but because their elites are divided and political liberalism directionless. Neither impeaching Trump nor putting Brexit on the backburner solves this fundamental problem.

  65. Trumpster says:

    I don’t have anybody to talk to who actually knows anything much about state of the art intelligence technology, such as satellite surveillance.

    But maybe somebody here is on more or less up to date with what is possible.


    So- if anybody has an opinion on this question, I’m eager to hear it.

    Is there any significant possibility that North Korea can launch an ICBM without us having a very good idea the launch is going to happen at least an hour or two in advance?

    Would it be possible, judging from the path the missile is taking, to know within a very short time, the first minute or two, after launch, that it is headed our way?

    I have reason to speculate that if Uncle Sam wants to take out a missile launched in NK, and is ready, when it leaves the launch pad, he can do it. But once it’s well on it’s way, there is probably little to no chance to stop it, using currently available tech.

    One things for sure. NK won’t get off more than a couple of missiles by surprise. After that , the NK military, excepting the part of it dug in deep, and thus stationary, will more or less cease to exist, except as a guerilla force perhaps.

    I doubt Dough Boy has enough FUEL to launch an invasion of South Korea, and his equipment is definitely almost all last generation or two generations old.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      I heard they have the ability to read a licence plate moving 60 mph

      It’s been in the news that the U.S. has been flying B1B’s around the clock out of Guam for more than a month

      Also in the news, the U.S. in the last month blew up an incoming ICBM successfully

      • Hightrekker says:

        I’ve lived in Guam several times.
        My brother lives there.
        All kinds of military toys on the island.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Now, now Caelan. Soon all the tech that a person will need will fit in one or two cellphones. Energy will be taken right out of the air and soon after that the bio-revolution will change most tech to biological. It’s a growing process as we learn to become symbiotic with the world instead of parasitic. The way backward is toward total disaster. Going forward is the only way to avoid total disaster.
      No guarantees, but 7 billion people are not going to go down easily so we need to take the chance at working this out.
      When I look at the problem, it seems more like our social and monetary system is at fault versus technology. We need to stop letting the super-rich suck the world dry and propagandize people into becoming consumers instead of producers.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        When I look at the problem, it seems more like our social and monetary system is at fault versus technology. We need to stop letting the super-rich suck the world dry and propagandize people into becoming consumers instead of producers.

        I agree!

        BTW, for all the neo luddites out there… Technology is the science of the application of knowledge to practical purposes : applied science. A scientific method of achieving a practical purpose. Tools are a prime example. Be they a flint knife, a lever (a simple machine), a bicycle, a sailboat, a computer chip, a super computer to model climate, chemical processes, antibiotics, or something like CRISPR to genetically edit a genome and modify a living organism.

        Technology, or our tool making capability is basically what makes us human and who we are. For better or worse, it is what has allowed us to build a civilization. To rail against technology at this particular juncture in human history is misguided at best and and a sign of ignorance, and superficial shallow thinking at worst.

        Humans are a part and product of nature and we happen to be technological apes. Time for everyone to grow up, take responsibility and deal with reality! Are we smarter than yeast? Dunno. We’ll find out after the fat lady sings…

    • GoneFishing says:

      1.5C rise since 1910 and no sign of stopping. At latest rates (50 year span) 3.0C before 2100.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Given my current age, and barring unforeseen circumstances, it is still highly unlikely that I will even live to see the mid 2030’s. Though I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t want to be alive on this planet with a 3.0C temperature rise since pre-industrial times, and a predicted population of 9+ billion. My sincerest apologies to my descendants should they have to experience that future!

        If we do get to 3.0C temperature rise, then I hope all the reality denialists and anti science folk get to experience firsthand, the worst of things like droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, pestilence, famine, sea level rise and all the social upheaval that will accompany all of the above. Too bad billions of innocent people will also have to suffer because of the intransigent beliefs, greed and arrogance of those who continued to push the everything is just fine no need to change anything propaganda…

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Then again, it’s possible that climate change might be the least of our worries…

          Donald Trump’s religious adviser has claimed God has given the president the authority to take on North Korea.

          Robert Jeffress, who is one of Trump’s top religious aides, said in comments carried by The Hill that Trump was given “full power” to fight evil, including North Korea.

          “When it comes to how we should deal with evildoers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary, including war, to stop evil,” Jeffress, the pastor of an evangelical megachurch, said in a statement carried by the political website.

          Makes sense, I’m sure Kim Jong Un and his Korean shamanist and Chondoist. advisers think Trump is the incarnation of evil too!

          • OFM says:

            Hi Fred,

            This brings up an interesting point. Does anybody actually know anything about what Dough Boy actually believes, other than believing in staying in power and living like an oriental prince ?

        • GoneFishing says:

          Fred, as the temperature rises above 2C and the first meter of sea level rise becomes obvious these pesky humans will do what they always do. They will adapt but at the same time they will play the geo-engineering card if possible.
          The difference is that what we do purposely will be in the stratosphere so it will be much more effective at dimming the planet than all that tropospheric pollution we produce now. Who knows what that will really do? It might work. Then again, knowledge will be much greater if we haven’t blown ourselves up or done other bad things.

          BTW, I was being extremely conservative and not adding in several of the natural feedbacks that are just building as well as the cleaning effect of reducing pollution by going to renewable energy. You might see at least another degree before being recycled. Don’t worry about your descendants, almost every species must meet with overshoot, just the way it is and we have put it off more than most.
          Has anyone gotten really curious as to why the Arctic is melting when it has 45 w/m2 less insolation than 10,000 years ago? Basically at the minimum insolation now and starting the slow rise back up. That is way less energy than is being added by carbon warming. So who is accounting for the differential?
          Any answers out there? I can think of one but will not broadcast it yet.
          How many giant red flags do we need before we realize that we are not winning the war against nature (ourselves included)?

          • Fred Magyar says:

            Fred, as the temperature rises above 2C and the first meter of sea level rise becomes obvious these pesky humans will do what they always do. They will adapt but at the same time they will play the geo-engineering card if possible.
            The difference is that what we do purposely will be in the stratosphere so it will be much more effective at dimming the planet than all that tropospheric pollution we produce now. Who knows what that will really do? It might work.

            Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?!

            I posted this link recently.
            The Chaos of Predicting Climate Change

            Dr. Tim Palmer, University of Oxford, gave a lecture: “Climate Change, Chaos and Inexact Computing,” as part of a public lecture series at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario.

            He specifically states that he thinks geoengineering of the stratosphere is a pretty bad idea. I think his arguments as to why, are quite reasonable.

            Not that that will stop people from wanting to try it! The consequences and risks of such an endeavor, illustrated by Chaos Theory, being somewhat difficult concepts for most people to grasp.

            • GoneFishing says:

              Once people actually see the danger, the apathy turns to fear and fear makes humans very dangerous as well as unpredictable. So we have double unpredictability on top of uncertainty.

    • George Kaplan says:

      I think they have that chart wrong and it shows 2016 still, even though labelled 2017.

  66. Javier says:

    According to the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), global temperatures haven’t changed since 2002 until the recent 2014-2016 El Niño event.

    Database here:

    No warming for most of the 21st century except for El Niño warming now cooling. Was global warming a 20th century phenomenon?

    • GoneFishing says:

      There is so much money to be made in switching energy sources and in storage (as well as transport) that I wonder when the avalanche of investment will occur. Apparently the first few billions are tumbling down the mountain to cover Fossil Fuel Town.

  67. GoneFishing says:

    This is well worth reading if you have not already done so. Brings up some very strong questions about what has gone on and what is going on with the climate. At least these are real questions.

    This week, the consensus on AMOC was challenged again. A team of researchers have showed in Science Advances that a popularly used climate model may significantly overestimate the stability of AMOC. Once you account for this bias, AMOC proves much more likely to collapse, they argue. And this collapse could happen without any freshwater injection from Greenland.

    In other words, they show that the stress of global warming can push AMOC into collapse all by itself in at least one model. Freshwater doesn’t need to pour in from Greenland for AMOC to fall apart; simply increasing the temperature of the ocean can do it.

    That’s because climate models make AMOC more stable than it actually is in nature, said Wei Liu, an oceanography researcher at Yale University and one of the authors of the study. “In a stable routine, if you increase the CO2, then AMOC only weakens. But in an unstable routine, if you add global warming, then AMOC will collapse by itself,” he told me.


    • Fred Magyar says:

      Hansen, on the other hand, was more dismissive of the study’s approach. “You can’t fix the climate model simulation via ‘bias removal’—you should fix what is wrong with the model physics,” he said in an email. “They are doubling CO2, letting that change the temperature, rainfall, etc. and seeing what that does to the AMOC in their model. It’s been more than 35 million years since we had that much CO2 in the air, and sea level was more than 200 feet higher then. If we (humanity) are so stupid as to double CO2, you can count on the AMOC to shut down much faster than 300 years.”

      Well, if there are intelligent life forms anywhere in the universe, they certainly don’t seem to be living on planet earth, what kind of imbeciles would want to risk damaging something like the AMOC by ignoring the warnings of their own scientists…

      As I replied to a comment by George Kaplan the other day.

      AMOC, runs amok, leaves a muck!

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Neil deGrasse Tyson ✔ @neiltyson
        Odd. No one is in denial of America’s Aug 21 total solar eclipse. Like Climate Change, methods & tools of science predict it.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Fred, are you kidding. Solar eclipses are mind control events that take over people and make them migrate to the shadow spending huge amounts of money, time and energy to watch it get dark for a few minutes. You watch, people by the millions will watch this conjunction of heavenly bodies, if it’s not cloudy. They will even record and transmit it, endlessly playing it over and over.
          And scientists say it has no effect on humanity.

    • Javier says:

      Just a question of my model says versus your model says. All models are wrong but some are useful. It is not the case here. None of these models is useful.

      That’s because climate models make AMOC more stable than it actually is in nature

      Unfounded speculation. Actually evidence says the opposite as there is no evidence that AMOC has ever collapsed. That makes for a pretty stable AMOC.

      • Survivalist says:

        Here’s Javier getting busted for being full of shit and making up lies in his bullshit articles over at Judith Curry


        • OFM says:

          There’s a dead give away in his entire argument that leaves him as defenseless as a two year old all alone in the deep woods.

          He totally disregards the precautionary principle, as if it doesn’t even EXIST.

          Now arguing theory, and eventually being vindicated, against all the odds and all the existing conventional thinking and theory, is one thing, and earns you a place high up in the history of science, if you pull it off.

          Being wrong when you are advocating ignoring the conventional wisdom, when the conventional wisdom is accepted by just about everybody in the academic world, is utterly reckless……. in this case.

          If Javier manages ( along with his defacto allies the bau political camp, dug in fossil fuel industries, etc ) to convince the world that forced warming is nothing to worry about, the consequences will be catastrophic to the tenth degree. If he is a real biologist with real professional ethics…… he wouldn’t be making these arguments without at least acknowledging the PRACTICAL REAL WORLD EFFECT of doing so.

          Just delaying the growth of the renewable energy industries, the implementation of more stringent building codes, higher fuel economy standards for motor vehicles, etc, will result in incalculable environmental damage. IF he is a real biologist, and honest, there is no reasonable way he can deny this particular point.

          There is no doubt in my mind that he is an INTELLIGENT man, but it’s well known that numerous otherwise level headed and intelligent people for one reason or another become obsessed with some particular interpretation of reality, so there is a possibility he is honest and dead serious.

          I wish to point out myself that there is a NON ZERO chance that the climate will not continue to get hotter and hotter, because there is no way to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN some as yet unrecognized negative feedbacks will not come into play at some point.

          My layman’s opinion is that the climate science consensus is generally correct, and I am ready to place a bet, any size I can cover, even money, that we will see a new high annual average world wide temperature record not less than every three years from here on out, as long as I am still around to collect or pay off. I will give five to one odds on that bet at five year intervals.

          I’m thinking that from here on out, I will be posting a comment to the effect that he ignores the precautionary principle every time he posts a comment about climate.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Geophysical and climate studies are underfunded and undermanned compared to the scale and complexity of the systems being studied. So a few innovative researchers stretch those dollars doing field work to such a limited extent and over such a short time that not many are convinced of the results. Is the world treating this with the importance it deserves? Not even close, it’s a small sideshow. So by the time we have enough data and research to make strong conclusions the world will have Twittered and Tweeted away another fifty years.
            Here is an example of critical research that should have been put at the top of the world list for funding and support, but is meandering like the stream it studies.

            “It is the key component” in global circulation, says Ellen Martin, a paleoclimate and ocean current researcher at the University of Florida. So when the Atlantic turns sluggish, it has worldwide impacts: The entire Northern Hemisphere cools, Indian and Asian monsoon areas dry up, North Atlantic storms get amplified, and less ocean mixing results in less plankton and other life in the sea.

            If the North Atlantic current slows dramatically, then the entire Northern Hemisphere would cool; a complete collapse of the current could even reverse global warming for about 20 years. But the heat that ocean currents fail to transport northwards would make parts of the Southern Hemisphere even hotter. And a cooler north isn’t necessarily good news. Should the AMOC shut down, models show that changes in rainfall patterns would dry up Europe’s rivers, and North America’s entire Eastern Seaboard could see an additional 30 inches of sea level rise as the backed-up currents pile water up on East Coast shores.

            Others aren’t yet convinced. “The jury is still out,” says Lozier, who notes that sea surface temperature is a messy proxy for current.

            “Weakening is a possibility, but it hasn’t been proven yet,” agrees Laura Jackson of the UK’s Met Office, who studies the AMOC.“We need another decade of observations, at least,” says Jackson, who also keenly awaits the OSNAP data sometime next spring. “Knowing what’s happening at high latitudes well help us determine which model is right,”


            When are we really going to take the study of the earth and it’s system seriously? It is our home and our future.

  68. Trumpster says:

    Anybody interested, the best short pieces I know of about the Trump /Kremlin connection, or possible connection, can be read starting with this link. It was written by an old pro in the spy biz, and there are other links with it, that are pieces written by OTHER old pro spy types who have different opinions.



  69. George Kaplan says:

    A couple of posts back someone asked for an exponential fit to Nasa temperature data. The Nasa/NOAA numbers for July aren’t out yet (I think maybe 16th), but this shows the fit to Copernicus Global anomaly numbers including July. It’s based on twelve month trailing average – i.e. August would show average for previous August to July. The exponential fit has asymptote for the fit is at -0.47K and the Copernicus anomaly is based on 1980 to 2010 average, so I think that fits reasonably well. Hopefully extrapolating the exponential, as I have done contrary to best practice, turns out to be invalid.

    I had a look at Europe only anomalies as well – they are much more variable, have higher average anomaly (about 1 K at the moment) and are best fitted with a straight line. Also strangely the years, like now and 2003, with news making heat waves don’t show up as particularly high or long lasting peaks in the average.

    • notanoilman says:

      That may have been me. I was expecting 1.5C by 2050, it looks like it may be 10 years earlier. 2100 will be a fry up.


  70. OFM says:

    Now about these new super batteries we are hearing about, solid state batteries?

    I am willing to accept the premise that Toyota and maybe some other companies have a few, hand made as it were, buried deep inside thier research facilities. But nobody seems to have publicly demonstrated a prototype solid state battery even remotely suitable for mass production.

    Now let’s assume somebody does have viable design worked out. Is it even remotely likely that even a company with the financial muscle of Toyota can go from prototype to finished battery factory in three years? I see speculation that these solid state batteries are going to be SOLD in three years, but five years as a more common figure. Even five years seems unlikely to me.

    • GoneFishing says:

      By the release date of 2022 they will have been on the project for over 8 years.

    • Preston says:

      I agree with you OFM, Toyota better have a backup plan. They bet big on fuel cells, can they survive another tech miss? They like solid technology because of the fast recharge time but 15 minutes have already been announced without new solid technology and may be good enough.

      • OFM says:

        Hi Preston,
        I’m not saying they don’t have a fair to excellent shot at success, because I don’t know enough about this technology to have an opinion, lol.

        I guessing they don’t have anything right NOW more than laboratory prototypes, or maybe a few experimental solid state batteries made more or less by hand, meaning by super first class technicians who are hands on engineers, physicists, etc in lavishly equipped state of the art research facilities.

        What I DON’T think is that even Toyota can go from THERE to having such batteries in cars in showrooms in five years. There must be dozens or hundreds of tough problems yet to be solved in terms of the actual design of the battery, designing and then building prototype machines to build the batteries, getting a supply line in working order to supply the materials in partially processed or finished form to be used as inputs at the battery factory- which itself will have to be built, etc.

        Five years might be reasonable for bringing little batteries of this new kind to market to be used in phones and computers, etc. Lots of people would be willing to pay an extra couple of hundred for a phone that would stay charged five times as long, and that phone would require only one tiny battery rather than the thousand or more that are needed to build a CAR SIZED battery.

        If they can’t bring it off, they do have a fall back position, which is simply that they can buy batteries from LG, or Panasonic, or even from TESLA,etc, lol. There will be plenty of lithium ion battery manufacturing capacity available within five to ten years.

        If it becomes necessary, Toyota can probably just BUY one or another battery company outright, and only sell any previously contracted production, keeping all the rest for internal use.

        • Preston says:

          Yes, that all sounds about right. It takes a long time to fully test a new battery chemistry – will they stay safe after years in the field? So many things can go wrong along the way.

          Just building the factory takes years and that’s after they finalize the chemistry. Tesla plans to produce more batteries than the yest of the world combined – it’s not like Toyota can just buy a factory like that. But, I wish them luck.

          • OFM says:

            I don’t actually have any reason to believe that Toyota is shutting down fuel cell research and development.

            Toyota obviously has the resources to cover a bet on the grand scale in both areas.

            There could still be and probably will be some breakthroughs lowering the cost of building fuel cells.

            And when you get right down to the bottom line, I don’t think it’s necessary that we have hydrogen available at service stations in small towns or on little traveled highways for fuel cell powered vehicles to succeed commercially.

            There are millions of commercial trucks on the road that can be fueled with only a bare handful of hydrogen stations located along major highways, because a lot of these trucks run dedicated routes, there and back , over and over, between major cities, or from a warehouse where they are loaded on a delivery route and back to the same warehouse over and over.

            Even with diesel down around two bucks, it can cost four hundred dollars a day, or even more, to buy fuel for an over the road truck, at four to eight mpg, and running close to twenty hours, legally, with team drivers.
            It’s not unusual to rack up well over a thousand miles within twenty four hours, stopping only for fuel and meals and mandatory rest breaks,which overlap with fuel and meal stops.

            The potential is there for HUGE profits.

            • Preston says:

              I saw one of the Toyato Mirai’s (hydrogen fuel cell car) recently, it’s kind of big and goofy looking and starts at $57,000. It’s not even very fast 0-60 is 9.6 seconds. I’m not a fan.

              Tesla plans on introducing their all battery semi-truck in about a month. It will be interesting to hear, but Elon seems pretty confident they can be better than fuel cell trucks. I suspect they will have some kind of hyper fast charging. That seems technically challenging, but maybe still easier than fuel cells.

    • OFM says:

      My guess is that the industry is a dead man walking in the USA, and in Western Europe as well.

      Just one more bad accident anywhere in the world will finish the industry for good in the West, at least for the medium term.

      But we’re making a major mistake in not providing ample money for research and development of new reactor designs.It has already been proven that we can build reactors that work that produce very little in the way of long lived hot waste, and that produce almost nothing useful for building atom bombs.

      It’s my understanding that it’s possible to build reactors that simply CANNOT overheat to the point that they run away and melt down as well.

      We are always going to need a certain amount of WEATHER PROOF base load generating capacity, and natural gas is a depleting one time gift of nature. I doubt very seriously if gas will be cheap ten or twenty years down the road.

    • GoneFishing says:

      A nuclear energy facility is lethal destruction disguised as an energy source. But we continue to pretend.
      As soon as someone makes a cheap efficient one, nations will be covering the globe with thousands of them.
      Until then, put up with the wind towers and solar farms that people love to hate. They probably hate batteries and pumped storage too.

      • OFM says:

        I wouldn’t really mind a world with thousands of cheap, reliable, and SAFE nuclear power plants, plants that don’t generate isotopes useful in building bombs and that don’t generate a lot of long lived hot waste.

        There are hundreds of millions of people living in places with piss poor wind and solar resources, and hundreds of millions more NEAR places with good resources but on the other side of national borders, which means they are forever at risk of being cut off.

        Safety is always relative. We don’t KNOW that we can’t reduce the risks associated with nuclear power plants to a reasonable, acceptable level. We ought to find out.

  71. OFM says:

    Those of us who are interested in our own health should read this link.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Our food, air and water is poisoned. Maybe being so stressed all the time by those everyday necessities makes us more susceptible to other toxins.
      Personally, I think it’s doctors and x-rays killing us off, but then again they help us too. So I’ll drink to that, but not too much.

  72. OFM says:

    Any farmer, and damned near any ag undergrad, can tell you that crop yields can and do fall off fast if the weather is unusually hot, even if there’s enough moisture.

    But hard data is scarce, because there are so many other factors involved, and getting the data together for enough years in a given location is tough, because detailed weather and yield records for a long enough period of time are scarce, and obtaining and crunching this data is time consuming and can be costly.

    But these guys have done it , for one crop in one location.

    This link is worth every second of the time it takes to read and digest it.


  73. OFM says:

    From an op ed piece in the NYT, which imo throws some light on Putin and an the policies he pursues.

    “But this time the standoff is more principled and, in the eyes of Americans, much closer to home. Moscow is accused of an attempt to hack or influence not just a bunch of computers but the United States’ executive office itself. I remain an agnostic as to whether the Kremlin has really attempted to intervene in the thick of America’s electoral process, but there is little doubt that Moscow was heavily invested in the outcome of the 2016 elections. Hillary Clinton was seen in Moscow as an initiator of an attempt to use Russia’s 2011 parliamentary elections to overthrow Mr. Putin’s regime. Whatever Moscow was doing to try to disrupt the American election was, in Moscow’s view, a tit-for-tat — the usual thing a self-respecting world power would do to foreign conspirators.”

    This WAS written by a Russian, but I don’t have any reason to believe that he is fibbing about HRC monkeying with the Russian election process. I do know that this sort of thing is PAR FOR THE COURSE among political enemies at the nation state level. Anybody who believes otherwise probably also believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too.

    “With formal official ideology long dead, we may never know precisely what theories the Kremlin adheres to these days, but we may be sure that it has full confidence in its presumptions. In fact, Mr. Putin may be right about many things. International relations are no place for moralists. Many political, business and military projects do have global reach and are competitive in nature.

    But the problem with his type of approach, in its Kremlin variety, is that it seems to equate international competition with a Darwinian fight for survival.”

    By SKY DADDY, there is zero doubt in MY mind that international competition can be and IS, in lots of cases, a threat to the survival of peoples, cultures, and nation states.

    “The very audacity of Moscow’s moves must be driven by a feeling of an existential threat. Many of the world’s countries may compete for dominance in specific markets and for political influence, but Russia is distinct in that it seems to fight for survival in situations that no one else sees as existential.”

    Such situations generally are NOT existential in nature, in the short to medium term. But in the long term…… They can and often do morph and grow into threats to the survival of people’s , cultures, and nations.

    ANYBODY who has read a few history books must agree. For example, only an IDIOT will argue that the so called native peoples who lived in North America haven’t been dispossessed and almost entirely wiped out by competition from called Yankees. We Euro /Yankees came, we saw, we exterminated, with a few minor exceptions.

    “This, to me, serves as an explanation of why Moscow often stands out as one of the world’s most unpredictable actors. The costs are mostly paid by the Russian people and, obliquely, by most other nations, especially Russia’s neighbors, because the price of constant uncertainty is punishingly expensive military spending and rising threats to peace and prosperity.”

    Maxim Trudolyubov is an editor at large for the business magazine Vedomosti in Moscow and editor of The Russia File, a blog published by the Kennan Institute in Washington.

    Note that the evidence that this man can write this sort of stuff is proof that Russia is not hopelessly authoritarian these days. Russia may gradually evolve into a more or less free and democratic country.

  74. OFM says:

    Regardless of what you think of the Drudge Report, it’s a great place to have bookmarked, because it has more links that are easily scanned than any other site I know of. Each one gets a one or two line description, and there’s not much in the news that doesn’t get it’s one or two lines and a link.

    I found this one there which is about current events in Venezeula and around the borders of that unfortunate country.

    It’s a more or less continuous stream of news and commentary about the Venezuelan crisis.

  75. OFM says:

    Read for insight concerning how and why the Trump administration acts as it does, and might act in the future.


    Whether you AGREE with anything Bannon has said or done or might do or not do in the future is irrelevant to understanding certain FACTS.

    Sometimes the opposition has a better GRASP of the FACTS than the home team.

    “He was the man credited with saving Trump’s presidential campaign. Brought in from the alt-right website Breitbart at the eleventh hour, Bannon’s advice to pursue a hard-line populist message among disaffected white America helped win the way to Washington.”

    If you are a big D Democrat, and want to win elections, in any places other than the biggest and most prosperous cities and college towns, you had better chew long and hard on the fact that you are fucking at high risk of LOSING unless you remember that there are tens of millions MORE disaffected working class people than there are comfortably well of people who want to vote for the sort of policies that HRC ran on.
    She figuratively gave the working class people of this country, ALL COLORS, ALL RACES, and all cultures, the middle finger, thinking she could win on identity politics and an otherwise Republican Lite platform.

    And she did damned close to doing it , too, except she was so arrogant and insensitive to the real mood of the country that she spent critical time hanging out with banksters instead of campaigning in places that she ASSUMED were safe for her, because they had always been safe for Democrats.

    But when a presidential candidate IGNORES working class people, assuming they are stupid enough not to notice what sort of policies the candidate advocates and what sort of people the candidate hang out with, it’s the CANDIDATE that’s stupid.

    I know plenty of REASONABLY comfortable Democrats who felt safe and justified voting for Clinton. But I know a lot MORE people who were frustrated, mad, and SCARED about their future.

    There are thousands of scared people in my stomping grounds, versus maybe a third as many who don’t feel threatened by HRC type economic policy.

    Government employees never feel threatened by free trade, because government jobs are never off shored. Health care people don’t usually feel threatened, except that they perceive a long term threat to their cushy incomes and freedom to work for who they please, instead of being de facto government employees.

    People who live on invested money didn’t feel threatened because HRC campaigned on Republican Lite economic policies.

    But everybody else……….. well, most of them were worried, or scared, or mad, or all three.

    If you are a Democrat, big D, and you want to win elections, well, maybe you ought to at least THINK ABOUT what I have posted here for the last year or two.

Comments are closed.