405 Responses to Open Thread Non-Petroleum, August 24, 2017

  1. Fred Magyar says:

    Looky! TRump made the cover of Stern magazine.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      And in case that’s not strong enough or clear enough censure…


      UN body criticizes US “failure at the highest political level to unequivocally reject racist violent events”

      GENEVA (23 August 2017) – The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has called on the Government of the United States of America, as well as high-level politicians and public officials, to unequivocally and unconditionally reject and condemn racist hate speech and crimes in Charlottesville and throughout the country.

      In a decision issued under its ‘early warning and urgent action’ procedure, the Committee — which monitors implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination* — stated “there should be no place in the world for racist white supremacist ideas or any similar ideologies that reject the core human rights principles of human dignity and equality.”

      “We are alarmed by the racist demonstrations, with overtly racist slogans, chants and salutes by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, promoting white supremacy and inciting racial discrimination and hatred”, said CERD Chairperson Anastasia Crickley.

    • Hightrekker says:

      Crying Neo-Nazi Leader Christopher Cantwell Denied Bail
      (like cockroaches when the light goes on, they scatter)


    • GoneFishing says:

      This is the new replacement for the Statue of Liberty.

      • OFM says:


        I don’t want to defend the people involved in any way , but I do wish to point out that while they obviously exist, they are very very few in number, in relation to the population of this country. Hopefully, they won’t breed successfully.

        So far , I haven’t met even one person who supports them, although a few people are prone to point out the fact that the left wing has effectively denied the right wing the opportunity to speak on many college campuses.

        Most of this sort of people, maybe all of them , are so dumb that they don’t understand that they are destroying their own cause. Confederate monuments that might have stood for centuries to come yet, as tourist attractions if nothing else, are coming down right and left, lol.

        Come to think of it, I wonder what effect the loss of these monuments will have on the tourism business in the South. The Civil War has been a gold mine for people who own businesses near particular famous battle fields for the last century plus.

        • Gerry says:

          In 1933, when Hitler was voted into power, party membership was at 850.000, at a total population of about 65 million.

          It’s probably safe to assume that any convinced Nazi was already a party member at that time, with a certain percentage of opportunists among members not caring about ideology.

          Less than 1.5 per cent of the population were able to transform the entire country in what would be called “Gleichschaltung” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung )! Small numbers of people can still wield enormous political power!

          I’m still hopeful for the US though, because – unlike Germany in 1933 – you have two centuries of democracy and free speech, deeply rooted in large parts of the population.

          Coming from a thoroughly militaristic and monarchistic past, Germany had had only 15 years of democracy, plagued by economic turmoil and unstable political alliances with a population very skeptical of democracy and large affection for the idea of a “strong man” leading the country into better times.

          • HuntingtonBeach says:

            This Holocaust Survivor Noticed A Detail In Charlottesville You Might Have Missed

            The white supremacist’s T-shirt was the first thing Rosenthal saw. On the shirt was a picture of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, a pre-WWII leader of the Romanian fascist Legion of Saint Michael the Archangel and the Iron Guard political party, which were both linked to the Nazi party.

            Codreanu was the face behind pogroms in Romania. The large-scale violent riots killed tens of thousands of Romanian Jews during the 1930s leading up to the Holocaust.

            “I recognized the name right away,” Rosenthal said. “You see something like this, you know, it brings back memories and I’m concerned about what could happen in this country,” he said.


          • Fred Magyar says:
          • George Kaplan says:

            Hitler was not voted into power, the communists and national democrats (I think – they might have had a different name) were the two leading parties but neither had a majority – they made Hitler chancellor, both thinking exactly the same: that he would quickly screw up and they would sweep in to save the day. Unfortunately for them and the world that strategy failed as he then started shooting and imprisoning all opposition.

      • Hightrekker says:

        Fascism is capitalism in decay.

        — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    • Hightrekker says:

      Our current civilization could not survive in it’s current form without the diesel engine.
      In 3 days, most would be without food.


      • GoneFishing says:

        Same could have been said about the steam locomotive. It took over thirty years to get rid of them. This should be faster. But of course we could do it slowly and let the diesel fuel go away first. 🙂 But of course steam never went away, it became a way to make electricity. So the steam engine still lives, just at a distance from the motor.

        It only took about 20 years to get rid of the horse and buggy across much of the world when mas production cars came out. ICE cars are more competitive than horse and buggy but they have no future, not in the long run.

        It is much easier to take a lot of time developing engines and transport in a civilization designed around minimal slow transport. Now we have to step right into the shoes of a highly developed fast transport system that wastes huge amounts of energy to move quickly across the land, sea and air. The only energy we can have an excess of in the future is electricity. Ergo, electric transport and fuels chemically energized by electricity. Amazingly, the EV is now competitive in many ways in a very short time and ways to charge independent of fossil fuels are already in place (and growing fast).
        So the direction is obvious.
        The question is “Do we have the will to live?”

        • Hightrekker says:

          EV and EBikes make perfect sense.
          (I’m looking at bike’s currently)
          Don’t see it happening for large trucks, which are the mainstay of shipping on land in the US.
          Hopefully we can further electrify trains (most are electric, but powered by diesel generators) for freight.

          • OFM says:

            Electrified heavy trucks are more or less pipe dreams TODAY. But ten years from now? Who knows?
            It’s for sure that rail can be brought back, so that we can use trucks mostly for the last ten or twenty miles rather than the last two or three hundred, or for three thousand miles.

            • GoneFishing says:

              Right now Li-ion has about 250 watt-h/kg energy density. When it reaches 400 Wh/kg then an extra 3000 pounds will make the electric semi about equivalent in range to the diesel semi.

              However, too much of our thinking is to copy what we have and do today and adapt new tech to that model. There is no good reason we have to handle and use semi trucks in the same way or build them the same. We need new systems thinking not just substitution thinking. I have some creative ideas along that line.

              Of course we could dawdle away our time following the fossil fuel ways and then diesel will leave us high and dry as petroleum sources dwindle. Good plan?

              An interesting new breakthrough that might change the way batteries are made and double the energy density.

            • alimbiquated says:

              Also, it might be an inconvenience for goods shipped by truck to not be available, but it will certainly not be The End Of Civilization As We Know It.

              Cheap long range delivery is partly baked into the economy, but the economy can adjust if it declines or disappears.

              It’s the same thing as expensive gas. Would American civilization disappear from the face of the earth if oil cost $10 a gallon? No. It would be a shock if it came too quickly, but even then people would adjust even if it did.

          • Nathanael says:

            Battery-electric heavy trucks for really short distances are already being sold by BYD and bought by ports.

            For longer distances (200-300 miles) Tesla is unveiling their semi on the last day of September; it will probably be mass-produced in late 2019.

            For super-long distances, put it on the train.

        • Mike Sutherland says:

          First of all, electricity is not energy. Electricity is a means of energy transport. Secondly, there is absolutely no advantage to an electric vehicle over an ICE, and in fact it is less efficient. In the case of the electric vehicle, the power still has to come from somewhere – i.e. a hydrocarbon fired power plant 0-100 miles away. When all the electric transmission losses are added up, the efficiency for an electric vehicle comes out at best the same or more often worse than an ICE. All that an electric vehicle has over an ICE is an extremely long tailpipe.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Sir, you have apparently believed the stories and myths rather than the science involving our energy sources. Other than nuclear energy, there is only one source of energy, the sun. Almost all our energy comes and came from the sun, including fossil fuel energy.
            Electricity is energy, just one form of it. Fossil fuels are not an energy source, just a carrier of the solar energy that was stored chemically by biological use of solar power.
            Definition of Electricity : a form of energy resulting from the existence of charged particles (such as electrons or protons), either statically as an accumulation of charge or dynamically as a current.

            Please show me your calculations on efficiency of EV’s versus ICE vehicles, as I have put mine up many times on this site.

          • islandboy says:

            This comment is so last century. Electric vehicles have changed a lot since Tesla came into the picture. I dare you to drive one and tell us “there is absolutely no advantage to an electric vehicle over an ICE”. Almost every point in this comment has been thoroughly debunked.

            It would help if people spent some time over at insideevs.com.

            Might this comment have something to do with this: “Koch brothers launch new misinformation campaign against electric cars”.

          • notanoilman says:


          • Songster says:

            You obviously haven’t driven or owned one. They, to me make driving fun again. Instant torque, corner like they are on a rail, and cheap to drive.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            First of all, electricity is not energy

            I see Gone Fishing has already set the record straight on that one…

            WTF! Did any of you trolls even finish high school?!
            I mean seriously, is physics and chemistry no longer part of the basic curriculum?


            • Mike Sutherland says:

              Damn the lot of you fools. Electricity is not energy, it is a transport mechanism for energy and any boy scout knows that. Remedial physics for you knotheads – work (energy) = force*distance. Work is done at the power plant, transmitted via wire to a load, which is a force acting through a distance such as a furnace fan, refrigerator compressor, or a resistive load such as a TV.

              Outside of nuclear, the only way that work is performed in this world is by burning something, i.e. a hydrocarbon, and using the expanding gas to drive a piston or a turbine. That’s it, that is all there is. Oh I suppose one of you is going to point out that solar and wind can be used to power an EV, and sure that can happen, but this year alone dozens of solar panel makers have gone bankrupt. And in Alberta, many if not all of those windmills installed at Pincher Creek are being removed by the government, which was one of the windiest places in Canada (yes, Pincher Creek AND the government). Turns out that they cost more to operate than the power they put out.

              Did any of you EV acolytes ever ask yourselves, why is there a power line going to my house instead of a long series of pulleys and cables? The answer is that at one time, pulleys and cables were indeed used to transmit mechanical power over long distances to businesses such as factories and flour mills. When it was discovered that electricity could be used to do the same thing over long distances with only two stationary conductors, out went the long belts and pulleys and in went the power lines. But at the end of the day, they both did the same thing which was to transmit power generated by either a water wheel or a steam engine.

              I find that this board is populated with squealing virtue signallers that can’t and won’t understand basic physics. ELECTRICITY IS NOT ENERGY, IT IS BUT ONE MEANS OF TRANSPORTING ENERGY FROM A POWER SOURCE TO A LOAD. BTW, I’m a mechanical engineer and I’ve worked on power systems for a portion of my living. I’ve long endured the ridiculous EV echo chamber here that love to tell each other fantastic BS stories about a glorious EV future. It is childish and it needs to stop. While I’d like to own and drive a Tesla myself, they won’t solve anything. The energy has to come from somewhere to run the thing, and that energy source will be a coal or gas fired turbine connected to a generator, which in turn will send power through a transmission line to charge your beloved EV. That is all there is and it is all you’re going to get.

              • Eulenspiegel says:

                Then civilization is at an end in 50 years, and we’ll go back into the caves.
                First oil runs out, then gas and at last coal. At least there are a few dozend years of steampunk until the light goes out. When China, India and Africa are developing faster it’s further.

                Electrcity can only be generated with fossile fuels?

              • Songster says:

                Sorry Mike, but you just don’t have a clue. Solar panels and/or wind will do the job. What relevance is it that some solar panel makers have gone bankrupt? There is no shortage of them. Many will go by the wayside due to technology changes over time. How many oil companies have gone bankrupt? Your logic is extremely flawed. Quit repeating that electricity is not a energy source. It is known by all here and for you to keep repeating it reveals you for the troll that you seem to be. EV’s will take over the majority of transportation because they are a superior way to transport. Some EV’s now at 300 miles plus range…and climbing.

              • JN2 says:

                BTW, I’m also a mechanical engineer and electricity is energy. And the source does not have to be a fossil fuel powered remote generator. Wake up Mike, these are modern times 🙂

                • Mike Sutherland says:

                  JN2. I am awake and I use all the modern tools such as computers, FE analysis, SolidWorks etc etc.

                  Okay, let me say it this way… despite widespread usage of the term, ‘Electromagnetic energy’, electricity is not energy, or at least it is not mechanical energy required to drive a vehicle. A prime mover is needed to do work on a generator, and it is this device that sends electricity around a circuit. As you are a mechanical engineer, you will certainly have been taught that it is analogous to a hydraulic pump driving fluid around a circuit such that a motor or cylinder somewhere in the circuit can be utilized to move a load. The fluid (electricity) itself is not the energy, the fire-heated expanding gas driving the piston or the turbine (and subsequently driving a pump) is.

                  When it’s traveling in an electrical circuit, electricity is just a fluid moving energy from point A to point B.

                  • islandboy says:

                    ” A prime mover is needed to do work on a generator, and it is this device that sends electricity around a circuit.”

                    What does one make of the much ballyhooed photovoltaic effect? Is it just a figment of our imaginations? If it is, that figment of our imaginations makes up over 300 GW of global electricity generating capacity, a figure that is growing at a compound annualized growth rate of over 40%.

                    IHS Markit raises global solar installation forecast by 14% over Chinese solar boom

                    Dive Insight:

                    IHS said the “significant upward revision” of its 2017 forecast is the result of larger than anticipated activity in China in the first half of the year, activity that IHS sees continuing into the third quarter.

                    Based on an analysis of connection statistics, IHS estimates that 26 GW of installations were completed in China in the first half of the year and another 12 GW are slated to be installed in the third quarter. IHS had previously expected installations to peak in the second quarter.

                    IHS says the Chinese boom is consuming a large portion of global PV supplies, which will result in increased prices and lead times into 2018, which is delaying solar projects in Japan, India and Latin America.”

                  • alimbiquated says:

                    No, AC doesn’t travel in a loop. The electrons just jiggle a bit, moving less than a micron at normal frequency.

              • islandboy says:

                Fools? I’m sorry Mike but, my background is electrical engineering and I have to call bullshit on your claim that, “Outside of nuclear, the only way that work is performed in this world is by burning something/”. Electricity performs a lot of work world wide. It lights up our homes and our cities. It moves us around on moving walkways, escalators, elevators, subways and high speed trains (in Europe and Asia). Construction cranes use it to lift construction materials to dizzying heights. It provides the motive power for our factories.

                The fact that Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear provided almost 80% of the electricity generated in the US for the first half of 2017 belies the fact that renewables produced about 20%. In 2009 renewables, including hydro produced less than 9% of US electrical energy. Solar produced 2% of the electricity for the first half of 2017, up one hundred fold from 0.021% for all of 2008. As far as solar goes, that genie is out of the bottle and there ain’t nothin gonna get it back in! See:

                Renewables generate (almost) as much U.S. power as nuclear during H1 2017

                As for “The answer is that at one time, pulleys and cables were indeed used to transmit mechanical power over long distances to businesses such as factories and flour mills.” What would you describe as long distances in this case? One hundred meters (100 yds.)? Eight hundred meters (half a mile)? Eight kilometers (5 miles)? Can you you cite an instance where “pulleys and cables were indeed used to transmit mechanical power over long distances to businesses such as factories and flour mills”, long distances being more than 100m (330 ft.)? AFAIK in the old days, facilities requiring power were sited as close to the source of the power (usually a river) as possible. In the case of wind, the mill or pump was at the base of the tower, hence the term windmill. Steam engines were what allowed work requiring a turning force to be moved further away from rivers.

                As far as the future goes, I’m sure you heard about Solar Impulse II, the experimental aircraft that circumnavigated the globe without using a drop of fuel (solar power only). If they ever come up with a successor it will be smaller, lighter and faster. The PV cells will be more efficient as will the motors and the batteries will have better energy densities.

                European Plug-In Electric Vehicle Sales Up 41% In July.

                GTM Research: Global solar capacity to rival nuclear by end of 2017

                The report from GTM also notes that including 2017’s expected installations, solar’s global capacity will stand at around 390 GW, approaching that of nuclear energy, which stands at 391.5 GW, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.

                While this is comparison is only in terms of capacity, and nuclear is still a much larger energy source in terms of generation – where nuclear produces around 11% of global electricity supply compared with PV’s 1.8%, the statistic still demonstrates solar’s impressive growth in recent years.

                In its report, GTM also notes that solar’s growth rate and cost reduction in recent years has exceeded all predictions, and that the technology will likely reach 871 GW installed capacity by 2022, more than double that of current nuclear installations.

                Note that for solar to rival the production from nuclear, capacity will have to grow to at least five times the capacity of nuclear but, that’s impossible. Right?

                • Mike Sutherland says:

                  Island Boy – see this site regarding long distance power transmission using ropes and pulleys; http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/03/the-mechanical-transmission-of-power-3-wire-ropes.html

                  An excerpt from the first paragraph of the article:

                  “You don’t need electricity to send or receive power quickly. In the second half of the nineteenth century, we commonly used fast-moving ropes. These wire rope transmissions were more efficient than electricity for distances up to 5 kilometres. Even today, a nineteenth-century rope drive would be more efficient than electricity over relatively short distances. If we used modern materials for making ropes and pulleys, we could further improve this forgotten method.”

                  BTW, if you were a skier, you would have known that very modern examples of long distance rope and pulley systems are in modern use as ski lifts. I myself have ridden many of them across Canada, and can attest to their efficacy.

                  • islandboy says:

                    Hmm! Thanks. I actually learned something today! Still, being a sparky I am biased towards electrical transmission of power. I cant imagine that mechanical transmission of power would scale well considering moder power use. For example, trains use electric traction motors to move rather than to try use mechanical transmissions to transfer thousand of horsepower to the wheels.

                    At the other end of the scale the cable release for the fuel tank filler on the Japanese van I drive, has been abandoned in favor of an electrically operated solenoid. They couldn’t even be bothered to use a cable to open a filler access cover less than 15 feet away!

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Mike S is right about the wire rope systems. For certain applications they are quite efficient if designed properly. It was the motors that drove them that were inefficient.
                    Still, the fact that PV now can provide on site power eliminates the need for long distance transmission and losses are very small. Also the “fuel” source is everlasting and needs no transport or local burning.
                    Wind turbines also remove the efficiency problem of double conversion since they are a direct source of energy. Electric motors are also more efficient today than in the past.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Sorry, Mr. Mechanical Engineer. You failed chemistry and physics. Electricity IS a form of energy!

              • Bob Nickson says:

                Nothing to see here. Carry on.

                • Mike Sutherland says:

                  WTF does that idiot picture prove? That electricity travels from a region of high potential to low potential? All the work was done prior to the discharge, and subsequently released as heat. The lightning bolt is an energy conduit, a discharge path between two zones at different electrical potentials. And BTW, are you going to use lightning bolts to charge your EV? That should make for an interesting event to witness.

              • Caelan MacIntyre says:

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

                • Mike Sutherland says:

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

                  • alimbiquated says:

                    Highjacking a thread with long, wild, semi-off-topic claims is trolling.

                    A troll is someone who trolls.

      • scrub puller says:

        Yair . . . .

        Apropos to sweet bugger all while talking engines . . . . .

        Hi-tech folks in the modern world do not realize that steam is an attractive option for comfortable living in a survival situation.

        Of all the all the energy technologies a steam engine is the only one I could build with a lathe and a welder over in my shed . . . and once I have it working (given availability of steel) I can clone it indefinitely.

        My few acres of eucalypt forest would provide more than enough fuel to run a three HP horizontal for a few hours a day and, such a home built engine will provide hot water, heating, and all the energy I need.

        The down side of course is that a certain amount of work is needed every day to keep the jigger running and fuelled.

        Solar panels are fine but I can’t make them or manufacture an electric motor . . . but I can build a steam engine from scratch and clobber a bullock and tan his hide and make a flat belt to drive a saw bench . . . the reason I haven’t is that it hasn’t been necessary but the knowledge and understanding that it can be done should not be lost.


        • GoneFishing says:

          You might want to build a live steam water injector too. No sense in having the boiler blow.

        • OFM says:

          I’m hoping to buy a manufactured built to last just about forever low speed steam engine that I can fuel with wood.

          The odds of my actually needing it are slim, but I have always been fascinated with the technology.
          I know there are some new steam engines available, but nothing specific about them.

        • Nathanael says:

          Actually, I know how to make solar panels at home. Not *efficient* ones, but solar panels. Motors, too — the key there is getting magnets. All electrical stuff requires wires, which requires metal, of course.

          So does your steam boiler. Good luck making one without a metal refinery. A steam boiler is utterly dependent on the industrial supply chain.

          You want something which isn’t dependent on the industrial supply chain? Water power. You can make waterwheels out of wood.

    • scrub puller says:

      Yair . . . .

      I find it fascinating the illustration above would be seen by most folks as an “engine” but, in fact most of the shown design elements are, for the most part, incorrect.


  2. This has to be the news of the day… possibly century. Even if we really have known all along.

    You have been deliberately lied to for more than 40 years on the most important issue to affect you, your children, and your planet. You should be angry. And they should pay dearly. Here is the proof:

    “Their content analysis examines how 187 [Exxon] company documents treated climate change from 1977 through 2014. Researchers found that of the documents that address the causes of climate change, 83 percent of its peer-reviewed scientific literature and 80 percent of its internal documents said it was real and man-made, while the opposite was true of the ads. The researchers analyzed ads published in the New York Times between 1989 and 2004. In those ads, 81 percent expressed doubt about the scientific consensus, tending to emphasize the “uncertainty’ and “knowledge gap,” while just 12 percent affirmed the science.”


    • Javier says:

      Here is the proof

      Proof of what exactly? We don’t even know now what is the contribution to observed warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. After nearly 40 years since the Charney report, the IPCC has recognized complete failure in reducing the uncertainty of the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 in its latest report. If our best scientists don’t know now, how could possibly Exxon know decades ago? Was it an educated guess?

      This has little chance of being won in court once it gets to this expert scientist says but that expert scientist says. And actually going to court could expose the weak basis of the CO2 hypothesis that has been sold as a sure thing, when it is based mostly in assumptions. For a start the warming is supposed to come mainly from feedbacks, but nobody knows how some of the feedbacks actually work. It would be fun to see some climate luminary under oath having to recognize the weak basis for climate alarm.

      • OFM says:

        So says a man who represents himself as a scientist, who utterly ignores the precautionary principle, asking us to ignore the work of countless thousands of other scientists who have been working in the climate field for their entire careers, or in fields that overlap with climate science.

        This is actually pretty simple stuff, at the a b c level. When you add more insulation to a house, it warms up a little inside, simply because the heat produced by the lights, appliances, and people in it can’t escape quite as fast as previously.

        When you put on more clothing, you get warmer, maybe TOO warm, because your body can’t throw off excess heat as fast.

        Keep everything else the same, and plug up a little leak in a lake, and the water level will rise a little,until the outflow again equals the inflow.

        Add sugar to your cornflakes, they get sweeter.

        It doesn’t take an advanced degree to understand such things. Even illiterate farm hands can and do understand such simple concepts.

        We may not yet know how ALL the various feed backs work, but we sure as hell know that when the world greens up in the far north, with the snow falling later and melting sooner, etc, that we are seeing a positive feed back, etc.

        • notanoilman says:

          “So says a man who represents himself as a microbiology scientist,”


          PS My apologies to Javier if I have not got his field exactly right, I will accept a polite correction.

      • Javier says:

        Not surprisingly you defend that all the funding should go exclusively to one side. We’ll have a good laugh when it turns out to be the side that got it wrong.

        • Nathanael says:

          Dennis: please ban Javier. He’s an ExxonMobil stooge, and I’m starting to suspect that he’s actually being paid by one of the oil companies to spread disinformation propaganda. It is not interesting listening to a paid shill promoting science denial while pretending to be a scientist. (He obviously isn’t a scientist.)

          • JN2 says:

            Just hit the ‘ignore’ button. You’ll never have to read him again 🙂

            • Nathanael says:

              Thank you, JN2! I hadn’t spotted that handy little “X” button. 🙂

          • Javier says:

            Nathanael, whatever position you take on anything, I want to be in the opposite one. Clearly you are wrong on everything you say and think. You are a very valuable negative control. No intelligence is expected from you.

        • Survivalist says:

          “Not surprisingly you defend that all the funding should go exclusively to one side”

          I have made no such statement. Your straw dog arguments are pathetic.

  3. Trumpster says:

    From the New Yorker

    “At his rally in Phoenix on Tuesday night, Donald Trump remarked, of his decision to take on the Presidency, “Most people think I’m crazy to have done this. And I think they’re right.”

    A strange consensus does appear to be forming around Trump’s mental state. Following Trump’s unhinged Phoenix speech, James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, said on CNN, “I really question his … fitness to be in this office,” describing the address as “scary and disturbing” and characterizing Trump as a “complete intellectual, moral, and ethical void.” Last week, following Trump’s doubling-down on blaming “many sides” for white-supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee, said that the President “has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability, nor some of the competence, that he needs” to lead the country. Last Friday, Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California, introduced a resolution urging a medical and psychiatric evaluation of the President, pointing to an “alarming pattern of behavior and speech causing concern that a mental disorder may have rendered him unfit and unable to fulfill his Constitutional duties.” Lofgren asked, in a press release, “Does the President suffer from early stage dementia? Has the stress of office aggravated a mental illness crippling impulse control? Has emotional disorder so impaired the President that he is unable to discharge his duties? Is the President mentally and emotionally stable?”

    I don’t think it’s strange at all. Trump isn’t actually crazy in my estimation , though, he’s just ignorant, and stupid, in way too many respects, and in way the hell over his head, without a clue, as lost as a baby in the deep woods.

    I wonder why old HB isn’t helping me help get rid of him. I guess he’s sulking because HRC lost, lol. If he and other big D’s had paid more attention to people like me, they would have supported somebody else, just about ANYBODY else, and that somebody or anybody would almost for dead sure be president today.

    Trump won because he had the luxury of running against the most unpopular Democrat in the history of the party back farther than my own memory reaches, which is pretty far. He didn’t win, in usual sense of defeating her. The D’s threw away an election that should have been in the bag. She defeated herself by hanging out with banksters, and making secret speeches, and thumbing her nose at the rules when in the case of security regs and her secret email system, etc.

    AND of course Trump is much worse. I always said he would be worse, but at least he had POLITICAL BRAINS ENOUGH to recognize the mood of the country, and PRETEND that he was not a bankster, etc.

    With a little luck, the FBI will come up with something that will force him to resign, or maybe even put him in jail.

  4. wharf rat says:

    Texas refineries face flooding, disruption threat from Hurricane Harvey
    -Hurricane Harvey is expected to hit Texas on Friday.

    -The Houston region’s oil refineries could be in danger.

    -It could take 18 to 36 months for refineries to return to full production capacity if they sustain 2 feet of flooding, Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership President Bob Mitchell said.


    • notanoilman says:

      For those who live in Texas, I wish you luck and hope you make it through.


  5. GoneFishing says:

    Animated multidimensional representation of Arctic Sea Ice Volume.


    • Doug Leighton says:



      Only a tiny fraction of Greenland’s ice was predicted to be released this century, resulting in about 12cm (5in) of sea level rise, according to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Because the ice sheet sits on bedrock, Greenland’s thaw was expected to be slow and steady (unlike Antarctica’s ice shelves, which are vulnerable to warmer water below). In the last few years, however, Greenland’s melt has been anything but slow. And scientists aren’t entirely sure why. Warmer temperatures are a factor, of course. Greenland is about 2C (3.6F) warmer now than just a few decades ago. But that alone doesn’t explain it, at least not fully. “It’s not something that’s predicted in any coupled climate-ice sheet model,” said Jonathan Bamber, a researcher with the University of Bristol who uses remote sensing to track the movement of ice sheets. “None of them reproduce that dramatic acceleration in mass loss that we’re seeing.”


      • GoneFishing says:

        What’s the problem? The Greenlanders get to actually have a lot more real estate and less heating problems. Everybody is just so self-interested. Think of the Greenlanders. They can mine all those minerals and have lots more room to live. They can reforest the land and make ski runs for tourists. They should be selling all that ice to the Arabs anyway, I hear they have a shortage of fresh water there. This is one island where the ocean height will actually fall away as the ice sheet melts.
        Plus around the world a whole bunch of people will have beach front property they never expected to have.
        It’s not Noah’s flood, we have years to walk uphill out of the way. 🙂
        See, there is lots of good to look forward to. Though we do expect a thank you note from the Greenlanders. I hope they appreciate all the hard work we did so they can have a better life.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Nooo Waaay! The Arctic Sea Ice is not multidimensional! It is flat and uniform in thickness and the sea ice extent is increasing… On some planet, orbiting in a binary star system in a galaxy in some parallel universe far far away!

      • GoneFishing says:

        I will be glad to sell you a nice pair of cross country skis to take a trip across that flat and uniform sea of ice. 🙂

    • Nathanael says:

      That just leaves Vogtle, which is already spiraling many times over budget.

      Nuclear is unaffordable and too slow. Bring on the solar panels…

  6. Doug Leighton says:

    Feedback in spades I’d say,


    “Forests in Canada are ablaze, with 2.2 million acres going up in flames so far this year in British Columbia alone. These fires, and others in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, have been belching smoke into the air, in some cases up to 8 miles high. According to NASA, the smoke has set a record for its thickness, and has been especially dense across the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut provinces. Studies have tied the increasing number of large fires in parts of Canada and the U.S. to global warming. In fact, the level of fire activity across the boreal forests, which stretch from Alaska to Canada and around the top of the world to Scandinavia and Russia, is unprecedented in the past 10,000 years, according to a study published in 2013.


  7. @whut says:

    I have noticed that Javier follows the Rudyard Kipling approach of scientific argument referred to as telling Just So Stories .

    He has an explanation for everything, but these explanations are wrapped up in so many assumptions and assertions that they become more fantasies than fact.

    Just read one of Javier’s Just-So explanations

    “Compared to the average interglacial MIS 11 started too early in the obliquity cycle and so its start was not driven by obliquity, but by eccentricity and precession with other factors. This produced a relatively cool interglacial that was even cooling further when finally obliquity increased enough and gave it a second push upward. When obliquity had peaked another increase in insolation from precession gave it a third push upward. By then the interglacial had been so long that the thermal inertia was bigger than usual and carried the interglacial further to an almost double the average duration.”

    compare that to Kipling: “How the Rhinoceros Got its Skin”

    “Then he wanted to scratch, but that made it worse; and then he lay down on the sands and rolled and rolled and rolled, and every time he rolled the cake crumbs tickled him worse and worse and worse. Then he ran to the palm-tree and rubbed and rubbed and rubbed himself against it. He rubbed so much and so hard that he rubbed his skin into a great fold over his shoulders, and another fold underneath, where the buttons used to be (but he rubbed the buttons off), and he rubbed some more folds over his legs. And it spoiled his temper, but it didn’t make the least difference to the cake-crumbs. They were inside his skin and they tickled. So he went home, very angry indeed and horribly scratchy; and from that day to this every rhinoceros has great folds in his skin and a very bad temper, all on account of the cake-crumbs inside.

    Sorry, but this guy Javier and Glenn are too much.

    • Survivalist says:

      Many very similar patterns between the two monikers.
      Both have a shared agenda; to devalue the comment threads, and to minimize and negate the perceived significance of climate change and peak oil. Not very good at it though.

      • islandboy says:

        Up until recently it had not occurred to me that Javier was a member of team Koch but, his 08/26/2017 at 3:40 am comment is the sort of thing that leads me to believe that he is part of a strategy devised by the organizers at Team Koch to start spreading their brand of MUD (Misinformation, Uncertainty and Doubt) to the second largest language block in the world, one of only two that have a larger number of native speakers than English. It would seem a relatively small investment to push the message through people such as the native Spanish speakers who have shown up here plus others who are fluent in Spanish and resident in Spanish speaking locations like Mexico.

        The linked comment sounds eerily like the kind of thing you would hear coming from the well known Team Koch members in the US, UK and Australian governments or their membership from the anti-renewable (pro FF) business brigade or the Team Koch funded think tanks, “institutes”, “councils” and “foundations”.

        • Javier says:

          What does it mean to be a member of team Koch? Am I supposed to get any money for posting my opinions and knowledge?

          Climate skeptics are all sort of people, and many do not agree on much except on doubting the official truth. To people like Oreskes, even James Hansen is a climate denier for saying that Paris agreement is useless and we should go nuclear.

          I, for one, think that peak oil is on us and we are going to decrease fossil fuel usage in short order. This is pretty unusual for a climate skeptic. I am also a strong environment protectionist and not a political conservative, and I think Donald Trump is a disgrace, so many of the usual associations are completely wrong with me. While not a catastrophist, I am pretty pessimistic about the future of humanity, but not due to climate problems. I am quite optimistic about climate for the next centuries, although extremely pessimistic about climate in a couple of millennia, but who cares about such a distant future.

          I am pretty sure that if the Koch brothers learn about me they’ll refuse to finance my harmless, but very perturbing to climate-doom church members, comments.

          • Hickory says:

            Team Koch?
            To me it means ‘business profit above everything else’-
            Clearcut all the old growth, plant every arable acre with corn, mine without regard to the rivers or the groundwater, ethnic cleanse the indigenous to get at the resources, burn all fossil fuel regardless of the atmospheric effects, create plutonium without a plan for its permanent sequestration, install government that will enable a multi-national free-for-all, death squads deployed against non-compliant populations, fund media that sugar coats all of this, buy threaten or kill the judiciary, for example.
            I’m generally not for demonizing individuals or groups with terms like ‘Koch team’, but I believe that is what people are referring to.

            • Javier says:

              Well, I clearly do not subscribe to the “profit and growth above anything else” philosophy. Quite the contrary. It is clear to me that our growth based model economy is unsustainable in the medium term and the source of many environmental problems.

              I just fail to see what climate has to do with that. Climate is a scientific question and as such it has only one answer and we are either right or wrong on that. The people that embrace the climate cause because it fits their view of the social and economic aspects of our society are not following science. We have to do whatever changes are necessary to our society regardless of climate or the goodness or badness of fossil fuels for the climate. Fossil fuels have plenty of problems of their own and create all sort of environmental pollution regardless of CO2 (that it is not a pollutant but a life essential molecule), and are associated to lots of wars and geopolitical misdeeds.

              While I totally support energy evolution beyond fossil fuels, since after all they are going to run out, I don’t think it is appropriate to scare people shitless with false climate horror stories to push them down a certain pathway. That type of strategy is shortsighted and tends to backfire once the climate refuses to cooperate.

              Most people are clearly unable to separate climate issues from the rest of the “progressive” or “conservative” package, and they should. If the climate is not a problem, as it looks based on evidence, that doesn’t say anything about the rest of the package. But the association means that if/when the climate scare turns to be a bogus issue, it will be a great victory for the “conservative package” for a long time to come. The longer progressives promote the idea that climate is the worst problem humankind faces, the worst outcome they will face.

              Let’s remember that democratic socialist parties have been almost wiped out in several European countries in what is analyzed as one of the biggest political changes in decades. Losing touch with people is a serious problem in democracies.

              • @whut says:

                “I just fail to see what climate has to do with that. “

                Go away. Understanding climate has everything to do with transitioning to a new economy based on renewable resources. You continue to stink up the comments with your politicking.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi whut,

                  Though I disagree with much of what Javier says, we really do not know what the ECS, or ESS is, that is a main point that he makes which I agree with.

                  Where I part ways is that there is a large range of ECS values that match with historical data in GCM models (ranging form 2.3 C to 5.7 C for CMIP3 based on the MAGICC 6 model, and I am not sure of the range for CMIP5, it might be wider as there are more models).

                  For me the precautionary principal suggests we assume the worst (high ECS) and hope we are wrong (ECS is near the mean ensemble value of 3 C or less).

                  Javier wants to believe only the papers that have results supporting his view, I think reality is likely to be between high and low estimates.

                  High climate sensitivity over land suggests that perhaps higher ECS values may be correct, for a simple model using co2, AMO, SOI, and Aerosols (the CASA model) and BEST Land data, we get a TCR of 3.2 C for a doubling of CO2. This might be close to the Global ECS for Land Ocean Temperature. Regression on 1870-2012 data (where we have AMO and Aerosol data). CC is 0.95.

                  • @whut says:

                    Javier is being insincere in his underlying arguments.

                    First point: He is constantly playing up paleoclimate variations.

                    Second point: The fact that the earth can go through an ice age with such a small stimulus implies that the climate is extremely sensitive to the forcing parameters.

                    Third point: If the climate is so sensitive, we have to be careful on how much we change the GHG concentrations that made this a livable planet in the first place.

                    Conclusion: Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth would be ice with an average temperature of 255K. With CO2, we are at 288K. Double CO2 and who knows how hot it will get?

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi whut,

                    With fossil fuel resources that are likely to be produced, (close to RCP4.5 at most) probably 540 ppm CO2 is the highest atmospheric concentration that is likely.

                    We know how the system behaves from 180 ppm to 290 ppm, beyond this range I agree we are in the dark.

                    Hansen has suggested a different ESS with large ice sheets relative to a warmer world (CO2 at 260 ppm and higher). Probably over the next 500 to 1000 years the ECS is more important and the models suggest about 2.5-4 C of warming for a doubling of CO2.

                    Part of Javier’s point is that we do not know what level of warming will be a problem or how much warming there will be. I believe that point is correct.

                    The thing Javier fails to realize is that the uncertainty cuts both ways, we might have less warming than the mean estimate and we might have more. If the ECS is 4C and atmospheric CO2 rises to 520 ppm and remains at that level, it implies eventual warming of 3.6 C above pre-industrial (after the ocean warms in 400-500 years).
                    Probably atmospheric CO2 will fall to 500 ppm over 450 years and ECS may be around 3 C which implies 2.6 C above pre-industrial.

                    More limited fossil fuel use (as Javier expects due to depletion), may keep atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm and we would be close to 2.1 C above pre-industrial temperatures, if ECS is 3 C.

                    I agree the lower we can keep atmospheric CO2 the better and most ecologists believe even 2 C above pre-industrial will present severe problems.

                    Another problem is how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere. It is removed very slowly with an average half life of 30,000 years. The implied ESS from the LGM to HCO is about 6.4 C for a doubling of CO2.

                    For atmospheric CO2 of 450 ppm and HCO at about 260 ppm and ESS of 6.4 C, that would imply an eventual temperature increase of 5 C. That would undoubtedly be a problem, though less ice today (relative to LGM) likely reduces ESS to 4.5 C, atmospheric CO2 may drop to 400 ppm over 10,000 years which implies 2.8 C of warming, still a problem, but less of a problem than 5 C of warming.

                    We may need to devise safe ways to remove CO2 (reduce population, grow trees, green cement, burn biofuels with carbon capture and storage, or use excess solar energy to chemically create carbonate ions) from the atmosphere.

                • alimbiquated says:

                  Just block him.

                  IT’s important to keep in mind that winning arguments is only one possible goal of trolling. Highjacking conversations is just as important.

                  • Nathanael says:

                    Yep. Javier’s trolling is explicitly designed to stink up the comment sections and prevent us from having useful discussions about anything. It’s like jamming a radio signal.

                    Please ban him. It’s required if you want this place to be a useful location to discuss stuff.

                  • Javier says:

                    That’s funny. Let’s get rid of people that have a different opinion so we can have a discussion.

                  • @whut says:

                    One unsolved climate science problem is ENSO and the El Nino cycle. If you would like to discuss this using applied physics math, contribute comments here or at my blog at http://ContextEarth.com

                    What we are interested in having is contributions not derailing anecdotes that add zero information to the analysis, and, yes, likely hijack the thread. An example of derailing the discussion is Javier’s use of “Just-So” stories that I described elsewhere.

              • @whut says:

                “I, for one, think that peak oil is on us and we are going to decrease fossil fuel usage in short order. This is pretty unusual for a climate skeptic.”

                It’s not unusual at all. On the editorial board of the old The Oil Drum, there were two vocal AGW skeptics — Dave Summers and Euan Mearns.

                That somehow you are special doesn’t work as an argument.

              • Hickory says:

                Javier, I disagree with your characterization of those who are concerned about the CO2 atmospheric experiment.
                The experiment is on a grand scale, and while no one knows the outcome, a person who is at all aware of the big world around them who concludes that we should take a very cautious stance on this matter is on solid ground.
                The probability of a very bad outcome is substantial, enough to trigger great caution.

                • HuntingtonBeach says:

                  The voice of common sense, thank you

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    From wharf rat’s link:

                    NWS meteorologist Patrick Burke told HuffPost the hurricane-turned-tropical storm is now stationary, and close enough to the water that it has an unlimited source of “rich, tropical moisture” from the coast to use as fuel.

                    Normally, storms move and dissipate, he said. This one, however, is not only stationary, but it’s starting to backtrack toward the coast. It will likely drop dozens of inches of rain in the coming days. Isolated areas will see 30, 40 and 50 inches of rainfall over its course, the experts say.

                    YIKES!!! That’s one heck of a lot of water on top of already severe flooding. This could be a Katrina or Sandy level catastrophe.

                  • Javier says:

                    Just for perspective, hurricane Flora produced 100.39 inches of rain in Santiago de Cuba in October 3-9, 1963, producing over 7,000 death in several countries.

                    That was before human global warming.

                    Hurricanes are a terrible thing, but wrongly blaming climate change to pursue an agenda is not acceptable.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Curiosity got the better of me and I unblocked you just to see your reply.

                    That was before human global warming.

                    Hurricanes are a terrible thing, but wrongly blaming climate change to pursue an agenda is not acceptable.

                    Seems you are the one with an agenda, since I didn’t even mention climate change in my comment. I was just speaking as a resident in a hurricane prone area with personal experience with flooding, The comment was intended only as being empathetic to their plight.

                    And btw, humans have been changing the environment and influencing the global climate since at least the dawn of agriculture over 10,000 years ago.

                    Which still probably had nothing to do directly with either Flora or Harvey.

                    Whatever, I’m going back to blocking you, as you have added nothing new, useful or insightful to this thread.

                • Javier says:


                  Alarmists are not guided by scientific evidence and think the IPCC is too conservative. They base their fear on thin air fueled by a few scientists and the press. They are just the doomers that have recycled from nuclear holocaust to the population bomb and now climate warmaggedon. They are exponents of the Murphy philosophy that everything that could go wrong will go wrong and then more.

                  I have nothing against people and scientists concerned by the increase in CO2 that reflect their concerns in the IPCC reports, like Dennis. I think that they are wrong, but I could be the wrong one.

                  Alarmist doomers however serve no purpose and are trying to promote an irrational decision frame. I have no sympathy for them. Their irrational fear is a weakness that leads to bad decisions in important matters.

                  Be prepared for a downgrade of climate negative expectations over the next few years.

                  • wharf rat says:

                    “Be prepared for a downgrade of climate negative expectations over the next few years.”

                    Jim Hansen is asking his publishers to recall all copies of “Storms of My Grandchildren” and burn them.

                    Harvey continues to cause “catastrophic flooding,” National Hurricane Center says


                  • Javier says:

                    What does Harvey have to do with climate change?

                    The frequency of strong hurricanes hitting the US has gone down, not up. If anything we will have to claim that climate change reduces the number of hurricanes.

                  • wharf rat says:

                    “What does Harvey have to do with climate change?”
                    Aside from hot water fueling storms, and increasing atmospheric water vapor, and possibly locking in weather patterns for longer periods of time?

                    “The frequency of strong hurricanes hitting the US has gone down, not up.”

                    Thanks, Obama. Miss ya. He owned our lucky rabbit’s foot, and Trump owns the rabbit who lost it.

                    There has been a substantial increase in most measures of Atlantic hurricane activity since the early 1980s, the period during which high-quality satellite data are available.,,,, These include measures of intensity, frequency, and duration as well as the number of strongest (Category 4 and 5) storms. The ability to assess longer-term trends in hurricane activity is limited by the quality of available data. The historic record of Atlantic hurricanes dates back to the mid-1800s, and indicates other decades of high activity. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the record prior to the satellite era (early 1970s), and the further back in time one goes, the more uncertain the record becomes.


                  • HuntingtonBeach says:

                    On Sunday, the National Weather Service called the flooding that’s quickly taking over Houston alongside much of the coastal area surrounding it “unprecedented” and “beyond anything experienced.”


                    The warmer the water, the bigger the storm

                  • Javier says:

                    Too bad, wharf rat, that the data does not support what you say.

                    US landfall hurricanes are at an all time low since 1900. Source:

                    North Atlantic Hurricanes depend on North Atlantic sea surface temperatures, and I have already shown that NA SST are dropping fast and as cold as they have been in several decades.

                  • Javier says:

                    Read and learn:

                    Duchez, A., et al. “Drivers of exceptionally cold North Atlantic Ocean temperatures and their link to the 2015 European heat wave.” Environmental Research Letters 11.7 (2016): 074004.


                    This is well know by climate researchers and I have told it here dozens of times, but some people have a learning disability regarding climate and are absolutely unable to connect the dots.

                    Less hurricanes, not more. You are being lied about this. Ask yourself about what more you are being lied. Science knows the truth, but you won’t be told.

                  • wharf rat says:

                    “Too bad, wharf rat, that the data does not support what you say. US landfall hurricanes are at an all time low since 1900.”

                    You might want to take remedial geography. The US landfall region is only a small part of the Atlantic region. For instance, last year there was a Cat 5 named Matthew, but it didn’t make US landfall until it was only a 1.

                    That’s why the study says “There has been a substantial increase in most measures of Atlantic hurricane activity since the early 1980s”, as opposed to “increase in most measures of US hurricane activity”.

                  • Javier says:

                    The US is quite large and has the better data. Why since 1980? Hurricanes have been observed for centuries and plenty of data is available since 1900. Much more since 1950. We know of three periods of global warming since 1850. Was there an increase in hurricanes at those periods? The data doesn’t show it.

                    You can say that global warming increases hurricanes, but the data doesn’t support it, so it is probably not true.

                  • Survivalist says:

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


                    Two years later and 2015 is in third place, behind 2016 in first place and 2017 in second place. You’re living in an alternate reality Doc. A dream land. A mathematically illiterate embarrassment to science. Get a grip man.

          • islandboy says:

            One does not have to be paid to become a member of what I am calling Team Koch, one can simply be an unwitting accomplice by falling for their misinformation campaigns. Most of the material going against the scientific consensus on climate change can be traced back to organizations or individuals that have received funding or were founded by the Kochs.

            This is not an amateur operation but, a highly sophisticated and well coordinated campaign to further the interests of fossil fuel industries in general and Koch Industries in particular. So when Javier proudly cites what he thinks are independent sources, they are actual often Koch mouthpieces masquerading as objective sources.

            I have seen enough instances of material seeking to cast doubt on climate change turning out to be Koch sponsored misinformation to be very skeptical whenever I see anything trying to deny the science. In may instances it is just a very tangled web that invariably leads back to the Kochs and their ilk.

            If anyone doubts that these misinformation campaigns have been succesful, just look at the current administration in the US, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and the Koch brothers dream team! Donald Trump is proving to be quite the distraction while the dream team gets to work.

            Investigative journalist Jane Mayer has done quit a bit of work exposing the Koch brothers propaganda machine.

            edit: Incidentally, the last thing I would expect from any part of the Koch propaganda machine is for them to admit it. That would “blow their cover” and expose their deception for what it is. Highly unlikely that we are ever going to see anybody come clean on this.

            • Javier says:

              So if somebody admits being a part of the Koch conspiracy, it is confirmed, but if he denies it, he is still likely to be one. This reminds a lot to the medieval witch trials.

              I do not deny science. There is plenty of uncertainty in the science of climate change that is being swept under the rug.

              The CO2 hypothesis requires exactly of what I am accused of, ignoring a lot of science that contradicts it.

              • islandboy says:

                Here’s a little story for you. A few years ago, Peak Oil was the main thing that consumed my thoughts. I was worried about what would happen if world oil production peaked and started to decline. I had watched all the Peak Oil videos on Youtube and understood the warnings set out in the Hirsch Report. I sometimes spoke to people about my concerns including my only surviving sister who thought I was a bit of a doomer.

                Then one day my sister told me she got a different perspective by talking to a friend who was active in the anti-fracking movement in her country of residence, the UK. Her friend told her that I wasn’t a doomer but, in fact an optimist because I was focused on the things that can be done to help us out of our predicament. Renewable energy, EVs, improved public transport, better design of cities and communities, recycling and proper waste management and improving energy efficiency are all things I talk about all the time. I would be with my sister and see something and remark how different things would be if buildings got most of their electricity from PV panels on their roofs for example.

                That’s kind of smart. It’s like being on the coast of Texas this weekend and heeding the warnings and evacuating. The year 2000 bug turned out to be a non event precisely because “alarmists” raised the alarm and propelled people into action so critical IT infrastructure sailed through the turn of the millennium with little or no problems. I am sure one could find lots of instances where “alarmists” got people to do things that saved property or lives.

                Then there are all the people who say “Look at all the money and effort they spent on the year 2000 debacle and nothing happened!”. These are the people who would rather do nothing in response to warnings because it takes too much effort, no matter how little effort it actually takes. These are the people who ignore severe weather warnings and end up consuming government (tax payer) resources to save their sorry asses. This is how I think of global warming deniers. They are ignoring all the signals and when TSHTF, they are going to want somebody who was paying attention to the warnings to bail them out.

                In my professional life I have been accused of being fussy because I told people that an electrical circuit was overloaded and would trip, only to be vindicated when the exact same circuit tripped in the middle of the event. Was I being “fussy” or was I being smart? Smarter people are guided by people who know more than them and allow specialists in a particular field to do their work.

                • Javier says:

                  Thanks for the story.

                  As a scientist I am only occupied with finding out the truth. I leave to others with more knowledge to decide if we should use more or less fossil fuels or more or less renewables or nuclear. As long as people’s (and mine) energetic needs are covered in an affordable way I don’t give a rat’s ass about where the energy comes from.

                  To me climate change is a scientific problem that is unresolved. I don’t think that mixing it with political, energy, social, and international issues is helping in solving it. Quite the contrary, it is so contaminated that the truth is harder to find, as a lot of interested parties want a specific answer, not the truth.

          • Survivalist says:

            “What does it mean to be a member of team Koch?”

            It means you are a sock puppet.

        • Survivalist says:

          As his failed predictions accumulate he changes to new talking points and arguments.

          Lately he seems to have given up on claiming that multiyear sea ice is increasing.


          Javier’s inane blather will no doubt continue for another year or two.

          • Javier says:

            Well, that’s what the NSIDC data shows since 2007. But the increase is not very significant. What is clear is that it is not decreasing.

            I doubt the question will be settled in just 2 years, but in 7 more years, by 2025 it will be clear that the alarmists have lost this debate.

            • @whut says:

              “… that the alarmists have lost this debate.”

              Science has never been about debate and never will be. If you want debate, go back to high school and join the debate squad. You can win yourself some trophies.

            • Survivalist says:

              Only a cherry picking fool would use 2007 as a starting point for a trend.


              • Hightrekker says:

                Like using 1998 as a starting point for charts.

              • Javier says:

                Every trend changes at a certain point. The evidence that a change in trend took place in 2007 is available in the literature and climate data.

                • Nathanael says:

                  No, it’s not. As usual, you’re just lying for the purpose of spreading disinformation.

                  Go away.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Javier,

                  The proper way to find a change in trend is to pick a starting point near the previous trend line. 2007 was a local minimum, try reading some statistics, you don’t sound like much of a scientist when you make such claims.

                  • Javier says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    We have data that helps us choose the right time for the change. North Atlantic water temperatures reached a peak in 2006 and started to decline in 2007. Weather conditions made 2007 a specially low sea-ice year, but that has nothing to do with statistics. The year is still 2007 for more than one criteria. As usual you concentrate only in a single figure number to apply mathematical analysis without considering the complexity of climate.

                  • Doug Leighton says:

                    Javier MIGHT benefit from looking up Time Series Decomposition which involves thinking of a series as a combination of Level, Trend, Seasonality, and Noise components: a useful model for thinking about time series generally and for better understanding problems during time series analysis and forecasting. Here’s a start:


                    For linear models: y(t) = Level + Trend + Seasonality + Noise

                    For non-linear models: y(t) = Level * Trend * Seasonality * Noise


                  • notanoilman says:

                    I think his alma mater should re-visit his thesis. If he used the same techniques there as he uses here then it will be found to be a load of crap.


                  • GoneFishing says:

                    No hope Doug, I read his comment and it not only contains logical flaws but also does not make much sense.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Hey Doug, You probably have a good enough foundation in statistics that you don’t need this book but Grant Foster, aka Tamino and Javier’s nemesis, wrote both an introductory book on understanding statistics and one that addresses introduction to time series with a focus on astronomical data.


                    I doubt Javier would read it but you never know. 😉

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Also an old post by Tamino:
                    Statistics can be tricky
                    Posted on August 4, 2015 | and for more than one reason.


                  • Survivalist says:

                    I’m guessing Javier didn’t do so hot in the maths? Maybe he got a PhD in philosophy? It’s hard to believe that a person with a PhD in biological sciences would do so poorly at understanding stats.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    It’s hard to believe that a person with a PhD in biological sciences would do so poorly at understanding stats.

                    Yeah something is seriously off kilter with him!

                    Statistics was an obligatory course in my first year as a biology undergrad back in the early 70’s, down in Brazil.

                    There’s no way a PhD in Microbiology, anywhere in the world, doesn’t grasp statistics.

                    Javier is a deliberate obfuscator of science and the truth.

                    Either that, or he suffers from early onset dementia!

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    One would have to show that the September Sea ice minimum in the Northern Hemisphere correlates well with the AMO, there are other variables that correlate much better, such as Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature and the Nino3.4 index.

                    So you are incorrect, I look at many aspects of climate which we have data on and am well aware that climate is very complex and cannot be reduced to AMO or solar output.

                    Many different things affect climate, I focus on those that are statistically significant.

  8. islandboy says:

    Graph of Day: How solar tower and storage sailed through eclipse

    Nothing can illustrate this better than what happened on Monday during the solar eclipse. While non dispatchable solar PV wound down considerably as the moon passed in front of the sun, the output from Crescent Dunes, the 100MW facility built by the same company that will build in Port Augusta, remained constant.

    This graph, tweeted by SolarReserve overnight, shows the blue line of the Crescent Dunes facility in Nevada, and the yellow line of the solar PV output in Nevada and California.

    This highlights the ability of plant to maintain production and ride through disruptions such as cloud cover that affect the output of solar PV.

    The plant can be configured in a variety of ways, but it is the flexibility and dispatchability that will be the key, particularly in a grid that will see increasing amounts of distributed generation, local renewable based micro-grids, and more variable renewables such as wind and solar, accompanied by fast-response battery storage, and longer-dated storage such as pumped hydro or even renewables-based hydrogen.

  9. Hightrekker says:

    First major hurricane landfall since Wilma 2005. First Category 4 landfall since Charley 2004.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      Globe Warming is turning the Gulf of Mexico into a pressure cooker

      Everything is bigger in Texas

    • Nathanael says:

      Are you forgetting 2012, or are you excluding it for technical reasons? Sandy did more damage than damn near any hurricane.

      • Survivalist says:

        Sandy was a cat 3

        • Nathanael says:

          Technical reasons, then.

          When Sandy hit land, it was a weird hybrid of nor’easter and hurricane and was officially “not exactly a hurricane”.

          I think it qualifies as a “major” landfall, but there are technical arguments about whether it’s a hurricane or not. It was certainly something quite different from a normal hurricane.

          My only point was that Sandy should be included for proper persepective on how *often* we’re having really bad storms making landfall from the sea. Which is often.

  10. islandboy says:

    Major Hurricane Harvey Bears Down on Texas; Catastrophic Flooding Likely

    After landfall, catastrophic inland flooding becomes more likely

    Even though a landfalling Category 4 hurricane is a serious threat in itself, an even greater risk from Harvey is the colossal amount of rain that models indicate it will dump across the southeast third of Texas. Steering currents will collapse during the weekend, leaving Harvey stranded somewhere near the central Texas coast or perhaps just inland for what could be several days. If anything, model guidance is stronger than ever on the notion that Harvey will stall for the better part of a week. The official NHC forecast issued at 4 pm CDT Friday weakens Harvey to tropical storm strength on Saturday, but keeps it within about 100 miles of Port O’Connor for the entire period through Tuesday, finally moving it slowly northeast toward the Houston area by Wednesday. There is virtually no precedent for such a slow-moving system maintaining at least tropical storm strength along the Texas coast for five days. Whether or not Harvey maintains tropical storm strength will depend in large part on how close its center drifts to the coast. Regardless of its status, Harvey’s slow movement and huge amounts of moisture will lead to enormous rainfall and will likely produce vast areas of flooding.

    • OFM says:

      If I were free to do so, I would take an eighteen wheeler down that way as soon as the water level falls and buy up everything it I could get on it and fix it all up. Fresh water and even salt water flooding is not nearly as big a deal as it is pictured, in terms of getting a car, truck, tractor, or five thousand dollar lawn mower running again, when you can buy it for peanuts.

      Strip out the wiring harness, give her a THROUGH bath with a steam jenny and fire hose, replace the harness with one from a wreck, along with all the little electrical goodies that are hard to get at later,from the same wreck, put her back together again, and you can save yourself ten thousand bucks, net, in two weeks time. That’s a tax free ten thousand.

      Of course unscrupulous people customarily do a half assed job and sell unwitting buyers a car that will quit on them sooner rather than later.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        If I were free to do so, I would take an eighteen wheeler down that way as soon as the water level falls and buy up everything it I could get on it and fix it all up. Fresh water and even salt water flooding is not nearly as big a deal as it is pictured, in terms of getting a car, truck, tractor, or five thousand dollar lawn mower running again, when you can buy it for peanuts.

        Sounds great though I highly recommend the average person NOT doing it, at least with cars and trucks!!! I speak from recent hands on personal experience. I have recently been part of team doing exactly that. I have been doing the electronics diagnosis and trouble shooting on these vehicles.

        Most people are not capable of replacing a complete wire harness on a late model vehicle. Every control module is probably shot and there are a lot of them. In many case if you try to get them from a wreck they need to be reprogrammed to work with another vehicle. Seat belts and air bag systems can be a special nightmare of their own. Getting a flooded engine to run again is no minor task even assuming it hasn’t experienced hydraulic locking and consequent cylinder, valve train or even crankshaft damage. Sure you can pull the engine and swap it out for one out a wreck but most people aren’t qualified to that either.

        I could go on and on with fuel systems, transmissions, electric motors in seats, power windows and all the switches and circuit boards that control them.

        Having said all that, we have gotten a few flooded cars and vans back on the road but the time and money invested is rarely cost effective for the average person.

        • OFM says:

          Hi Fred,
          I’m not your average back yard mechanic, lol. I’ve rolled like the proverbial stone into and out of more trades than just about anybody I know, and probably have close to ten years total of all around experience as a mechanic working on cars, trucks,farm , and industrial equipment, plus when I get bored, every once in a while, I go to the nearest community college and sign up for a class or two, especially in the automotive mechanics program, so as to have access to the school library, and the automotive shop, which has all sorts of specialized stuff…….. and a couple of guys eager to show you how to use it. I got an engine block steam cleaned and bored, plus the head work done, last time, for the price of tuition, not much more than hiring it out. And if you take in a carton of paper, they don’t give a hoot if you print out a thousand pages from the ALL DATA site, for your own use of course. Plus they have access to lots of factory manuals on line, etc.

          I have always been careful about what I start on, knowing the risks.
          Sure it’s a lot of work.

          But if the flood waters left a clear line below the top of the engine, there’s a ninety nine percent chance there’s no water in the engine or transmission or the differential in places it shouldn’t be, and if there is a little, it’s almost always at the bottom of the pan and easily drained out.

          The TRICK to success, other than being an old fart with plenty of patience, and more time than ready cash ( property rich, time rich, cash poor here ) is to buy a select a VERY POPULAR make and model, so that you can get a wreck that was built the SAME YEAR with the same engine transmission and hopefully the same options as well. Then you can expect to have minimal and maybe even zero reprogramming troubles, but if you do, they’re not usually beyond the scope that most competent mechanics these days can deal with, assuming they have the right equipment.

          It’s amazing how tight the engines and transmissions of late model vehicles are when it comes to water getting inside, so long as they are not completely SUBMERGED.

          I’m worthless when it comes to the programming, but I can do the remainder of the entire job in two weeks, typically, once both cars are in the same spot. I haven’t done one within the past ten years, I guess I ought to add two or three days for the old age slow down. I have friends that are still doing these jobs.

          You’re damned tooting right, this is not something to be undertaken by the average back yard mechanic.

          But the payoff can be ten thousand or even more, in tax free savings on the purchase of a late model truck.

          Craigslist and sites such as E Bay make finding a donor car easy these days. Have truck, have trailer or dolly, and some cash, and you can put your hands on what you want within a few weeks and a day’s ride there and back.

          I wish I could buy solar panels and related stuff used as easy as I can machinery.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            The TRICK to success, other than being an old fart with plenty of patience, and more time than ready cash ( property rich, time rich, cash poor here ) is to buy a select a VERY POPULAR make and model, so that you can get a wreck that was built the SAME YEAR with the same engine transmission and hopefully the same options as well. Then you can expect to have minimal and maybe even zero reprogramming troubles, but if you do, they’re not usually beyond the scope that most competent mechanics these days can deal with, assuming they have the right equipment.

            I’m sure you are in a better position than most backyard mechanics and I’m in no way suggesting it can’t be done.
            However, to paraphrase our dear POTUS, “Who knew it could be so complicated!”.

            And it is possible to really luck out as well. We recently acquired a late model Ford Expedition for peanuts and all it needed was a new smart junction box and a reprogramming of the key fob and the PAT system. All in a days work!

            But we’ve had a few real nightmares as well…


            Edit: I wish I could buy solar panels and related stuff used as easy as I can machinery.

            I’m working on that. I think salvaged Teslas are going to be a gold mine for getting fantastic deals on battery modules. Most people are going to burn their house down trying to make them work so investing in learning to master the battery management systems will be well worth it. Not that hard to program those. Getting cheap solar chargers, inverters and panels will happen too.

        • notanoilman says:

          There are good reasons why insurers automatically write-off flooded cars. Washing machines, mowers and other stuff much better chances so long as you et into them early.


    • DimaondJoe says:

      Take heed how these same modelers had to do a severe adjustment to the data last year and the year before to get them being the hottest year on record. Same things being done this year? Probably, 2017 will be shown as even hotter, as more and more concrete goes up in the cities, the surroundings around all that concrete get more and more hotter, plus they keep placing the temperature sensors close to all the warm concrete. Out in the country though I would expect most people to know the truth, since they have experienced it first hand, how temperatures in the northeast and midwest have been cooler this summer with few 90’s and 100’s in places that normally get them.

      • Survivalist says:

        You misspelled your own name Diamond Joe.
        Stay in school kids!

        • Fred Magyar says:

          LOL! ‘Aond’ is actually a real surname.

          I thought Joe was just acknowledging, what is already glaringly obvious from his post, that he is not the brightest bulb in the ‘Aond’ chandelier.

          Dim Joe Aond.

          He is just another troll. A typical garden variety climate science ignoramus! ‘Anglo Of Nimwit Descent’…

          And the game of Whack A Mole goes on and on and on!

          • GoneFishing says:

            People hate moles, geese, bears, deer, weeds and a lot of other things.
            Since nature takes so long to evolve things we need to up the game. Arm bears and armor deer.

            Right to arm bears? Might as well give moles the right too. I guess they can’t see too well so they will need sawed off shotguns. Also one in six will explode on impact so whacking one will be like playing Russian Mole.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Yepper, it’s chilly here. Must mean it’s cold everywhere. Thanks for straightening me out, I out thought it was just the north wind and the Jetstream again.
        Enjoy the nice weather.

        Weather is crazy all over at times. Siberia goes from hot to cold. In fact parts were warmer than here a day or two ago. Continental weather is highly variable, could come from near the equator then from the Arctic.


  11. Fred Magyar says:


    Position Statement on Geoengineering: Call for Comments

    AGU last updated its position on this topic 5 years ago.


    Geoengineering Solutions to Climate Change Require Enhanced Research,
    Consideration of Societal Impacts, and Policy Development It is not currently possible to assess the potential benefits or costs of Climate System Geoengineering. Therefore, significant additional research, risk assessment,and consideration of difficult policy questions is required before the potential of this tool to offset climate change can be fully evaluated.

    • GoneFishing says:

      The strategy with the most benefits is to reduce energy use and transistion to clean energy sources as fast as possible. This would reduce pollution, cut health care costs, reduce geo-political frictions and war, as well as potentially reduce future climate change.

      If we are unable to stop the uncontrolled geo-engineering experiment of fossil fuel burning and rampant destruction of world forests, controlled additional geo-engineering would be a waste of time as well as it might cause large scale harm.

      • OFM says:

        Just thinking outside the box a little……..

        Suppose we were to put all the time and resources we are currently putting into trying to stop or at least slow down forced climate change into reducing birth rates?

        I KNOW this would be a political non starter…….

        But if I were super rich, I think maybe I would set up programs that would pay a modest sum once a year to young women in poor countries each time a year passes without making a baby. Plus a few bucks more to her guy, too. Double it if it’s invested in purchasing tools or materials useful in starting a small business.

        Maybe give away small tv sets that charge in the sun and play soap operas at night, wherein the young women have TWO pairs of shoes, and ONE kid, or none, and some control over their own lives. Interspersed with educational programming, basic reading, basic math, basic public health, etc. Might want my own satellite, and have tv’s fixed so they won’t pick up any channels except my own.

        One thing I learned about tv back when I was a kid, people will watch even if it picks up only ONE channel.

        • Nathanael says:

          Well, I keep funding worldwide online sex ed to teach women to use birth control. Most of them WANT to. They need to (a) know how to, and (b) have enough power to make the men go along with it.

          I suggest you fund the same charities 🙂

        • notanoilman says:

          Pay the guy and he will get drunk then f[redacted] the woman and the children will arrive anyway. Sorry but that is how it is in many places.


          • Nathanael says:

            That’s why you have to provide birth control to the WOMEN. They’re the ones who have to deal with pregnancy, so they’re the ones who have a direct personal incentive to use birth control.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        If we are unable to stop the uncontrolled geo-engineering experiment of fossil fuel burning and rampant destruction of world forests, controlled additional geo-engineering would be a waste of time as well as it might cause large scale harm.

        Oh, yeah!

  12. GoneFishing says:

    Combining solar PV and passive heat gain, this is a net zero home in New Hampshire.


  13. OFM says:

    The harder you try to keep up, the farther you fall behind these days, with so MANY things happening so fast.


    So…….. Is the solar panel industry really in the process of moving to a new generation of technology, and already halfway there?

    Or will all that legacy equipment still be cheaper to use for some time to come, considering it’s probably mostly junk otherwise ?

    This link says flat out that mono perc cells can be manufactured with existing equipment, so maybe the equipment WON’T be junk.


    Here’s hoping somebody who is following the solar industry closely will have a few things to say about these mono PERC panels, how much better they are, what they will cost, especially at retail, etc.

    • Longtimber says:

      The Sunpower Patents only allow to SunPower sell Back Contact PV in North America,
      which you can recognize when you see flat black cells w/o front conductors.
      PERC cells are mono crystal Si only process approaching Sunpower efficiencies. Poly crystal was the majority of the PV shipments just 4 years back. The avg eff is now approaching the 20% range, but efficiency is not as important as price for most applications. THE big factor is production scale. PV Production economics does scale somewhat, so newer larger production lines reduce the viability of current production lines. Annual Global production is approaching 100 GW, See Swanson’s law. US Price was under .50 / watt USD before the possibility of a Section 201 case. We may have an expanded anti PV trade war now. This will have the reverse intended effect killing thousands of local jobs. There really is no significant PV Panel production industry anymore to Protect in North America Super Fracking freakoland.

    • Nathanael says:

      The solar industry moves at insanely fast speed. It’s made it very hard to make money, because equipment has to be depreciated over the time period until it becomes *obsolete* rather than the time period until it *breaks*. This is one of a dozen such developments; there’s one every year!

      For most of the developments, MOST of the equipment on the production line can still be used and some one piece needs to be replaced. But over time you end up replacing all the equipment well before it stops working.

  14. Javier says:

    The end of the melting season in the Arctic is approaching. As for the last decade Arctic summers have become cooler, the melt season has been ending earlier.

    The data is from the MASIE database from NSIDC:
    End day defined as minimum extent day (7-day smoothed).

    During the past decade, the end of the melt season has advanced 11 days, and according to this trend the 2017 melt season is projected to end on day 255 (September, 12) ± 1 week.

    • Survivalist says:

      There is a statistically significant trend in a longer sea ice melt season.

      It’s stats Javier so it’ll probably go over your head.

      Get back to your bench work and microscope.

    • GoneFishing says:

      So the error range is larger than the measured change over 11 years. Nice analysis.

      Since 1979, the length of the melt season for Arctic sea ice has grown by 37 days (see Figure 3). Arctic sea ice now starts melting 11 days earlier and it starts refreezing 26 days later than it used to, on average

      This figure shows the timing of each year’s Arctic sea ice melt season. The shaded band spans from the date when ice begins to melt consistently until the date when it begins to refreeze.
      Data source: NASA, 20167


      • Javier says:

        The melt season has not lengthen since 2007. Curious the number of things in the Arctic that have shown a change of trend since 2007. Arctic sea ice extent, sea-ice age, end and length of the melt season, summer temperatures, North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. All of them at the same time, yet some people think the change is not significant, and cite statistics as if statistics could tell what it is happening in the Arctic.

        I see more ice in the near future of the Arctic, not less. I’ve been telling you for quite some time already. Let’s wait a few more years to see if I am right and all those supposed experts that the press likes to feature aren’t.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Funny how you grab onto a couple of exceptional years of melting to prove just the opposite. Your statements fall apart if you start the trend in 2005 or earlier.

          ” Curious the number of things in the Arctic that have shown a change of trend since 2007″
          Not curious at all, you use the short term natural variation in weather to promote some climatic trend. In a year or two when another large high resides in the Arctic in the summer or there are strong storms, what will happen to your supposed trend? Gone.
          So keep on watching the weather, bound to come back again for you, for a short time to “prove” your short term points. Of course if you start at 2005 or earlier, your ideas vaporize.
          The thing you do not comprehend due to your focus to disprove science and misinterpret observations to achieve a result, is that the exceptional years show the potential for future warming and ice loss. They show how fast and strong the changes can become. Now there is an indicator.

          • Javier says:

            you use the short term natural variation in weather to promote some climatic trend.

            Well, everybody is using the last big El Niño to promote that the Pause has ended. And that is only a 3 years old trend (since mid 2014). Apparently the rules are different to promote global warming. Any warming or extreme weather phenomena is quickly assigned to global warming, while any cooling is assigned to weather variability.

            In a year or two when another large high resides in the Arctic in the summer or there are strong storms, what will happen to your supposed trend? Gone.

            So you are predicting a prompt end to my observed trend. What happens if it doesn’t end in another decade? Will you abandon climate alarmism? The trend has already seen the worst weather conditions possible in 2012, and the late August storms of 2015 and 2016. It isn’t going anywhere until the conditions that have created it change.

            • GoneFishing says:

              So you admit to using short term natural variation in weather to promote some climatic trend. Tsk. Tsk. Shame on you Javier.

              • Survivalist says:

                This is an interesting article, and comments thread. I thought you might find it interesting.

                “Well, this is simply nonsense. It’s essentially just a complicated curve-fitting exercise. The average temperature of the Earth is largely constrained by energy balance. This, of course, does not mean that it can’t vary, but we do mostly understand what can cause these variations. There are internal/natural cycles that can produce variations, but there are limits as to how large these internally-driven cycles can be and how long they can last. On timescales much longer than a decade, or so, we would expect these to be small, otherwise it would indicate that our climate is much more sensitive to perturbations than we expect (exactly the opposite of what this paper suggests).

                Long-term (multi-decade) changes in our climate are mostly a consequence of external perturbations; volcanoes, the Sun, emission of greenhouse gases, changes in ice sheets (typically a consequence of variations in our orbit). These are all rather complex processes and the idea that one could predict how they will change in future by fitting some sine curves to a few different temperature proxy records is rather ridiculous.”


              • Javier says:

                I admit nothing of that sort. The new Arctic trend is climate, not weather.

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Javier,

              The variability is up and down, during the so called pause it was down during el Nino it was up, so the realists look at the long term trends and variables that affect that trend such as the natural logarithm of atmospheric CO2, ENSO, AMO, and Aerosols which correlate with Global Temperatures from 1871 to 2011 (where we have data for all 4 of these independent variables), and where all four independent variables are significant at the 95% confidence level (T-stats above 4 for all 4 variables). R squared for this simple model is over 93%.

              Perhaps this is coincidence, but this evidence supports various hypotheses about what might be causing global temperatures to increase, despite claims to the contrary. The most statistically significant independent variable is the natural log of atmospheric CO2 with a t stat of 38, next is AMO with a t stat of 11, then ENSO with a t stat of 6 and last is Aerosols with a t stat of 4.

              I call this the CASA Model (for Carbon, AMO, SOI, and Aerosols).

              • Javier says:

                Hi Dennis,

                A linear regression will just give you the best coefficients to match a group of variables to a set of data. But that is just one of the almost infinite solutions that can be mathematically fit. Correlation is not causation and a different set of variables with different coefficients could be more correct even if the correlation is worst. The real test is that you can predict the future evolution of the system with those variables and coefficients. Until then it means nothing.

                I see models like yours all the time in the literature, some of them with such exotic variables like the magnetic activity in the Sun. All but one have to be wrong, and perhaps none is right.

                And if you change to a different temperature dataset, like HadCRUT or UAH, the R will likely go down. And a lot of people don’t understand statistics. Your R only says how good is the fit to the data. It says absolutely nothing about the model being right.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Javier,

                  The regression is a test of alternative hypotheses.

                  The causation is suggested by theory, the data is evidence supporting the hypothesis. Note that it is unlikely that any model will predict the future precisely, the model is based on a regression from 1870 to 2011, dates outdide of this range are test of the “model”.

                  Yes different temperature estimates would result in different correlation coefficients. We do not know which estimate of temperature is correct.

                  We could just as easily use an average of several different temperature estimates, this would change very little.

                  The point is that the data confirms several hypotheses, including the carbon dioxide hypothesis, the AMO hypothesis, the ENSO hypothesis, and the Aerosol hypothesis and the relative importance of those effects based on global temperature data from 1870-2011.

                  • Javier says:

                    The point is that the data confirms several hypotheses

                    No it doesn’t. This is where you get it completely wrong. The data is consistent with the hypothesis. It doesn’t confirm anything. You should review your knowledge of the scientific method. You cannot demonstrate in positive. Just disprove wrong hypotheses.

                    But that the data is consistent with the hypothesis doesn’t demonstrate that the hypothesis is correct. In fact it says nothing, because the hypothesis has been built to fit the data. The strongest test available in this case for the hypothesis is that it is able to predict future changes.

                    And the first test was a failure because nothing in the hypothesis anticipated the pause in global warming. It caught everyone by surprise.

        • Survivalist says:

          “Let’s wait a few more years to see if I am right” – Javier

          So far your batting zero doc. Your predictive powers are pathetic.

          • Javier says:

            Quite the contrary. Temperatures are decreasing since Feb 2016, and Arctic sea ice is not melting since 2007. Everything is going according to hypothesis. The cooling is a bit slower than I thought, but still going in the right direction.

      • notanoilman says:
    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Javier,

      A longer term trend is needed, short term trends often reverse.

      If we look at the Sept monthly sea ice extent for 1979 to 2016 and do a linear regression against the Met Office HAD SST3 annual median northern hemisphere, Nino3.4 anomaly annual mean, and AMO (de-trended), we find the AMO is not statistically significant (t stat of 0.84, where 2 is the cut to reject null hypothesis at 90% confidence.) A model with ENSO (using Nino3.4) and SST for Northern hemisphere has a correlation coefficient of 0.815 and is shown in the chart below.

      • Javier says:

        Hi Dennis,

        You are making a very basic mistake by detrending AMO. You cannot detrend one set of data, compare its now flattened trend to that of another set of data and expect to find a correlation. You will have to use non-detrending AMO and inverted September Arctic sea ice, as here:

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Javier,

          The AMO has the global rise in sea surface temperatures removed. If you want to use North Atlantic SST, then call it that. Other data sets such as northern hemisphere sea surface temperature and Nino3.4 correlate better with the sea ice minimum. Over 1979-2016, I don’t have access to a longer sea ice estimate.

          • Javier says:

            Over 1979-2016, I don’t have access to a longer sea ice estimate.

            Which mostly coincides 1979-2006 with the phase of rising AMO. No wonder that scientists got it so wrong. They have been looking only to the downward part of the cycle and extrapolating just that.

        • Dennis Coyne says:


          It is the AMO signal that supposedly is relevant. Otherwise we are just talking about North Atlantic Sea surface temperatures, not the AMO.


          Trenberth, K.E. and D.J. Shea (2006): Atlantic hurricanes and natural variability in 2005. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L12704, doi:10.1029/2006GL026894 [pdf]

          Schlesinger, M.E. and Navin Ramankutty (1994): An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years. Nature, 367, Issue 6465, pp. 723-726, DOI: 10.1038/367723a0

          Essentially Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature follows Northern Atlantic SST fairly closely.

          I get my AMO data at link below


          The “not detrended series is not AMO it is North Atlantic SST.

          If we look at sept sea ice min in NH, it is not correlated with North Atlantic sea surface temperatures from 1979-2016. Global LO Temperature correlates very well with Sea ice over this period, with a t-stat of 7.9. When both North Atlantic SST and Global LO temp is regressed against NH Sea ice min, the t stat of LO temp is 3.6 and for N Atlantic SST the t stat is 0.2, so that the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between N Atlantic SST and Sept NH sea ice min is not rejected at the 90% confidence level. That would require a t stat of more than 2.

          • Javier says:

            Dennis, we already discussed this, but it seems you forgot. The Trenberth article that you cite explains it very well. The AMO was defined by the scientists that first defined it with actual sea surface temperatures without detrending. Later it became frequent to detrend it, but nothing says that AMO has to be detrended to be AMO. You are inventing that.

            This is what NOAA says:
            For those who require unaltered data, the following is an “not detrended” version of the N. Atlantic monthly averages

            AMO mean from the Kaplan SST V2
            NOAA ERSST is interpolated to 5×5
            Calculated at NOAA/ESRL/PSD1

            So the file amon.us.long.mean.data is the non-detrended AMO, according to NOAA, if you need it.

  15. GoneFishing says:

    Using NSIDC ice concentration mapping and analyzing the image, the ice area has fallen to less than 50 percent of extent, meaning about 2.5 million km2 of actual ice area cover in the Arctic Ocean. Comparing that to 14.06 km2 of Arctic Ocean that is 18 percent ice area cover right now. That leaves about 11.5 million km2 of liquid ocean open to the sky.

    • Javier says:

      What is unclear is what all that exposed ocean surface does to the climate, because for half of the year the open ocean increases the net loss of heat to space by the planet. The annual budget for not having ice cover versus having it is unknown, although I suspect it might be negative.

      • GoneFishing says:

        You must live in a very warm area of the planet. The ocean will freeze over but will just have thinner annual ice on those exposed areas. Don’t worry it will freeze over in the winter and fall.
        Let me make it clear for you, When the ocean is exposed to sunlight is what makes the difference, it’s an energy and physics thing. Dark surfaces absorb solar energy.
        The key here is that during warmer sunlit times, more open water is exposed from spring through summer than before. Thus more solar heat collection with time.

        One of the other things I have noticed is that a lot of warm air from Europe and Siberia has been moving north to the Arctic in the summer. The continental warming is being transferred northward to the Arctic. No long term trends yet but worth watching.

        • Javier says:

          The ocean will freeze over but will just have thinner annual ice on those exposed areas. Don’t worry it will freeze over in the winter and fall.

          Curious that you will say that when precisely you were promoting the past March record low in maximum Arctic sea ice.

          One of the other things I have noticed is that a lot of warm air from Europe and Siberia has been moving north to the Arctic in the summer.

          You have noticed wrong. Years with below average summer temperatures North of 80°N:
          2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2010, 2009
          Seven out of eleven, and including every year since 2013. There is really no year with above average temperatures in the Arctic during the summer since 2007 compared to the 1958-2002 average. The Arctic has been having cooler summers lately. This year the coldest temperature in July for the Northern Hemisphere ever was recorded in Central Greenland.

          • GoneFishing says:

            You do realize central Greenland is at a very high altitude and that a one day minimum is not relavent?
            You also might want to realize that the Arctic is far more than just the area above 80N latitude as is used in your temperature graphs.

            • Javier says:

              Yes, but the record took place in 2017, not ten years ago or 20 years ago. It is related to cooler summers in the Arctic whether you believe it or not.

              And most of the summer sea ice is above 80°N, so of course it is relevant. That you think it is not is surprising.

              • GoneFishing says:

                Your point is lost, track the weather maps, the warm winds have blown into the Arctic from Siberia and northern Europe.
                Anyway, the energy of those warm winds over ice will go to melting ice not temperature rise, until the area there is is mostly free of ice. Simple physics.

                • Javier says:

                  So simple that the ice hasn’t melted further in 10 years. That pesky evidence that contradicts the most beautiful hypotheses.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    There is reality and then there is Javier.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    And what part of natural variability do you not understand. Are you concerned about a snowball Earth because the Northern hemisphere sea ice extent minimum has increased since 2012? 🙂

                    Ten years is not enough to say much about climate especially when the first year (2007) was the second lowest extent in the last 37 years ( and probably for the last 350 to 600 years).

                  • Javier says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    Unexpected data cannot be ignored during decades. Past solar minimum 2008-2009 was lowest ever registered, and solar physicists took it very seriously and started to study and publish about it right away. Nobody said we can’t say much because it is just one and too early, let’s just wait a few minima more.

                    Those that think the changes in the Arctic are just the statistical product of weather variability are in for a surprise. For as long as the causes remain, Arctic sea ice will refuse to melt, and the number of years will continue growing.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    It is only you who are surprised by natural variability, this is the expected behavior of climate, it is the way complex systems work.

                    So you think it is only solar physicists that understand stuff, those geophysicists who model the Earth, just don’t understand physics. 🙂

                    Strange argument indeed.

                  • Javier says:

                    Hi Dennis,

                    You are trying to say what I think, but obviously failing. There are those climate scientists that believe that the climate is chaotic at all levels and thus the response to a linear increase in one forcing, like CO2, has to produce an increase in response that is complicated by chaos and variability. And there are those climate scientists that believe that the climate is chaotic only at low levels of variability, while higher levels display cycles or quasi-cycles that respond to high order forcings that bound the limits of variability. An example of these last one would be Milankovitch cycles, that are set by orbital changes in a deterministic manner.

                    To these climate scientists the very well known 60-90 year periodicity in many climate parameters would have played an essential role in the warming observed these past decades. Currently this periodicity is not given much role, despite being clearly observable and providing an obvious explanation to the pause.

                    You completely fail to take it into account. Wyatt & Curry 2014 have worked out the dates for the observed and expected changes, including Arctic sea ice in different sectors.

                    This model is simply a linear increase and a 60 year sine function. It was made before the pause and has performed better than climate models of the time.

                    The dates for trend change predicted by these hypotheses are being confirmed by Nature, who is the final arbiter in these matters.

  16. Trumpster says:

    Hi HB,

    What’s your princess up to these days, still sulking? You still sulking with her?

    Sanders is OUT ON THE ROAD, changing things. So’s Warren.


    “At Fellowship Chapel in west Detroit, Bernie Sanders delivered a thundering battle cry for the progressive movement before a crowd of nearly 2,000 people, squeezed into wooden pews and crowded into an overflowing room.

    The town hall had the feeling of a revival meeting led by Sanders, who preached with the same urgency the message he delivered repeatedly on the 2016 presidential campaign trail: the system is rigged against the American people. ”

    “Progressive leaders such as Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the firebrand from Massachusetts, have helped steer the party toward a platform of economic populism, which they believe is a political roadmap to winning back the House of Representatives – and possibly even the Senate – in next year’s congressional elections, and stopping Donald Trump’s agenda in its tracks.

    This week, Sanders and Warren, both of whom have moved to fill the leadership vacuum atop the Democratic party, hit the road to champion their progressive politics. Sanders held three events in the Rust Belt states that Trump won in 2016, a trip designed to show that his progressive ideas have appeal in rural America, while Warren, who is running for re-election to the Senate in 2018, crisscrossed Massachusetts to meet with constituents. ”

    “Warren drew raucous applause when she told the crowd: “We have set up a series of policies in Washington that work for those at the top and leave everyone else behind. And what I say is it’s time to change that.”

    In a New York Times editorial, Sanders reasoned that Republicans control more than two-thirds of the governorships and gained nearly 1,000 legislative seats since 2008.

    “If these results are not a clear manifestation of a failed political strategy, I don’t know what is,” Sanders wrote. “For the sake of our country and the world, the Democratic Party, in a very fundamental way, must change direction.”

    Before the election, the Democratic congresswoman Debbie Dingell warned party leaders that Trump’s anti-trade message was resonating with blue collar voters in her state of Michigan, which had elected the Democrat in six consecutive presidential elections dating back to 1992. Trump narrowly won Michigan and went on to also clinch Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.”

    Of course your empress to be, ENTITLED as she was, was too STUPID to listen to ANYBODY outside her circle of banksters and yes boys and yes girls.

    Congresswoman Dingell was and IS BEYOND eminently qualified and sufficiently highly placed herself to have been LISTENED to, rather than ignored.

    ““Donald Trump is not a progressive,” Dingell told the Guardian. “Donald Trump isn’t delivering on anything he said in last year’s election. But he understood this fear and anxiety.”

    Dingell, who supports a universal healthcare proposal in the House, said her party would be wise to shun the labels of progressive, populist, and moderate and focus on honing an authentic economic message.”

    ““I am not going to tell you that that effort is not meeting resistance, believe me,” Sanders said. “In some parts of the country, Democrats are smart enough to say: ‘We want your energy in.’ In other parts, you frighten them. But what we are seeing all over this country right now I think is a remnant – a carry-over – from my campaign is young people getting involved and running and winning seats on city councils and [state] legislatures.”

    I have consistently maintained that the Sanders base is the future of the Democratic Party, at least supposing it HAS a future in the usual sense. The Sanders camp is the younger camp, the better educated camp, the politically ENGAGED camp, and the HRC camp is old, and lacking energy and vision, and while she did some great things, those things are mostly history now, rather than important in the eyes of voters focused on the FUTURE.

    And the core of the right wing, old farts just about all, is now in the process of dying off at an ever increasing rate.

    The news is dominated recently by hard core right wingers, but the actual numbers of such people in this country, in relation to the voting population , is trivially small, in terms of elections. They might elect a sheriff or dog catcher in some really small community with only a few dozen voters, that’s about the extent of their actual power in terms of elections. They’re the best friends liberals have these days, because they’re destroying what’s left of the moral respectability of the right wing, converting independents into Democrats, and Republicans into independents, at a furious pace.

    I don’t know what will happen, but hopefully the D’s will get back to representing the people of this country, as a whole, rather than the elite.

    IF Trump continues to fuck up at his usual astounding pace, the D’s will have a pretty good shot of taking control of the House next time around.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      Fuck you OldMacDonald aka KGB Nazi Trumpster Troll

      WOW: 12 Percent of Bernie Voters Voted for Trump

      As it turns out, Russian interference may not have been reason why President Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election–it was the fact that more than one out of 10 people who voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary ended up voting for Trump in the general election.

      Of the non-Clinton voters, 12 percent voted for Trump, and eight percent went for a third-party candidate such as the Green Party’s Jill Stein.

      According to Political Wire, it was these Sanders-to-Trump voters who were able to push the key swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania over the edge to Trump.

      More important, in the three critical states that tipped the election, Sanders-to-Trump voters ultimately gave Trump the margin he needed to win:

      In Wisconsin, roughly 51K Sanders voters backed Trump in a state he won by just 22K votes.

      In Michigan, roughly 47K Sanders voters backed Trump in a state he won by just 10K votes.

      In Pennsylvania, roughly 116K Sanders voters backed Trump in a state he won by just 44K votes.

      Without these states, Trump would not have won the presidency.


      You’re an Idiot

      • Survivalist says:

        If the Dims had run with Sanders they’d be in the White House right now. HRC couldn’t campaign her way out of a wet paper bag. Next time maybe they’ll go for the better candidate. However, I suspect the Dims have had an eversion to running with liberal candidates ever since Nixon mopped the floor with McGovern. But then again, who can blame them.

        “The working classes, the same ones whose jobs were disappearing and communities were cratering, faithfully turned out election after election and threw every Democrat out of office that they could find. Not only that, but they actively despised the Democratic party, the party that was theoretically the only thing standing up for their interests in Congress and local statehouses.”


        People get the government they deserve. USA deserves Trump. Maybe something will be learnt from this disaster. But I’m not holding my breath.

        • Hightrekker says:

          USA deserves Trump, I agree.
          The Dims are the party of Wall Street, and have not represented the working class for decades.
          They would rather have Trump than Sanders, as he is more aligned with their economic interests.

          He may possibly wake a few up, but as you, I’m not holding my breath.

        • HuntingtonBeach says:

          “Trump won because of racism, all right, but not in the way that most people people think. After Civil Rights, the Republicans became an authoritarian white ethno-nationalist party. When that happened, the working classes reliably turned out to vote for a party whose policies were destroying them. But there’s the thing–they didn’t seem to mind that fact too much until this year! Now, suddenly, they supposedly care about these issues–war, globalism, immigration, offshoring and health care, but only because it’s a Republican who’s bringing them up.”

          Survivalist says: “HRC couldn’t campaign her way out of a wet paper bag”

          I’ll file your comment along side all the other racist Republican excuses of the pass 40 plus years with a touch of misogyny.

          • islandboy says:

            Even though I am not a citizen or resident of the US, I am a huge Sanders fan, viewing him as a “straight shooter” who appears to be genuinely sincere in his concern for the fate of his country. Somehow he seems to have escaped the claws of big money, a rare thing in US politics it seems. I found his position on most things to be eminently sensible and just and while he declared himself a socialist, he I did not hear him suggesting that government should control the commanding heights of the economy and get involved in all areas of enterprise as was the case in traditional communist countries.

            What I did hear him talk about a lot is the fact that the US has the most costly health care system in the world and that unbridled capitalism was at the root of that. I totally agree with his positions on the influence of money in politics since, it is the only thing that explains the strange contradictions that happen in th US. In terms of being radical, he is no more radical than all but the most extreme right wing parties you will find in Western Europe or just about anywhere in the world.

            HRC on the other hand was a very uninspiring candidate and I find it disturbing that you respond to anyone who suggests as much with such vitriol. Might I suggest that you step back, take a deep breath and try to think dispassionately about what the Sanders supporters have been saying. My only reason for supporting HRC was that I thought it would be nice for the US to have it;s first female president even though I would much prefer to see Elizabeth Warren in that role. After the events of Charlottesville, it is obvious that there is a portion of the US electorate that is not ready for a female president.

            As for your contention that Sanders voters cost HRC the election, has it occurred to you that these voters were unlikely to ever vote for your choice of candidate? Sanders was the Trump of the Democratic party and like Trump, he was attracting voters that wanted to rebel against what they saw as BAU in Washington DC. The rebel vote will not vote for the likes of Clinton in a million years! But, hey! I’m not an American. What do I know?

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              “viewing him as a “straight shooter””

              HRC received 3 million more votes in the Democrat primary race than Sanders. The race was over in mid March of 2016, but your “straight shooter” misguided his followers for over 3 more months dividing the party. Sanders did a piss poor job of uniting the party. Which shows in the Sanders supporters who voted 12% for Trump and 8% for Stein.

              “HRC on the other hand was a very uninspiring candidate”

              On November 8, HRC received almost 3 million more votes than Trump. There were only two viable options. Sanders was not on the ballet. The choice was to choose between a racist and globe warming denier or an environmentalist and egalitarian. Islandboy, you sound like you’re inspired to drink your beer with a neo nazi white supremacist.

              “I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change. HRC November 29, 2015

              More HRC:

              “Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures. We can tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower and creating millions of good-paying jobs, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy.”

              As president, Hillary would have:

              “Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.

              Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families. Read the fact sheet here.

              Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers. Read the fact sheet here.

              Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table.

              Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.

              Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.

              Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.

              Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations.

              Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning within five years, clean up the more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites across the country, expand solar and energy efficiency solutions in low-income communities, and create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force.

              Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, as well as harness the immense economic potential they offer through expanded renewable energy production, a high quality of life, and a thriving outdoor economy.”

              Islandboy, I don’t find your comments and drinking buddy inspiring.


              • islandboy says:

                “you sound like you’re inspired to drink your beer with a neo nazi white supremacist. “

                Are you calling Bernie Sanders a “neo nazi white supremacist”? If you are not, I don’t know what the hell you are talking about!

                You have ignored the last paragraph of my comment so let’s revisit the suggestions I made. What percentage of Bernie Sanders supporters were dyed in the wool Democrats? What percentage were young first time voters? What percentage were working class, rust belt types? The point I was trying to make was that, many Sanders supporters were never going to vote for Clinton in any case. Sanders had a platform which included a shakeup of the DC establishment which is part of what attracted part of the Sanders following.

                Obama campaigned in 2008 on “Hope and Change” and “Change we can believe in” and won. It would appear that a large portion of the American electorate is yearning for a change from the politics of BAU. Clinton and her backers in the DNC represent the very essence of BAU. Trump very cleverly campaigned on the basis that he would change how things are done in DC and that he would drain the swamp. For an accomplished con man winning the presidency must be his crowning glory because having won, what we are seeing is an amplification of the crony capitalism that even some of the people who voted for him are disgusted by.

                I’m afraid that if the people in control of the DNC think like you, the world will end up having to face the consequences of eight years of a rabid right wing, Republican administration.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Politics has failed. It’s a DIY world now, get at it.

                  • HuntingtonBeach says:

                    No, politics haven’t failed. The voters have failed by disinformation. DIY is not going to get done what needs to happen. The world needs a unified carbon reduction approach. Not a free for all.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    HB, got any grand ideas? Implement them. To wait for governments to get together and do a half-way job is just a waste of time. They will never do it. It’s up to the citizens.
                    Look at Tesla, was that government implemented? Nope, they did it themselves. If most of us took up that kind of attitude or even just helped implement the good ideas things would get done. No waiting for dream government paradise to never show up.

                  • HuntingtonBeach says:

                    “got any grand ideas?”

                    Take the same drive you have for science & Javier and apply it politics. Get the truth out and don’t let guys like OldMac set the political landscape to useless. Be informed and figure out the difference between truth and spin. Don’t get caught up in to personalities, but policies to make it a better world for all. Don’t take democracy and freedoms for granite, but a fight that needs to continuously fought for. The same applies to the environment. If you believe well informed people won’t do the right thing and you give up. You have lost the battle and the gains others have worked hard to gave to you. Don’t disparage others that it’s a losing battle. Don’t expect to win every battle. Quitters never win and always lose.

                    Oh, and not that I need to say it. But, remember to always vote.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Your grand idea is to get me to something I am not very good at? I am more the science and engineering end, not politics. Drive for truth, not mediocrity and compromise.
                    How about I continue making things to help and getting the word out and you do the politics?
                    I support various conservation and environmental groups that are very good at the legal and political end. Not my cup of tea.
                    If you want to waste time on politicians go right ahead. Some are good and maybe things can get done at some local and state levels. In general though and at the fed level, I don’t think so. The federal level politicians just fight with each other and little or nothing gets done. They can barely keep the status quo let alone make drastic changes in policy. Two steps forward, two steps back when we need to run forward and no going back.
                    BTW, I have no penchant for Javier but despise being subject to constant harassment and trolling by him. Deniers and especially paid deniers are currently some of the most evil people on earth. They are making us pay for our own early grave.

                • HuntingtonBeach says:

                  “Are you calling Bernie Sanders a “neo nazi white supremacist”?”

                  Let’s make it clear for the boy. I don’t need to be inspired to choose a leader as a drinking buddy. Which was a Republican 2000 election qualification for George W Bush running again Al Gore. They didn’t want to talk about the environmental facts and wanted to demean him for is lack luster personality. If you were paying attention to the 2008 Democrat primary. You would also know there was very little difference between Obama and Clinton. A much smaller difference than Sanders and Clinton. Clinton would have been a continuation of 99% of Obama’s policies. Sanders was clearly a few steps left of Clinton and not a “neo nazi white supremacist”. You on the other hand, who has spent hundreds of hours posting on this site about island baby small solar power. But can’t find HRC inspiring is suspect of being a Republicans racist who votes against their self economic interest and environment for the last 40 plus years.

                  Try reading Survivalist link above, here it is again :


                  I’m afraid that people like you will get sucked into the Racist Republican Party because egalitarian principles don’t inspire your mentality.

                  • islandboy says:

                    Just so you know, my mother was white (from the UK) and my father was a maroon (descendant of a rebel, runaway, African slave). If I were to “get sucked into the Racist Republican Party”, who would I betray, my mother or my father?

                    The story provided by the link from survivalists proves to me that Team Koch is winning. By clever use of mass media, they have convinced the American working class to vote against their best interests. IMO that is going to be one very hard nut to crack, one that Bernie Sanders had a decent chance of cracking.

                    Maybe we’ll have to wait for the FF industries to all go belly up and be replaced by an energy system with a broader ownership base (I hope), for the pervasive influence of the Kochs and their ilk to wane and for some sense of sanity to return to the US.

                  • HuntingtonBeach says:

                    “who would I betray, my mother or my father?”


                    “By clever use of mass media” and Republican racism

                    “Bernie Sanders had a decent chance of cracking” on a cold day in hell, but thanks for the laugh

                    “Maybe we’ll have to wait for the FF industries to all go belly up” and the arctic poles to melt. Sounds like your ready to quit before the fight has even begun.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    The political system is dead, ineffective to promote any real change. The best it can do is a mediocre effort to move forward or a few steps back. It is best at keeping a semblance of the status quo.
                    It’s a DIY world now. There is no real leadership, all they do is fight amongst themselves and in the bigger picture they do not serve our interests and are not capable of any large changes. It’s up to us.

                  • Hightrekker says:

                    Anyone looking to reformist politics for a solution is delusional.

                  • Survivalist says:

                    Anyone investing hope in the Dims to provide resistance to Trump is deluded.

          • Survivalist says:

            HRC was a shitty candidate. That’s not misogynistic or sexist. It’s a fact. She was insulting to the electorate and is untrustworthy. That’s on her. She lost to Trump lol. What kind of loser does it take to lose to that piece of human garbage!?
            She was a shitty senator, a shitty secratery of state and a shitty presidential candidate.
            Dims should have gone with Sanders. If they had they’d be in the White House right now instead of dragging their lower lip on the ground blaming everybody except themselves.

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              Oh stop being deplorable. Did she hurt your feeling ?

              “It’s a fact”

              No, that’s your opinion. Besides, she was running for President, not being a candidate and she had more experience than anyone else. Even OldMacDonald admits she would make a better president than Trump. Adults have to make tough decisions between two undesirable outcome.

              • Survivalist says:

                No. She did not hurt my feelings. She’s an embarrassment to American democracy. As is Trump.

                If Dims had gone with Sanders they would have won. But they went with HRC and lost. And the sore losers say it’s Sander’s fault.

                USA is a political sewer pipe.

                HRC ran one of the weakest campaigns in Dim political history.

                Two undesirable outcomes. What a pathetic democracy. It’s not hard to see why so many people don’t bother voting.

      • OldMacDonald aka KGB Nazi Trumpster Troll says:

        Back atcha, HB

        Thanks, I was beginning to think you were giving up on replying to my comments.

        Now we’re rid of Republican Lite HRC.

        How about a little help getting rid of Trump as well?

        Then we would hopefully be in a position to have government that takes the PEOPLE of this country seriously, lol, rather than the elite.

        I remember ONE ELITIST IN PARTICULAR bragging about making a killing and paying a trivial tax on his profits, in the oil biz, while also representing himself as an environmentally aware person, lol.

        I pointed out all along that HRC was the WORST candidate the D party has EVER run, to the best of my knowledge, in terms of the VOTING PUBLIC’S perceptions of her ethics, her judgement, and her personal agenda, etc.

        As a matter of FACT, she was such a pathetically poor candidate that she managed to lose to Trump, who isn’t really even a REPUBLICAN, in the usual sense of the word, since he HIJACKED the R party’s nomination process.

        Well, at least Trump had sense enough to know the country was sick, sick, SICK of business as usual, right, left, and center.

        I don’t know any Sanders primary voters, personally, who admit to having voted for Trump, but I know a bunch who stayed home, on election day, and some more, such as yours truly, who voted Green, because we couldn’t vote for HRC, knowing her REAL record, such as Cattle Gate, etc.

        Did I ever remind you that a NUMBER of her CLOSE business associates ROTTED IN JAIL?

        I have often pointed out that when people are thoroughly pissed off, they tend to give the people who pissed them off the middle finger, lol, and in this case, it’s quite obvious to ME at least, that the Sanders guys and girls who may have voted for Trump did so to give her the figurative middle finger for betraying the true values of the Democratic Party, and for treating them like errant ignorant children, and worse.

        So……. You have demonstrated EXACTLY, by your own words, precisely what a Sanders primary voter had on his or her mind, if indeed he or she voted for Trump.

        They were basically saying FUCK YOU to the HRC camp and wing of the D party, for failing to take them seriously, and worse, insulting them gratuitously in the process.

        I will point out once again that I’m an old fart, from a very conservative part of the country, that I grew up in a religious culture, etc.

        But that doesn’t mean I try to interpret events and history to suit the agenda of the majority of the people I live with on a daily basis.

        I try to tell it like it is, as best I can, in accordance with the FACTS as I know them.

        Now speaking as a COACH, to potential and real D primary voters, I take this opportunity once again to remind everyone that running a flip flopping candidate with a baggage train that reaches back to the earliest days is FOOLISH, when other candidates are MUCH BETTER liked by the GENERAL PUBLIC.

        As a purely practical matter, it doesn’t even matter if the baggage is all smoke, no fire. What MATTERS is whether people will vote for the candidate, based on what they know or think they know and believe.

        Would you like for me to list the key values issues that HRC flip flopped on, as it suited her political career? Tens of millions of people distrusted her, for some very basic reasons.

        BAD MOVE, running such a flawed candidate.

        But NEXT time, the two or three people who read my comments may remember that a candidate needs to appeal to the GENERAL PUBLIC in order to win a presidential election.

        Trump’s a fluke, who won BECAUSE the general public was totally fucking sick and tired of bau, because he was the OUTSIDER, promising change, where as HRC was the old time machine politician INSIDER PROMISING MORE OF THE SAME.

        He was the WORST candidate ever nominated by the R’s, to the best of my knowledge, in terms of public perceptions, but he STILL managed to beat HRC.

        THAT ought to be enough to convince anybody except a hard core HRC fan just HOW piss poor a candidate she actually WAS.

        SOME Sanders fans voted for Trump in order to FORCE change, knowing that if he were to win, the resulting shock would be sharp enough to force the D party to take stock of recent history, and GET BACK to it’s ROOTS, instead of playing ME TOO, to the Republicans, in economic terms.

        I’m having fun, are you ?

        Incidentally there wouldn’t have been any dirty laundry scandal emails for us commies to steal, except that they were THERE to BE stolen. You’re like a kid caught stealing who blames some other kid for his getting caught, rather than owning up to his own shortcomings.

  17. Javier says:

    38 minute talk in 2011 by professor Kees de Jaer, solar physicist, on the solar influence on climate.


    Prof. de Jaer main contribution has been on the importance of solar polar field changes, and his diagram relating polar magnetic field intensity to the aa (antipodal amplitude) geomagnetic field index.

    In the talk he defends solar changes as one of the main influences on climate change, and successfully predicts solar cycle 24 as a very low activity cycle. He was one of the few solar physicists to predict that SC24 was going to be the lowest cycle in a hundred years.

    An interesting talk to anybody interested in solar effect on climate.

  18. Javier says:

    “British rowers stranded in an Arctic nightmare: Six-man crew trapped on freezing, storm-tossed island after four of them say they can’t go any further

    Three British rowers attempting 1,200-mile voyage are stranded on Jan Mayen
    Tiny island is just 340 miles from their planned destination on Iceland
    Double Olympic gold medallist Alex Gregory was part of six-man crew that battled freezing temperatures and almost constant soaking in fibreglass boat”


    They were assisted by a Norwegian military crew in Jan Mayen, that according to one of them saved their lives.

    More people are being attracted to attempt sport adventures in the Arctic from the false claims of Arctic heatwaves and ice melt, and it is just a question of time that there is a personal disgrace. They should be told that the Arctic is no longer melting and summers are cooler and shorter than a decade ago, so they know the full risk they incur.

  19. Survivalist says:

    Ed Hawkins and Javier


    (It’s hard not to feel embarrassed for Javier. Like when you’re the designated driver and you get to watch your drunk friends get shot down by women who are very clearly waaaaaay out of their league)

    • Javier says:

      Ed Hawkins needs to know too. His blog article is all wrong.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Javier,

        I will go with the expert. Note that you have reduced the complexity of Arctic climate to ocean temperature in the arctic. The sea ice is in contact with the surface water (0 to 2.5 meters in depth), the temperature of that water has changed very little, which is expected because the ice keeps the temperature relatively constant. More open water leads to more energy input from the sun due to lower albedo, this energy melts ice during spring and summer. There are many other important variable effects such as wind and ocean currents.

        From Ed Hawkins Blog: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/

        About Ed Hawkins
        Climate scientist in the National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) at the University of Reading. IPCC AR5 Contributing Author. Can be found on twitter too: @ed_hawkins

        • Javier says:

          Hi Dennis,

          I know who Ed Hawkins is and that he is a lot more knowledgeable than me. But that doesn’t mean he is right on this one. I’ve known personally several Nobel prizes, and they are also wrong sometimes.

          The Arctic sea ice during late summer is quite broken up. It is moving all the time pushed by currents. Under those conditions about 87% of the ice is underwater. Under those conditions water temperature is the critical factor affecting melting, and given water high heat capacity and heat transfer rate, it means that a small difference in water temperature affects melting a lot more than a large difference in air temperature in the Arctic.

          If Ed or you are not taking this into consideration, then it is no wonder that you are getting it wrong.

          The link between Arctic sea ice changes and global temperatures is more tenuous that Ed recognizes, and when he says:

          “(2) [since 2007] There is a real acceleration in sea ice loss per degree of global warming. (3) A large internal variability fluctuation has caused the Arctic sea ice to melt more than expected from 2007 onwards.”

          He is clearly wrong because he is showing extent and sea ice extent hasn’t decreased since 2007, as I have shown multiple times using NSIDC data, and DMI data.

          Part of the problem is that despite how expert he is on the subject, he is writing in 2017 but uses data only until 2013. No wonder he gets it wrong. Since 2012 Arctic sea ice has experimented a significant recovery of which Ed Hawkins appears unaware.

          He had to be told so he doesn’t embarrass himself, and misleads people. If he is so careless with his work then no wonder he has such wrong position on climate change.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Javier,

            You really are absurd, and impolite towards Ed Hawkins who was quite polite toward you on his blog. I have mentioned that circum Arctic ocean temperatures near the surface have been steady and the gateway seas have been warming.

            Most of the circulation of water in the Arctic is the top 46 meters and deeper water is relatively stagnant, water flow into the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic is primarily through the gateway seas which have been cooling based on Argo data.

            I am not an oceanographer, but it seems your knowledge of this is little better than mine.

            It is not clear that you are correct about Arctic ocean temperature.

            Chart below shows top 2.5 meters of circum arctic, very little trend.

            • Javier says:

              I haven’t been impolite. He got the entire article backwards. He talks about acceleration since 2007, when the exact opposite has taken place. No decrease in extent since 2007. The data is very clear about that.

              Your own graph shows the cooling of the circum-Arctic ocean. You just need to look better. Note that the scale is in degrees Celsius, so the change is of a few tenths of a degree, which is enough to make a difference.

          • Survivalist says:

            I wonder about the kind of upbringing that produced such impoliteness.

  20. Survivalist says:

    Evidence for ice-ocean albedo feedback in the Arctic Ocean shifting to a seasonal ice zone


  21. Boomer II says:

    I don’t check the non- petroleum posts very often. This is the first time I checked this one since it was posted. Most of the comments are either by Javier or in response to him. I have him on ignore, which allows me to skip over whatever he says. Maybe the rest of you can do so, or maybe just block him.

    He’s made this his forum and I don’t think that was the original goal for Peak Oil Barrel. I realize some of you think he at least motivates people to point out the flaws in his arguments, so therefore he serves an educational purpose. But, God, he takes up space.

    • GoneFishing says:

      The health and economic benefits of removing coal from the energy stream are well worth the chance that global warming might increase more quickly. Balance this against another five or more decades of pollution, vast health problems and an ever increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which would increase global warming anyway.
      Both scenarios push global warming. The key here is to determine if a quick burst of extra sunlight will push natural forcings over tipping points. It may just be a case of sooner or later.
      So the real question is do we want to be healthy or not? Do we want to pay the huge costs in medical, pain, death and productivity losses into the future or just stop it now?

  22. Hickory says:

    I always find the perspectives of this Univ of Washington climate scientist to be well worth reading, and fact based.
    Things get particularly ‘interesting’ in the Pacific NW out beyond 2050.


    • Bill Franti says:

      Planet earth has gone on through 4.5 billions of years and counting of climate change all day everyday. There’s been the ‘Ice Age’ earth, the ‘Tropical Rainforest’ earth and all things in between. Climate change proceeds–without any kind of human intervention at all–as just another natural process on a dynamic planet. The more these scientists think they know about what we pay them to study, the more we find out there is actually very much they know nothing about, with a potential they will never know at all.

      • Nathanael says:

        Several of these worlds, including “Hothouse Earth” are unsuitable for humans to live in.

        Sure, the Earth will be fine if we keep burning fossil fuels to generate the equivalent CO2 emissions to the multiple megavolvanoes which caused the global warming which caused the P-Tr extinction. The Earth can survive anything.

        *Humanity* will be wiped out, though. So perhaps some of us oppose the extinction of humanity. If you support the extinction of humanity, however, go ahead, keep blithely burning fossil fuels.

      • OFM says:

        Hi Bill Franti,

        The climate most certainly DOES change, over deep time, and even over historical time, you are dead on about that.

        But you are EITHER a troll, and know better than to say the things you do here, or ELSE you are woefully ignorant of the actual workings of the climate.

        Yes, there are still lots of things we don’t know about climate, just as there are still lots of things we don’t know about how our bodies work. BUT we do know countless things about BOTH the workings of climate and the workings of our bodies.

        Here are some things we DO KNOW, without any question whatsoever.

        One, if you add more insulation to your house to keep warm, keeping everything else the same, the temperature in the house goes up somewhat, because the amount of heat produced in your house remains the same, whereas the amount of heat ESCAPING the house, leaking out thru the walls and roof, etc, is reduced.

        If you add a LOT of insulation to your house, you can actually do away with your furnace or other heating system, because the amount of heat produced by the lights and appliances, plus your body heat, will be enough to keep your house comfortably warm.

        A lot of people, especially in Germany where it gets colder than the proverbial witches tit, are building house that are insulated to this extent.

        A SECOND thing we know is that while climate DOES change over time, the rate of change is generally very very slow, in relation to the lives of men. Ordinarily, men don’t notice the climate changing at the personal level, unless they are unusually observant for one reason or another.

        A third thing we know, with reasonable certainty, is that we are adding enough extra INSULATION to the atmosphere, mostly in the form of CO2, to force the average temperature of the Earth up, a little at a time. This forcing is not fast enough that most people will notice it, at the personal level, but it’s enough that people who pay attention, such as FARMERS, and insurance adjusters, and climate scientists, know it’s happening, and that it’s going to keep on getting warmer and warmer.

        We know that the extra insulation we are adding to the atmosphere is MORE than enough to overwhelm any slow natural cooling trend, never mind if the temperature trend due to natural changes is flat or UP.

        Folks who know little or nothing about the hard sciences will understand that if you work more, and earn more, but spend the same, the balance in your savings account gradually grows, it’s as simple as that.

        The amount of heat the sun sends our way is nearly constant, for all intents and purposes, over the span of a man’s life, but we are in essence SAVING the heat, just as we can save money, so it’s getting hotter all the time, short term, even though the sun, the source of our heat INCOME, is holding steady.

        Is this over your head? Do you understand what I’m trying to get across?

        I don’t expect a rational reply, because I think you are either a bot or a troll.

        Prove me wrong, if you can.

    • Hightrekker says:

      I agree.

      I have it bookmarked, and check in regularly.

  23. GoneFishing says:

    The “2007” fallacy revealed.
    Claims have been repeatedly made that ice in the Arctic Ocean has not reduced since 2007.
    Here is a portion of the PIOMAS anomaly graph to show that indeed there have been deep excursions of melting since 2007 and that the current amount of ice (not finished melting yet) is well below the 2007 level.

    • notanoilman says:

      Of course a certain person will select 2007 as his start point and end at 2015.


      • Javier says:

        Other persons might think that volume can’t be trusted as it is the result of a computer model that includes a temperature factor. So that graph is just what the authors think the volume is, not what the volume really is. As what we measure is extent, we should stick to extent to follow ice evolution.

        Problem is alarmists are rooting for a continuous melting of the Arctic and extent is not giving them that. A few years ago extent was just perfect because it was going down.

        • Survivalist says:


          Real scientists address this type of concern with something called UNCERTAINTY. It’s a maths thing. Maybe you heard about it in University when getting your PhD?

          “Model Validation and Uncertainty
          PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. In addition model runs were performed in which model parameters and assimilation procedures were altered. From these validation studies we arrive at conservative estimates of the uncertainty in the trend of ± 1.0 103 km3/decade. The uncertainty of the monthly averaged ice volume anomaly is estimated as ±0.75 103 km3. Total volume uncertainties are larger than those for the anomaly because model biases are removed when calculating the anomalies. The uncertainty for October total ice volume is estimated to be ±1.35 103 km3 . Comparison of winter total volumes with other volume estimates need to account for the fact that the PIOMAS domain currently does not extend southward far enough to cover all areas that can have winter time ice cover. Areas in the Sea of Okhotsk and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are partially excluded from the domain. Details on model validation can be found in Schweiger et al. 2011 and (here). Additional information on PIOMAS can be found (here)
          A comprehensive library of sea ice thickness data for model validation has been compiled and is available (here)”

          Lets compare that to the UNCERTAINTY of your pathetic little 2007 to present arctic sea ice ‘trend’

          “Javier has also resorted to another denier favorite: computing a “trend” based on a time span that’s way to short. Way too short. Ten years, from 2007 to 2016. And, in classic fashion, he omits to estimate any uncertainty with that “trend.”
          Let’s do the math for him.
          Using September average sea ice extent from NSIDC, and using only the data from 2007 through 2016, the estimated trend by linear regression is +18 thousand km^2 per year. Upward!!! But, the “margin of error” (95% confidence interval) for that figure is somewhere between +142 thousand km^2/yr and -105 thousand km^2/yr. Downward :(”

          You’re an embarrassment to science.

        • notanoilman says:

          An arctic covered with 15% ice cubes would pass as extent, square kilometers of 2-5 m thick ice would be a different proposition. THAT is why volume is important. You are skating on very thin ice by cheering on extent and using cherry picked data to support your argument.


          • Javier says:

            Cheering on extent? Extent is the preferred measure by NSIDC to study the melt season. That’s what they say.

            “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.”

            Another one that doesn’t have a clue and is just parroting alarmist memes.

            • notanoilman says:

              Well, let us look at what that says about extent>

              “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).”

              Yep, 15% ice and it is considered covered.

              Now, let us take a look at ‘product’


              OOOOps, not in agreement with you but people can clearly see why you like 2007. Now, get back to bed or that machine you are supposed to be minding on night shift


              • Javier says:

                It doesn’t matter where you put the threshold. What matters is that you measure consistently every year. DMI used to use 30% threshold but changed recently all data to 15% threshold to be comparable to NSIDC.

                Glad you learned something from this exchange. I didn’t.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  The point is clear, but you seem to miss it.

                  Area is a better measure from a science perspective, extent is used to communicate with the public because many (or most) people don’t understand simple mathematics.

                  You stubbornly maintain that extent is the better measure. You also strangely believe models for ice volume are not good, but that models that convert satellite data to temperature estimates are excellent.

                  Can you explain that inconsistency?

                  • Javier says:

                    No. The point is not as you represent it. Area is a better measurement when there is no melting. When there is surface melt, area under represents sea ice.

                    You appear not to have read what I posted from the NSIDC page above:

                    “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”

                    If it is good for scientists and NSIDC uses it, and DMI uses it, why do you and others insists that it is me who is choosing extent?

                    So yes, NSIDC, DMI, and I stubbornly maintain that extent is the better measure when considering melting.

                    All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others. Satellites use microwave units that convert microwave radiation to temperatures. Thermometers don’t measure temperature either. They measure a liquid expansion and convert that to temperatures. Same principle.

                    Volume models however are trying to convert a surface measurement into a volume measurement and there is a huge potential for error in there. And the validation is very weak given how big and unsampled is the Arctic. So if they are very wrong there is no way to know.

                    Satellite temperatures are compared with other ways of measuring temperatures: surface temperatures, radiosonde temperatures, radio occultation temperatures. Their margin of error is much smaller. They have great advantages over surface temperatures, like the homogeneous sampling of the almost entire surface, being immune to location bias, and so on.

                  • notanoilman says:

                    Oh Javier, cherry picking again? You omit

                    “That said, analyzing ice area is still quite valuable. Given the right circumstances, background knowledge, and scientific information on current conditions, it can provide an excellent sense of how much ice there really is “on the ground.”[sic]”


                • notanoilman says:

                  Night shift Javier admits he doesn’t learn.


        • OFM says:

          I know some elementary school kids who understand that ice forms on the surface, due to contact with cold air and radiation of heat outward,so that extent really only tells half the story.

          Little farm lakes around here freeze over one hundred percent any time we get four or five days of below freezing weather during the day with clear skies at night and temperatures in the lower teens F. But the ice doesn’t get thick enough to walk on it safely unless it get down around zero, and stays there a few days.

          The THICKNESS of the ice is at LEAST as important as the extent, and probably more so, since the extent could be the same with thickness being a foot, or six feet or more.

          Unless I’m mistaken, almost all the old multiyear ice is gone already.

  24. GoneFishing says:

    It’s raining in the Arctic and Antarctica.

  25. Javier says:

    Hi Dennis,

    Where I part ways is that there is a large range of ECS values that match with historical data in GCM models (ranging form 2.3 C to 5.7 C for CMIP3 based on the MAGICC 6 model, and I am not sure of the range for CMIP5, it might be wider as there are more models).
    For me the precautionary principal suggests we assume the worst (high ECS) and hope we are wrong (ECS is near the mean ensemble value of 3 C or less).

    Well, that’s the thing. CMIP models produce a most likely pathway for the global average temperatures. Already by 2013 it was very clear that the models were running hot, and this was admitted by some of the authors. The big El Niño has had the effect of raising the temperature back to the CMIP most likely path and boosted confidence that the pause is over and the models right. In my opinion this is premature. Temperatures are already going down, the AMO is showing signs of turning, and we are in an extended solar minimum, called by some a Gleissberg minimum, that affects at least two solar cycles. The conditions are not precisely favorable for further natural warming, and we might see natural cooling opposing anthropogenic warming for the first time in decades.

    If I am correct, by 2025 we should be within the target area, and completely outside of the 95% path of CMIP5 which will demonstrate that the models run hot and sensitivity is lower than estimated. Even if they downgrade CMIP6 to show less warming, that would only underscore that the alarmism is unjustified. Of course I could also be wrong by underestimating the natural component and temperatures in 2025 might be below the target area. I am updating that figure from Ed Hawkins, so we shall see.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Javier,

      It does not really look like the models are running hot. I think it likely the temperature will fall in the 95% interval for the CMIP5 models.

      • Javier says:

        Yes, but how much of that is due to the past El Niño? We are going to find out in just two or three years. Having a huge El Niño does bias the data towards the warm side.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Javier,

          La Nina moves the temperature below average. One thing that occurs to me is that the chart by Ed Hawkins is for RCP4.5, potentially the emissions pathway will be between RCP2.6 and RCP 4.5 (call it RCP 3.6 perhaps), in that case temperature might fall in the lower half of the 95% confidence interval of the RCP4.5 scenario, and possibly even a little lower than that.

  26. OldMacDonald aka KGB Nazi Trumpster Troll says:

    This one is for HB, and any big D Democrats who are open minded enough to want to WIN future elections, lol.


    “Exactly one year and one day after losing the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton will take the stage………..Of course, what happened, in part, was that Clinton arrogantly decided not to make the trek to Wisconsin a year ago, when it still might’ve done her some good…………..Instead, she’ll cruise into town this November 9 for an event to promote her new book about . . . how and why she suffered defeat in 2016. she’s actually planning to give the audience a “personal, raw” story, Clinton ought to take a moment to explain why she took for granted that Wisconsin would turn out solidly blue without any effort on her part — an incorrect assumption that resulted in her losing the state to Trump by less than one percentage point.

    Perhaps if she had bothered to hold an event or two in Wisconsin — rather than completely ignoring the state and ignoring her husband’s advice to pursue white, middle-class Rust Belt voters — she’d be sitting in the Oval Office rather than parading around the country on a tiresome book tour, rehashing the details of her embarrassing loss to one of the least popular candidates in history.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450886/hillary-clinton-wisconsin-book-tour-will-hold-event-milwaukee

    I have often said that while I didn’t agree with BC on some issues, he is nevertheless the most COMPETENT politician alive in the USA today, or anytime during my life. He has the TOUCH, he knows how to connect, he’s a fucking GENIUS in that respect… one of a kind, bar none.

    And Hillary, who climbed the political latter on his coattails, was too fucking arrogant and stupid to listen to him, the man who probably wished he had never seen her after the first few years, lol.

    Even DOGS know when you are talking ABOUT them or TO them in derogatory and condescending tones. HRC was so fucking STUPID she thought she could not only IGNORE but INSULT the most important single demographic of the D party base, the broad working classes of the country.

    Well it’s fuck Oldmacdonald aka KGB Nazi Trumpster Troll, and it was also FUCK HRC, in the case of MILLIONS of people, ENOUGH of them in Wisconsion, etc, to send her on tours trying to rake in a few more personal millions selling books.

    Selling books is a GREAT way to collect politically sensitive money without being held accountable for it. Such books are bought by the hundreds and thousands and given away or hauled to the dump, by people who want the politician to know they bought ten grand worth of hardcovers.

    Book money is just ordinary income, according to election law.

    Here’s hoping I have convinced a COUPLE of people, at least, to vote for REAL Democrats, rather than Republican Lites, in future primaries, lol.

    • Hightrekker says:

      The Dims haven’t learned a thing.
      Look who they picked to head the DNC.
      Dinosaurs mating.

    • Hightrekker says:

      Critics will note, however, that the original technology for Kite’s product, Axi-Cel, was developed at the National Institutes of Health on the taxpayer dime. It’s a narrative with which Gilead is familiar. In 2011, it bought another company, Pharmasset, for $11 billion. At the time, many investors gagged at the price. But the main drug from that deal became Sovaldi, a medicine that, in combination with others, can cure the liver virus hepatitis C. Gilead priced Sovaldi at $1,000 a pill, garnering criticism from patient advocates and Congress, but also generating $12 billion in their first year. University of Pittsburgh health policy wonk Walid Gellad boiled the coming criticism down to two words in a tweet: Sovaldi squared.

      Socialize the research
      Privatize the profits

    • Nick G says:

      Well, a few thoughts:

      When I look at an article like this, I get encouraged by the improved treatments: cancer patients who were doomed to die, now being completely cured. That seems like the most important thing.

      The profits look very large, but the risks are there too. The article says “In a poll conducted this morning by Mizuho Securities, investors were evenly split on the deal, with 38% liking the deal and 38% hating it.”. It mentions a competitor whose approach failed completely – we should look at the failures as well as the successes (the dry holes, as it were).

      Finally, if these things were licensed from federal researchers, and if critics believe that the private buyers are making out like bandits, that suggests that the terms were too generous to the private buyers, and a failure on the part of the people doing the licensing to get a good deal. Do we have any info on the terms of the deal?

  27. OldMacDonald aka KGB Nazi Trumpster Troll says:


    “More than 20 Texas representatives and senators voted against Sandy aid. How will they vote on Harvey?”

    I’m expecting a big cynical belly laugh out of this one.

    • Hightrekker says:

      Texas sure has colorful politicians.
      They should really just short it to “Tex”– as all the asses have gone to Washington.

  28. JN2 says:

    “To truly dominate in the new energy economy, we should gracefully retire the aging baseload assets whose time has come, embrace the opportunities offered by new technologies and continued innovation, and secure the United States’ position as a leader, not a laggard, in the global energy transition. ”

    RMI: http://reneweconomy.com.au/rethinking-grid-changes-power-sector-opportunity-not-threat-77458/

  29. Longtimber says:

    There were 2 ( 3?) Nuclear plants in the Path of Harvey, they are supposed to scram when winds > 75 mph in case of outside power interruptions. Some references of this seems to have been pulled from the media. So far no gather your things, evacuate and don’t ever expect to come back notice. Guess did not want to collapse the Real Estate markets.

  30. @whut says:

    This is inoculation against Javier and his Just-So stories that are stinking up this joint:

    Cross-Validated models of ElNino, QBO :

    Forecasts of hurricane Harvey did save lives, even though the forecasts were not necessarily heeded to the extent they should have been. I’d like to make others aware of what can be done with the known math especially concerning the ElNino model. If these models improve long-range forecasts of drought, flooding, extreme temps marginally they will be worthwhile. That’s more important than hurting reputations of some scientist that may disagree with them.

    • GoneFishing says:

      El Nino is just a short term redistribution of solar energy stored in the Pacific Ocean. In occurs about every three years and is nothing more than a short term natural oscillation.

      • @whut says:

        That doesn’t explain what causes the cycles. Nothing that large starts oscillating on its own.

        What I found is that it’s actually a lunar tidal driven behavior. It’s a well-cited fact that much of the ocean’s overturning is caused by tides. After realizing this, I decided to try to input directly the lunar cycle as a forcing to the equatorial thermocline, and the ENSO behavior popped out.

        It’s no different than regular tidal analysis but on a different time scale.

        • GoneFishing says:

          No argument there. I just like to differentiate climate change from short term natural cycles, especially as our resident villager tends to use ENSO as an all purpose cleanser. 🙂
          Keep up the good work.

          • @whut says:

            True. Important to isolate the natural variability so that one can then better discriminate what’s referred to as the secular trend of AGW.

            • GoneFishing says:

              Secular? Is there a religious or spiritual trend of AGW also?

              • @whut says:

                I shouldn’t have used that term because it has its origins in market-speak. “Secular is a descriptive term used to refer to market activities occurring over a long-term time frame”

                I’d rather use something like monotonic increasing, but then you can get dinged by purists who will say that it implies the trend is strictly increasing. “A monotonic upward (downward) trend means that the variable consistently increases (decreases) through time, but the trend may or may not be linear.”

  31. GoneFishing says:

    NOAA Greenhouse Gas Equivalent up to 489 in 2016.

    • George Kaplan says:

      IJIS has global extent above only 2012, which had some pretty unique weather in the Arctic, but heading down while 2012 quickly recovered. 2017 looks like its continuing the 2015 and 2016 trend of rapid global decline, with a caveat that this is only extent, not the most relevant data of volume.

  32. OldMacDonald aka KGB Nazi Trumpster Troll says:

    HEY HB,
    And anybody else who gives a shit as well, of course!

    SOMETIMES, it PAYS to listen to what the opposition, or even the enemy, has to say, because EVERY organization has its problems.

    Here’s an article from the opposition, which is the term we should use, because calling the other side the enemy creates more problems than it solves.


    Here are some excerpts.

    “The Democratic National Committee hasn’t been having a good year. Save for a spike during March, fundraising, cash on hand, and net money have all dropped since former secretary of labor Tom Perez took over as chair in January”

    “the DNC just recorded its worst month since 2009, taking in only $3.8 million.”

    “In the same month, the RNC recorded $10.2 million in donations”

    “So we can safely assume that the reason for the DNC’s donation struggles isn’t bipartisan complacency in the dry season between elections. And it isn’t complacency among Democrats: Donations to candidates from both parties during the same period are nearly identical, $142 million for Democrats against $145.4 million for Republicans. Jon Ossoff, the unsuccessful Democratic candidate in Georgia’s sixth congressional district, recorded the highest amount of donations in the history of House elections. Meanwhile, left-wing PACs and committees are doing fine: The pro-choice EMILY’s List has raised more this year than Trump’s Make America Great Again Committee. The Democratic Congressional and Senate Campaign Committees (DCCC/DSCC), the campaign arms for Democrats in Congress, have raised more than their Republican equivalents, the NRCC and NRSC, in the same period.”

    Ya see, the HRC political machine OWNS the D party establishment, and the young, well educated people who are the future of the D party don’t give a shit about the HRC faction’s Republican Lite agenda.

    “Rather, the DNC’s shortcomings point to something rotten in the committee itself. Since the 2016 presidential campaign, grassroots Democrats have been losing trust and faith in the DNC’s leadership. Now, when the party’s survival depends on solidarity, it’s having trouble broadcasting a message that reaches all — or even most — of its supporters. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s replacement as DNC head was supposed to fix this; if the new chair was a non-establishment grassroots leader, it was thought, he could help unify the party under a progressive banner. Yet when presented with just such a candidate, Minnesota representative Keith Ellison, the party instead selected Perez, the establishment favorite. So fraught was the process that when interim chair Donna Brazile announced Perez’s election, Ellison’s supporters drowned her out with boos, and only Ellison’s appointment to the deputy-chair position, and his request that they trust in Perez, subdued them.”

    The HRC machine has retained it’s grip on the levers of the party, but the PEOPLE who are the HEART of the party, the working classes, have entirely given up on bankster loving secret speech making secret emailing type politicians. About the ONLY kind they have LESS use for is the Trump kind.

    “In April, Perez embarked on a “Unity Tour” with Sanders, hoping to begin recovering the lost supporters and healing the broken party. But the crowd cheered for Sanders — the opener — and booed Perez — the headliner — on the tour’s first stop”

    Ya see, the young folks with fire in their bellies turned out. The old tired HRC faction types didn’t. They want the support of the Sanders camp, but they have pretty fucking close to ZERO intentions of actually giving up any significant portion of their Republican Lite policies.

    The rest of the article is less about facts and more about the perceptions of the author, but anybody who wants the D party to regain power ignores these facts at his own risk.

    I post these remarks as a disinterested COACH, rather than a partisan, mostly, but also in order to see just how long it will take HB to either give up on calling me Trumpster, etc, or choke on his own foot in his mouth.

    I don’t give a shit about the D party, or the R party, AS SUCH.

    And so I want D’s as a group to win, because even though the HRC faction D’s are a long way from perfect, they are still a hell of a lot better on environmental issues that the R types.

  33. Javier says:

    Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel” is a huge flop. In its fifth week it has made only 4% of what “An Inconvenient Truth” made. Perhaps the public has had enough. Or perhaps it can be claimed that climate change is decreasing movie going.

    Have you guys gone watch it to support the cause?

    • GoneFishing says:

      As we all know, a fact based world is fading fast and the truth is often buried in an avalanche deception and lies.
      Or in this case, just not even brought out into the light of day.
      There was no nationwide opening of this film. Paramount decided only limited number of theatres would show it.
      None of the major movie houses within 50 miles of me are showing the film. Paramount cut the openings to a few theatres. A rural community theatre 50 miles away is doing a showing. I checked theatres in the heart of one of the densest population areas of the country, no showings. Can’t get box office money with no box offices.

      A truthful film in a post truth world.

      But why worry about a truthful film when facts are so easily replaced with fiction anymore? The movie will not make any great change, just a reminder and not something anyone with knowledge of the climate situation would even watch. There is so much information freely available to the public that the movie is more an afterthought and been made ineffective as an educational tool by limiting the showing to a few theatres.
      Tis the times, where snake oil salesmen and conmen get far more publicity than truth tellers.

      • Javier says:

        This has never been a fact based world. Afghanistan was invaded for an attack they did not commit. Iraq was invaded for some weapons of mass destruction they did not possess.

        Al Gore’s moment of glory is long past. People can see he had become filthy rich with climate change, and is leading a life style that has nothing to do with what he preaches. Probably they don’t want to contribute to him becoming even richer.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Yes, the Republican base and politicians have conned and lied their way to power and done many dastardly deeds. Why do you mimic them?
          More Hogwash.
          Al Gore was quite rich already, any money he makes from his “green” investments, books and films goes to funding non-profit organizations.
          He made his money in Apple and a few other lucky investments.
          So now you are against money and the wealthy even though you advocate for them?
          In your view we should not have had National Parks and National Forests because they were formed and founded by rich people. Throw away the libraries, parks, colleges and universities too because rich people founded or funded them?
          Guess what, some rich people don’t have their heads up their asses and actually care about the world.

          • Javier says:

            The problem is preaching a lifestyle that is the opposite of what he enjoys. If everybody followed suit our carbon footprint would skyrocket. I also don’t like the idea of selling a TV network to Al-Jazzera with known ties to the Qatar government that supports terrorism. That money is tainted by the blood of innocent people.

    • Survivalist says:

      I didn’t even know Gore had a sequel until you mentioned it just now. It is doubtful I will see it.

  34. Javier says:

    The Arctic is showing a very slow melting this year. Arctic sea ice extent is now higher than the same date of 2007, 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016. With only about 2 weeks to the end of the melt season, it looks like the September average might increase the past 10 years average.


    • notanoilman says:

      Cherry picking again? You only show the years and crop to support your argument. Now, let us look at ALL the years back to 2007 AND the whole cycle.

      Note to readers: Sorry I cropped the scale but anyone who visits the link provided by Javier can repeat this, just click on the years you want and they come up automagically. Oh, and note where 2017 is at peak extent 😉

      • Javier says:

        Yeah, your figure is a real good example of how it should be done. Nothing can be seen in that figure except that 2017 is not really different from the rest of the decade… which is really my point, thanks.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Javier,

          It is also clear from the chart that 2007-2017 is very different from the 1981-2010 median with all years being below the 25% to 75% range and only 2 years within the 10% to 90% range (2009 and 2014).

          Less ice for the past 11 years (on average) than the previous 25 years and relative to the 1981-2010 average.

          • GoneFishing says:

            I agree, the past decade has been very different with large incursions of melting.
            In fact the 10 lowest ice area and ice extent occurrences in the Arctic happened in the last 10 years. Some of these melts have been dramatic. This means higher energy input at times and thinner/less volume of ice.
            The Arctic is showing tendency toward being an annual ice event rather than a multi-year system.

          • Javier says:

            Hi Dennis,

            I don’t argue that. Facts are facts.

        • chilyb says:

          Dear Javier,


          Everyone here is keeping tabs on the data.

          Must you turn this blog into your personal rant space?

          You’ve made your points; no-one likes to listen to a broken record.

          • Javier says:

            Didn’t see any complains when tens of comments about climate alarmism were posted per open-thread without me answering, just a few months ago. Looks like only skeptic comments are a problem.

            But now the X offers a great solution to everybody. Anybody that doesn’t want to read my comments can turn them off, and I invite them to do so. I am only interested in writing for people that are interested in reading my comments.

        • notanoilman says:

          Well, I am glad you say that this is how it should be done, thank you. Now why don’t you do it that way?

          By viewing the original viewers can see, very clearly that 2017 is the lowest for maximum extent and mostly in the lowest 2-4 years over much of the range. Now, that is not what I would call “not really different”, more like in the lower 1/3.


    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Javier,

      The extent is similar to the lowest 4 years since 1979 (except for 2012), you accidently left off the 5 years since 2006 which had higher sea ice extent (2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014) I have included those in the chart below for completeness. No doubt you did this inadvertently 🙂 So far there are 5 years lower and 5 years higher than 2017 in the past 11 years, if we do a 10 year average, then 2007 drops off and we have 4 years lower and 5 years higher than 2017, of course we cannot predict what the minimum sea ice extent will be in 2017 until late Sept. This will depend on the weather between now and then.

      • Javier says:

        Hi Dennis,

        No accident 😉 The point is that 2017 has gone from lowest maximum in March to having 5 years with less ice extent at this date. The low melting is the most salient characteristic of the 2017 melt season.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          The rate looks pretty similar to the other years on the chart I posted. The winter was relatively warm so there was probably not a lot of melting in the early spring relative to years with more “normal” winter temperatures.

          So despite claims that temperature doesn’t matter, the change in temperature will affect the rate that ice will melt.

  35. GoneFishing says:

    Artic Sea Ice Extent and Area for September from NSDIC data.
    Notice that the area is about 60 percent of the extent.

    • notanoilman says:

      Naughty, shouldn’t you be starting that in 2007 and ending in 2014? 😉


      • GoneFishing says:

        Better yet, if you look at only the ice area from 84 to 96 it looks like the next ice age is on the way. 🙂

        • notanoilman says:

          Especially if you omit 90,91, 93,95 as some people might do. 🙂


    • George Kaplan says:

      2007 had clear skies almost all the way through the melt season and hence lots of insolation, 2012 had early warmth forming a lot of melt ponds and therefore low albedo followed by late cyclones that compacted the ice and transported a lot out the Fram Strait, 2017 had cooler temperatures early, very low winds (especially few cyclones that compact the ice) and almost no transport to the Atlantic in the later months, and yet is still almost the lowest ice volume and area on record.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Looking at the various data sources, we may have crossed the tipping point back in 2000. The exceptional weather years are just exacerbating and accelerating the loss of ice. Unless there is some major change in ocean currents, the downward ice trend should proceed.
        Some things should be made clear though. The Arctic is an easily observed and recorded case of amplified global warming. The downside is the decreased albedo in the region with time. The point is that if that energy does not go to the Arctic then it will go somewhere. Disruptions in weather and hydrologic cycles would occur away from the Arctic. Luckily the ice is acting like a buffer and the polar location is drawing heat energy towards itself. Once the Arctic Sea Ice becomes an annual event with thin and diminished ice, the heat energy will start to distribute elsewhere due to a lower temperature differential and less ice to absorb it. That could mean a rapid increase of changes in the continental regions to the south.
        Our last gasp, the Greenland Ice Cap will last a bit longer but will not be big enough to compensate for the decreased albedo occurring all around it. It just does not have enough surface area and it too forms melt ponds across much of it’s surface, lowering it’s albedo.

    • Bob Frisky says:

      Arctic ice melts while the Midwest just can’t catch a break from the cold. Now more is on the way. Those predictions of a new little ice age in the eastern U.S. starting in 2017 due to low sunspot activity might be coming true.

      • Survivalist says:

        Thanks for coming out Frisky. My new nickname for you is ‘short-bus’. Or maybe Louise Tennessee should be short-bus and you can be ‘son of short-bus’.

      • Hightrekker says:


      • Fred Magyar says:

        Meanwhile out in the rest of the world the evidence is accumulating that warming ocean temperatures and reduction in ocean pH levels is causing widespread coral bleaching.



        Coral reefs across the world’s oceans are in the midst of the longest bleaching event on record (from 2014 to at least 2016). As many of the world’s reefs are remote, there is limited information on how past thermal conditions have influenced reef composition and current stress responses. Using satellite temperature data for 1985–2012, the analysis we present is the first to quantify, for global reef locations, spatial variations in warming trends, thermal stress events and temperature variability at reef-scale (~4 km). Among over 60,000 reef pixels globally, 97% show positive SST trends during the study period with 60% warming significantly. Annual trends exceeded summertime trends at most locations. This indicates that the period of summer-like temperatures has become longer through the record, with a corresponding shortening of the ‘winter’ reprieve from warm temperatures. The frequency of bleaching-level thermal stress increased three-fold between 1985–91 and 2006–12 – a trend climate model projections suggest will continue. The thermal history data products developed enable needed studies relating thermal history to bleaching resistance and community composition. Such analyses can help identify reefs more resilient to thermal stress.




        In 1998, a huge underwater heatwave killed 16% of the corals on reefs around the world. Triggered by the El Niño of that year, it was declared the first major global coral bleaching event. The second global bleaching event that struck was triggered by the El Niño of 2010. The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced the third global bleaching event in October 2015 and it has already become the longest event recorded, impacting some reefs in consecutive years.

        The new phenomenon of global coral bleaching events is caused by ocean warming (93% of climate change heat is absorbed by the ocean). Corals are unable to cope with today’s prolonged peaks in temperatures – they simply haven’t been able to adapt to the higher base temperatures of the ocean. Although reefs represent less than 0.1 percent of the world’s ocean floor, they help support approximately 25 percent of all marine species. As a result, the livelihoods of 500 million people and income worth over $30 billion are at stake.

        Who knows, maybe someone with a PhD in microbiology could help us understand how increased heat and ocean acidification might be affecting the symbiotic relationships between corals and the zooxanthellae living within their tissues…

        • Javier says:

          Hi Fred,

          I’ll answer you since you address me.

          I am not sure how much you know about coral bleaching, which is mostly a natural adaptation mechanism, or if you are just picking up mostly alarmist reports from the media. If you want to really know what is known about coral bleaching, I recommend the fabulous articles by Jim Steele, Director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University.

          The Coral Bleaching Debate: Is Bleaching the Legacy of a Marvelous Adaptation Mechanism or A Prelude to Extirpation?

          Falling Sea Level: The Critical Factor in 2016 Great Barrier Reef Bleaching!

          From an expert environmentalist and based on the best science available. I can’t add anything to that except that we are being deceived about coral bleaching (as usual with most things related to climate change). If you read the articles, whether you agree or not, you will learn a great deal about the issue, and perhaps change your point of view. Of course you might not want to change your point of view and prefer to hold to another false meme from the climate change alarmist crew.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            I was more interested in an in depth look at things on a biochemical level. We know that thermal stress can be a serious threat to corals and coral reef ecosystem. I will look at the papers you suggest…

            In the mean time here’s something more along the lines of what interests me.


            Format: AbstractSend to
            Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2015 Dec;190:15-25. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2015.08.012. Epub 2015 Aug 23.
            Differential coral bleaching-Contrasting the activity and response of enzymatic antioxidants in symbiotic partners under thermal stress.
            Krueger T1, Hawkins TD2, Becker S3, Pontasch S4, Dove S5, Hoegh-Guldberg O6, Leggat W7, Fisher PL8, Davy SK9.
            Author information
            Mass coral bleaching due to thermal stress represents a major threat to the integrity and functioning of coral reefs. Thermal thresholds vary, however, between corals, partly as a result of the specific type of endosymbiotic dinoflagellate (Symbiodinium sp.) they harbour. The production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in corals under thermal and light stress has been recognised as one mechanism that can lead to cellular damage and the loss of their symbiont population (Oxidative Theory of Coral Bleaching). Here, we compared the response of symbiont and host enzymatic antioxidants in the coral species Acropora millepora and Montipora digitata at 28°C and 33°C. A. millepora at 33°C showed a decrease in photochemical efficiency of photosystem II (PSII) and increase in maximum midday excitation pressure on PSII, with subsequent bleaching (declining photosynthetic pigment and symbiont density). M. digitata exhibited no bleaching response and photochemical changes in its symbionts were minor. The symbiont antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase, ascorbate peroxidase, and catalase peroxidase showed no significant upregulation to elevated temperatures in either coral, while only catalase was significantly elevated in both coral hosts at 33°C. Increased host catalase activity in the susceptible coral after 5days at 33°C was independent of antioxidant responses in the symbiont and preceded significant declines in PSII photochemical efficiencies. This finding suggests a potential decoupling of host redox mechanisms from symbiont photophysiology and raises questions about the importance of symbiont-derived ROS in initiating coral bleaching.
            Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

            • Javier says:

              Hi Fred,

              Temperature stress is one of several factors that can cause coral bleaching, but not the worst by far. Low sea level takes the lead, and during El Niño, when a lot of water is pushed to the East Pacific the coral gets exposed to the air and sun and bleaches real fast. UV damage is another important factor.

              Regarding temperatures, the study is pretty unrealistic. 33°C is too high. The warmest SST take place at the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, the warmest oceanic region, but they don’t reach 30°C. Between 26-28°C you start to get deep convection, so the result is that Argo buoys don’t measure temperatures above 30°C.

              So yes, of course if you put the corals at a temperature that it isn’t observed in the planet, they are not prepared for that. Who could blame them? But now the authors have to explain how is that relevant to the actual bleaching we observe on planet Earth.

            • Javier says:

              Another issue is that nobody was looking at corals before Jacques Cousteau invented the first scuba diving regulator, and seldom until just 2-3 decades ago, so saying that an event is the longest and more widespread in recorded history means very little. It is only now that we are looking systematically and it is now that we are finding it. Small wonder.

      • notanoilman says:

        Readers need to remember that this is a probability, not certainty, of temperature above or below normal NOT number of degrees. The actual temperature may only be as little as a degree or less away from normal to count.


      • Hickory says:

        Bob Frisky got a diploma from Trump Univ. (2yr degree)

      • OFM says:

        Bob almost for dead sure doesn’t realize that the blue areas that are predicted to be a little cooler than expected for the next few days are not large enough to offset the larger areas that are will be warmer than usual, lol.
        And he probably doesn’t know that the mid west is warmer on average now, over the last decade, than it was in previous decades,.

    • Survivalist says:

      Interesting. Quite a noticeable convergence of the two lines, area and extent km2, as they move towards zero.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Here is a logical hypothesis of the situation.

        Broken ice has more surface area to collect heat from the air, sun and water. Broken ice is more likely to be first year ice which forms deeper melt ponds due to lower permeability than older ice thus warming itself faster through albedo change.
        So as the ice becomes non-contiguous it will melt faster thus limiting the amount of broken ice possible in a warming situation and reducing the possibility of large amounts of broken ice existing during the melt period.

      • Javier says:

        Only the fitted trend moves to zero. The ice is displaying a periodicity that the fit is unable to capture.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          A curve fit with no theory, very nice. The Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent correlates best with land temperature in the Northern hemisphere, if both North Atlantic SST and Northern hemisphere Land annual temperatures are regressed against NH September sea ice extent, the North Atlantic SST is not statistically significant. Your theory falls down when compared against the empirical evidence.

          • Javier says:

            I have linked to the theory many times. You are just ignoring it. Here it is again:

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

            Wyatt, Marcia Glaze, and Judith A. Curry. “Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century.” Climate dynamics 42.9-10 (2014): 2763-2782.

            The Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent correlates best with land temperature in the Northern hemisphere

            That is simply not correct. We just had the three warmest years by a big margin and the Arctic sea ice did not decrease at all, and it is at the average for the past ten years. Those are fake correlations.

            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              “I have linked to the theory many times. You are just ignoring it. Here it is again…” ~ Javier

              I have had to repeat myself with Dennis as well.
              To be fair, though, he does run the site and so is probably spread more thinly, like a crepe before it gets filled with anything.

  36. GoneFishing says:

    Percent of Arctic Sea Ice Extent compared to Sea Ice Area in September

  37. Pat Clogger says:

    Re: The Tropical Storm Hurricane Harvey, I have questions as someone not familiar with the Houston Region. Where does all the fallen water go out to? Is the Texas Region slanted into the gulf so that the water flows back out to sea? After a Hurricane has moved on out, do ocean levels immediately drop back to normal level (sea level) or do they stay elevated for some time?

    • Survivalist says:

      The water drains into the sea, eventually.
      A storm surge is when winds from a storm push ocean water towards and up onto land that is above sea level.



      • Pat Clogger says:

        Thank you for the responses. Now my next question, how much longer then do you think the oil companies will see fit to gouge us and rip us off at the pump under the excuse of the Harvey Storm? Gas prices by my house are already up 10 to 15 cents a gallon this week. I am old enough to remember when a 2$ fillup of gas would be enough to last a whole week if not longer.

    • OFM says:

      The higher local sea level associated with hurricanes is called storm surge , and the sea level reverts to normal very shortly after the hurricane moves on or dies away.
      But it can take days or weeks for all the RAIN that fell on land farther away from the sea to drain away, because the Texas coastal area is almost flat, and there isn’t enough slope or grade to make the water drain away quickly.

  38. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    Free Thought-Bubbles From The Subsidized Shower
    A joint Cae-POB exclusive

    1. If or when there is an (added) economic slowdown, it will be as severe as 2008’s or less, but most likely not more severe (if the powers that be play their cards ‘right’/pull most of the ‘right’ levers). This is because ‘we’ are now essentially in a subsidized/engineered economy (certainly more of one in any case) and so the economy has to be stable enough to maintain the ‘transitional engineering’ notions of the status-quo– PV’s/EV’s/etc….

    Space X, Tesla, energy, Walmart, TBTF banks, Google, military, etc.– it’s all hugely subsidized…

    This is approaching Soviet Union stuff… And maybe there’s an irony for Dmitry Orlov, or an approaching one.

    When we talk about debt, what we are really talking about now, or much more so, is subsidy/grant, and since also the price of money is 0 or near-0. This is also because we cannot really issue debt (with a promise to pay it back with interest) in a shrinking economy. A significantly-shrinking or long-term-shrinking economy is, almost by definition, a non-debt-based economy, and if money is debt, then money loses its meaning in this context. Thus, money becomes not debt, but subsidy/grant.

    2. Given the above, then, the notion of, or concern with debt (bubbles and whatnot, except of course how to manage them) is practically or increasingly irrelevant or meaningless, and there may even be a global debt jubilee/forgiveness– a monetary reset-button– since it is unlikely to be paid off in a shrinking economy.

    Currency and the Collapse of the Roman Empire

    “The major silver coin used during the first 220 years of the empire was the denarius.

    This coin, between the size of a modern nickel and dime, was worth approximately a day’s wages for a skilled laborer or craftsman. During the first days of the Empire, these coins were of high purity, holding about 4.5 grams of pure silver.

    However, with a finite supply of silver and gold entering the empire, Roman spending was limited by the amount of denarii that could be minted.

    This made financing the pet-projects of emperors challenging. How was the newest war, thermae, palace, or circus to be paid for?

    Roman officials found a way to work around this…

  39. Hightrekker says:

    Workers evacuated from Crosby chemical plant amid risk of explosion
    (hopefully it won’t happen)


  40. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    “Energy carriers include electricity and heat as well as solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. They occupy intermediate steps in the energy-supply chain between primary sources and end-use applications. An energy carrier is thus a transmitter of energy.” ~ IPCC

    “Electricity is NOT an energy source – it is an energy carrier like hydrogen…” ~ Rune Likvern

    “Electricity is considered a SECONDARY ENERGY SOURCE” ~ Doug Leighton

    “I should have specified primary energy sources…” ~ Rune Likvern

    “Electricity is just an energy carrier, just like hydrogen.” ~ Nick G

    “Electricity is an energy carrier that efficiently delivers the energy found in primary sources to end users, who in turn convert it into energy services.” ~ studentenergy.org

    “Energy carriers: Enthalpy; Fuel; fossil fuel; Heat; Work; Electricity; Battery; Capacitor” ~ Wikipedia

    “Conversion to energy carriers (or secondary energy)
    Energy carriers are energy forms which have been transformed from primary energy sources. Electricity is one of the most common energy carriers, being transformed from various primary energy sources such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wind. ” ~ Wikipedia

    • GoneFishing says:

      Does it really matter how we label it? The primary source for all energy beside nuclear is the sun. Everything after that is secondary or tertiary such as chemical energy (biological and fossil) or PV electric or wind electric or hydropower. Only nuclear energy is a separate source and since those large atoms had to be made in some catastrophic star event, they too contain solar power. 🙂

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Does it really matter how we label it?

        Well, a rose, by any other arbitrary name may still be a rose but we have somewhat stricter criteria and definitions in science. Within that frame work, it does matter how we label or define something. Words and their definitions are not subject to our whims and fancies. Here’s the definition of Energy found in the Encylopaedia Britannica:


        Energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another. After it has been transferred, energy is always designated according to its nature. Hence, heat transferred may become thermal energy, while work done may manifest itself in the form of mechanical energy.

        One thing is absolutely for sure. Fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal are NOT, as some here seem to think, forms of energy! They are, as their names imply, fuels and must be combusted to produce heat energy which only then can be used to do work. While electricity, on the other hand is most definitely a form of energy because it can be used to perform work. How we generate it or capture it is a totally separate discussion.

        Almost all life on our planet derives it’s primary source of energy from the sun, the exceptions being organisms that obtain chemical energy from hydrothermal vents deep in the oceans.

        See also:


        • GoneFishing says:

          Fred, since you want to bring up the limitations of scientific language with me, then I will have to disagree on your saying that fossil fuels are not sources of energy or forms of energy. They contain a form of energy, potential energy stored in chemical bond structures. Potential energy can be electrical charge, gravitational energy, chemical energy,
          From Wikipedia: Chemical potential energy is a form of potential energy related to the structural arrangement of atoms or molecules. This arrangement may be the result of chemical bonds within a molecule or otherwise. Chemical energy of a chemical substance can be transformed to other forms of energy by a chemical reaction. As an example, when a fuel is burned the chemical energy is converted to heat, same is the case with digestion of food metabolized in a biological organism. Green plants transform solar energy to chemical energy through the process known as photosynthesis, and electrical energy can be converted to chemical energy through electrochemical reactions.
          It’s a matter of how much p character the orbitals have.
          So in the realm of scientific language fossil fuels do have potential energy due to higher bond energies which are released to do work when a chemical reaction with oxygen or some other oxidizer is initiated.

          You do this all the time in your body, if your fuels had no energy, well life would not exist. That’s why they call it an energy bar, potential energy.
          That is also how a Tesla car runs, chemical potential energy stored in the battery. Isn’t that shocking? 🙂

          • Fred Magyar says:

            Note: I didn’t say that fossil fuels were not sources of energy. What I said was, that they are not FORMS of energy.

            • GoneFishing says:

              I get what you mean but the language is confusing.
              “Chemical potential energy is a form of potential energy related to the structural arrangement of atoms or molecules”
              So your view of form is different than other’s views of form.

              When you look at a lump of coal don’t you see all the myriad bonds between the carbon, hydrogen, sulfur and oxygen atoms? They have such potential. A shame to overlook them, but we must for our own good. Begone you little lumps, you were nice for a while but not wanted now. 🙁

      • Nick G says:

        Don’t forget tidal power, which taps the rotational kinetic energy of the moon and earth, and geothermal, which taps terrestrial heat.

        • GoneFishing says:

          I purposely left out geothermal energy because it just brings us in a loop back to nuclear energy and gravitational energy. Tidal energy is another form of gravitational and kinetic energy.

  41. GoneFishing says:

    The plot un-thickens. Arctic Ice Volume is approaching Arctic Ice Area.

    • notanoilman says:

      Awww, you are doing it again. You should only be showing 2012-2014 so as to prove a new ice age is on the way or show only 2007 and 2014 to show little change. Hmmm, there is someone who likes to pick those years. 😉


      • GoneFishing says:

        Copy and paste the data in and make a few labels. I am just too lazy for all that fussiness I guess. 🙂

    • Fred Magyar says:

      The plot un-thickens.

      ROFL! What next, the plot un-scatters?


      • GoneFishing says:

        Looks like a ink-blot gone wrong or a poor astrophotograph. Too bad it concerns such a terrible disaster. 🙁

    • Javier says:

      The fun starts when the curves cross each other. The trend indicates that is going to happen before 2020. Then the volume will go negative, while ice extent and area partially recover.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Javier “Then the volume will go negative”
        You really are math deficient.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Gone fishing,

          I think the units should be 1E6km2 and 1E3km3 on your chart?

          Using rough numbers of 5000 km3 of volume and 3 million km2 of ice area in Sept 2016, the average ice thickness was about 1.7 meters. In September 1989 the average ice thickness (estimating from the chart) was about 3 meters. If we assumed a negative exponential trend, this would be about a 2% decrease in average ice thickness per year from 1989 to 2016. To this we could see what the trend in ice area loss over the same period is and then if we add the two rates we could estimate a yearly rate of loss of ice volume. For 1997 to 2016 the ice area decreased at about 2.5% per year. This suggests about a 4.5% loss of ice volume per year, the data indicates about a 5.2% loss per year of ice volume from 1997 to 2016 (reading the data from the chart).

          An interesting plot would be the average ice thickness in meters in Sept from 1979 to 2016.

          I imagine you have the data already so it would be pretty easy to do.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Yep the multipliers are as you said.
            From what I have read, once it reaches an average of 1 meter thickness it is annual ice. I get about 1.5 m for last Sept. Should be interesting because the volume has been lower than 2016 since July.

            Below is the average September sea ice thickness graph in meters from PIOMAS volume and NSIDC area data

      • Survivalist says:

        The volume does not go negative when the curves cross. It’s hard to believe you have a PhD in biological sciences. You’re mathematically illiterate.

  42. Hightrekker says:

    Houston Residents Begin Surveying Damage Of 200 Years Of Unchecked Worldwide Industrialization


  43. George Kaplan says:


    Mumbai is getting flooding about as badly as Houston:

    “Heavy monsoon rains have brought India’s financial capital to a halt, with authorities struggling to evacuate people with the scheduled high tide adding to the chaos.

    Incessant rain flooded several parts of Mumbai on Tuesday and paralysed train services used by millions of commuters daily, with many stranded at stations and hundreds of others walking home through waist-deep water on railway tracks.”


    Meanwhile in Houston there’s a curfew to stop looting, an increase in armed robberies and reports of people shooting at rescue boots if they don’t stop to pick them up.


    • Doug Leighton says:

      “…reports of people shooting at rescue boots if they don’t stop to pick them up.” LOL, only in America you say. So I’d guess the rescue workers need to pack guns as well? ‘Course it is Texas were talking about where I presume even firemen, doctors, nurses, kindergarten teachers and ambulance workers carry firearms. Rake that ambulance with a salvo of bullets, that’ll get their attention. . 🙂

  44. Survivalist says:

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


  45. GoneFishing says:

    The two-step that doesn’t get you happiness.
    Step 1) Make an herbicide to kill weeds that damages plants and trees that are not genetically protected
    Step2) Introduce it at large scale into the environment while pretending it will just stay on the protected farms

    The result:
    “This is crazy. Crazy!” shouts Mayes, a farm manager, gesticulating toward the shriveled canopy off Highway 61. “I just think if this keeps going on . . .”

    “Everything’ll be dead,” says Brian Smith, his passenger.

    The damage here in northeast Arkansas and across the Midwest — sickly soybeans, trees and other crops — has become emblematic of a deepening crisis in American agriculture.

    The problem, farmers and weed scientists say, is that dicamba has drifted from the fields where it was sprayed, damaging millions of acres of unprotected soybeans and other crops in what some are calling a man-made disaster. Critics say that the herbicide was approved by federal officials without enough data, particularly on the critical question of whether it could drift off target.


    • OFM says:

      Pesticide drift of this sort is and always has been a problem, but it’s generally only a POTENTIAL problem, like having an automobile accident.

      The owner / operator who applied it improperly is and will for dead sure be held liable for damages, unless he settles with his neighbor out of court.

      I haven’t followed this up, but the odds are about one thousand to one that the operator either got into the wrong field altogether, or ignored the wind. You wait out the wind when applying this sort of chemical, and just about all of the numerous approved chemicals, so far as that goes.

      The usual thing when making application is that the EDGES of the area treated are sharply defined, with no visible damage two or three feet away from the treated area. You have usually have buffers, generally ten times that wide at least, between your own field an the neighbors field.

      None of this is to say that any particular agricultural chemical is absolutely safe, or even reasonably safe, in terms of environmental impacts and possible human health impacts. There are tradeoffs just as there are with just about any technology, such as coal fired electricity.

      What just about EVERYBODY fails to realize is that using these various chemicals allows the farming industry to produce two to three times as much per acre. Doing without them would mean either eating WAY down the food chain, or doubling the amount of land under the plow. Now THAT would be REALLY good for the environment, WOULDN’T it? Sarcasm light BLAZING.

      (Ninety nine percent of the people who advocate organics don’t actually know shit from apple butter about organic farming. It works, depending on the circumstances, but it does NOT work on the grand scale, NOW, and WON’T, for a LONG time to come. And the ill informed people who want us to go organic NOW are just about always among the people who want to deny us the ONE technology that can speed up the transition away from pesticides faster than all others combined–genetic engineering. )

      What I am saying is that whoever wrote this link either has an AGENDA , or else he has his head up his ass.

      I suspect an anti herbicide agenda, because he could have gotten the actual facts relevant to the incident within half an hour as easily as falling off a log, by asking any local farmer, or agricultural extension agent, or the counter clerk at a farm supply, etc.

      • GoneFishing says:

        In 2016 over 200,000 acres of crops were damaged by dicamba. NO report on how much of the natural landscape was damaged.
        Dicamba came under scrutiny due to its tendency to vaporize from treated fields and spread to neighboring crops.[12] Monsanto began offering crops resistant to dicamba before a reformulated and drift resistant herbicide, which they claimed would be less likely to affect neighboring fields, had gained approval from the Environmental Protection Agency. Incidents in which dicamba affected neighboring fields led to complaints from farmers and fines in some US states.[A] A lower volatility formulation, M1768, was approved by the EPA in November 2016.[14] However, this formulation has not been evaluated by experts outside of Monsanto.[15]
        Tendency to vaporize and drift. Good luck to us all. We are in Monsanto’s hands.
        Happy eating.

        • scrub puller says:

          Yair . . .

          OFM has got it wrong, there is no delineated edge with Kamba 500.

          Dicamba is bad shit. I used it in a golf club situation . . . very carefully hand sprayed and saw evidence of stress in foliage thirty yards away.


  46. Doug Leighton says:

    B.C. remains under a state of emergency as more than 100 wildfires continue to burn across the province. This season is B.C.’s worst fire season in history and it is far from over. Approximately 3,600 British Columbians are still on evacuation order and about 12,000 remain on evacuation alert.

    • alimbiquated says:

      Like Slovenia and Northern Italy and a lot of Iberia as well.

      When it gets hot the woods dry up. That’s how the desert spreads.

      • Javier says:

        I am happy to inform you that despite forest fires, Spain is gaining forest mass at an amazing rate. In fact is the country in the European Union where forest mass is increasing at a fastest pace.

        At the same time the number of forest fires and burned extension is going down.

        The combined effect of climate change and better fire protection is making Spain and a lot of other countries a lot more forested.

        Spanish surface burned between 1961 and 2014 in hectares.

      • Javier says:

        This was the forest situation in Europe in 1900 and 2010, and I am happy to report that there has been a very good increase in forest surface.

        As with anything related to climate change, the alarmist reports are essentially lies and disinformation.

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          Hi Javier, how are things globally in comparison, though?

          • Javier says:

            Hi Caelan,

            Although the situation is regionally variable, globally the trends appear to be similar, although not as strong as in Southern Europe in the case of forest expansions. Europe has some trends that are not present in other places like stronger environmental protection and farm land abandonment, that also favor forest expansion.

            The authors of this article tried hard to get under the skeptic radar by saying that there is a reversal in loss, instead of an increase. That’s funny.

            Liu, Yi Y., et al. “Recent reversal in loss of global terrestrial biomass.” Nature Climate Change 5.5 (2015): 470-474.

            They conclude that recently there has been an overall gain in aboveground biomass carbon, consistent with trends in the global carbon sink reported in other studies.

            Regarding fires that is also the case, as this very recent article says:
            Andela, Niels, et al. “A human-driven decline in global burned area.” Science 356.6345 (2017): 1356-1362.

            The worst place for fires is Africa by far, but the main cause (human caused fires) is showing a decline. The decrease is surprising. In 18 years the globally burned area has declined by 24%.

            I guess we only get the bad news and the imaginary future dangers, and never the good news of what is going better.

  47. OFM says:


    They’re talking three years out to actual production, and a hundred miles range. That will do around town. Looking at the pictures of the concept vehicle leads to the conclusion that they went flat out to reduce drag and cut weight as much as possible.

    Applying those same measures to a conventional truck would probably improve the fuel economy by at least twenty five percent, maybe more.

    I’m wondering about a fully loaded truck going a hundred miles on a hundred forty kWh battery. I question that , unless the road is flat,with very few stops, and the aero package is beyond SUPERB. But it’s hard to guess how good a job they can or will do reducing the load on the motor, between the aero, light weight construction, low rolling resistance tires, and so forth.

  48. Dennis Coyne says:

    Hi all,

    New posts are up.

    George Kaplan’s at link below (Petroleum related comments should be in response to his post.)


    and Islandboy’s Electric Power Monthly Post at link below (Non-petroleum comments here.)


Comments are closed.