341 Responses to Open Thread Non-Petroleum Dec 1, 2016

  1. Preston says:

    Here is a recent interview with our favorite doomsdayer Guy McPherson. It’s pretty entertaining even if you don’t agree with him.


    Guy often includes a clip from the HBO show Newsroom, with a very similar feel. You can see he is clearly enjoying their reaction. Here is the newsroom clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1cMnM-UJ5U

    Guy is now predicting less than 10 years…..

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Guy is now predicting less than 10 years…..

      Yeah, McPherson might even be an optimist… few people seem to understand chaos math, tipping points, feedback loops and non linear dynamics. I have a hunch that he does.


      Melting Permafrost Could Affect Weather Worldwide
      It’s not just releasing greenhouse gases—it may also alter the ocean’s chemistry and circulation patterns
      By Margaret Kriz Hobson, ClimateWire on December 1, 2016

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Fred,

        The climate scientists are well aware.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Yep, I’m sure they are and Myron Ebell is going to head the EPA… I’d love to hear his dissertation on feedback loops and tipping points!

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            And the fucking president of Gold in Sacks is probably going to hold one of the most important positions in the federal government.

            Sanders fans understood that Clinton would be a more of the same president. If anybody has any trouble understanding what I mean by more of the same, look up the resumes of Obama’s cabinet officers, and the last half dozen presidents previous.

            And as I often said during the run up to the election, Trump would be worse. He’s proving me right, fast.

            Sky Daddy help us. My Baptist preacher often tells the congregation that God works in mysterious ways, and maybe He She really does take care of little kids, drunks and the USA.

            If this is so, then hopefully we will get a few of what I refer to as PEARL HARBOR WAKE UP EVENTS, chunks of sharp brick upside our collective head in the form of some undeniable and unmistakeable events proving even to the dumbest country guy that the climate scientists and biologists are right, and that if we don’t change our ways, we are surely headed to Hell right here and right now.

            It no doubt sounds awful for me to say this, but if we were to lose maybe a hundred thousand to a million people to a new contagious disease brought into the country via the importation of plants and animals that should be flatly outlawed, we might get a law, one that will be enforced, outlawing the importation of such for hobbyists and collectors, etc.

            And if some two bit wanna be hot shot hero were to actually turn out to be an overachiever, and sink a couple of super tankers in just the right spots, we just might FORCED to face up to the fact that we are oil addicts.

            Fred says ” few people seem to understand chaos math, tipping points, feedback loops and non linear dynamics.”

            Let me fix that for ya , Fred.

            “Damned few people understand chaos math, tipping points, feedback loops and non linear dynamics.” 😉

            • Doug Leighton says:

              On the tipping points topic,


              “…they project that an increase of 1C (1.8F) will release an additional 55 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere by 2050…This could trigger a “positive feedback” and push the planet’s climate system past the point of no-return. Previous assessments have not taken carbon released by soil into account.”


              NB George Kaplan referred to original paper (in Nature) on this stuff earlier and of course Dennis will chant his mantra that ‘it’s already built into the models’ — even though it isn’t (hasn’t been).

              • GoneFishing says:

                The feedback has been occurring and will continue to occur. Even if we shut off all carbon output right now, we would still get the 1C rise, which will push the feedbacks further.
                It’s not just soil, it’s lakes, ponds, streams and oceans. The Arctic regions and sub-Arctic are already well over the 1C rise mark.
                Due to the irrationality of mankind and the converging predicaments, keeping a continuous and accelerating program of energy reduction and renewable energy growth is dubious.
                We are lucky in a way, the economics of renewables are very good and the economics of fossil fuels are poor. This will create a growth vector for renewable energy and efficiency. It will not be uniform, can be derailed in places due to other pressing needs or occurrences and will get tougher to proceed with time if not done quickly, due to material, food and energy constraints.
                To summarize, we need to get the energy conversion completed within the next two decades worldwide or it will have little effect and may get stalled.
                It’s crunch time folks. Dawdling further will only place more fuel on the fire.

                • Doug Leighton says:

                  “Dawdling further will only place more fuel on the fire.”

                  I expect you’ve sent a copy of this Memo to your new President Elect and all his capable advisers?

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Who???? What??? The Unbelievers????

                    Expect to be disappointed and it won’t feel bad.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Gone fishing,

                  If all carbon emissions immediately go to zero, we only get about 0.3 C of warming above where we are, not 1 C, based on the MAGICC 6 model.

                  I created a scenario where carbon emissions fall to zero in 2017, but other GHG remain at RCP 4.5 levels, aerosols emissions fall to zero also in 2017.
                  Temperature rises from 1.03C in 2016 to 1.32C by 2038.

                  I agree we need to get started because temperatures do not fall and it will not take much to get us to 2 C, though if we limit total carbon emissions to 1000 Pg C (about 440 Pg after 2015) we might remain below 2 C, less would be better though it will be difficult to accomplish.

                  • Preston says:

                    Guy claims if we stopped burning coal tomorrow there would be a 3C rise in temperature within a few weeks or months due to the reduction in global dimming from the aerosols

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Preston,

                    Guy is wrong, based on what the MAGICC 6 model predicts, off by a factor of 10.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    China study of dimming on wheat production. “. The decline in solar radiation was in conjunction with a warming trend during the past decades. Solar radiation during the wheat season declined by 20, 27 and 10% at Beijing, Chengdu and Urumqi, respectively, during the past four decades. Minimum temperature increased during the same period by 3.9, 1.5 and 2.3 °C, respectively. ”

                    Global dimming: a review of the evidence for a widespread and significant reduction in global radiation with discussion of its probable causes and possible agricultural consequences
                    “A number of studies show that significant reductions in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface have occurred during the past 50 years. This review analyzes the most accurate measurements, those made with thermopile pyranometers, and concludes that the reduction has globally averaged Full-size image (<1 K) per year, equivalent to a reduction of 2.7% per decade, and now totals 20 W m−2, seven times the errors of measurement. "


                    From Wikipedia:
                    The effect varies greatly over the planet, but estimates of the terrestrial surface average value are:
                    5.3% (9 W/m²); over 1958–85 (Stanhill and Moreshet, 1992)[12]
                    2%/decade over 1964–93 (Gilgen et al., 1998)[15]
                    2.7%/decade (total 20 W/m²); up to 2000 (Stanhill and Cohen, 2001)[16]
                    4% over 1961–90 (Liepert 2002)[17]

                    Looking at 1o watts/m2 or more. Some places up to 20 watts/m2 reduction in solar radiation.

                    When the particulates stop forming clouds, reducing evaporation, blocking sunlight and otherwise dimming the sun, the temperature rise will be large. Taking 2.7% per decade (20 watts/m2) gives a rise of 16C.
                    Even 10watt/m2 change would give a rise of 8C.
                    Since we know that the incoming solar intensity was fairly constant, the dimming has to be atmospheric in origin.

                    So apparently global warming is being stalled by global dimming. Climate sensitivity measurements may be very wrong since the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface has changed far more than the radiative forcing of GHG's.
                    We may have absolutely no idea of what will happen in the near future.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Gone Fishing,

                    It is the 0.5 W/m^2 figure that you should be using.



                    to clarify your thinking on this, especially pages 615 and 616. The AR5 estimate is -0.45 W/m^2.

                    The aerosols remain in the stratosphere for up to 1 year and at lower altitudes maybe a month. So if aerosol emissions cease, we would see an increase in forcing of 0.45 W/m^2.

                    This would increase temperature by about 0.4 C, note that some emissions from volcanoes and forest fires would remain so this would be an upper limit.

                    3.7 W/m^2 results in about 3 C of warming
                    so .45/3.7=0.12*3=0.36 C

                    Actually the TCR=1.8C would be a better estimate, so 0.12*1.8=0.216 C is likely to be more realistic in the short term as it takes 400 years for the ocean to warm to approach equilibrium at 3 C for 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Dennis, someday you are going to think out of the box and I will probably fall over in astonishment.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Gone fishing,

                    Why would we add up the forcing over years?

                    It is a rate in Joules per second per meter squared. So one would not add up the 0.5 W/m^2 (from the abstract) over 40 years and then claim it’s now 20 W/m^2.

                    It should be pretty clear it doesn’t work that way.

                    If you drive a car at 60 miles per hour for 10 hours, have you traveled at 600 miles per hour? No you traveled 10 hours at 60 mph and covered 600 miles.

                    Is your expectation that 0.5 W/m^2 of radiative forcing increase will cause a 16 C change in temperature?

                    Not on this planet, I can assure you.

                    Is that your out of the box thinking?

                    It amounts to an ECS of about 22 C for 3.7 W/m^2 of radiative forcing.

                    I guess we shouldn’t believe those silly climate scientists that think ECS is about 3 C and ESS about 4.2 C (best guess estimates).

                    I will correct obvious mistakes like the one you have made.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Preston,

                    On that chart, the aerosol and carbon emissions stop at the end of 2016 when the modelled temperature is 1.03 C, so warming “in the pipeline” is about 0.3 C, base on CMIP models.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Doug,

                The Carbon models do account for the carbon in the soil, but they do not do so perfectly.

                See Chapter 6 of AR5


                From that Chapter:
                There is a high agreement between models that tropical ecosystems will store less carbon in a warmer climate. There is medium agreement between models that at high latitudes warming will increase land carbon storage, although none of the models account for decomposition of carbon in permafrost, which may offset increased land carbon storage. There is high agreement between CMIP5 Earth System models that ocean warming and circulation changes will reduce the rate of carbon uptake in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic, but that carbon uptake will nevertheless persist in those regions. {6.4.2, Figures 6.21 and 6.22}

                The Earth System Models include modelled future changes in soil carbon and permafrost in response to warming, but the models need more development.

                From AR5 Chapter 6, p504

                Processes missing in terrestrial carbon cycle models. First, many models do not explicitly take into account the various forms of disturbances or ecosystem dynamics: migration, fire, logging, harvesting, insect outbreaks and the resulting variation in forest age structure which is known to affect the net carbon exchange (Kurz et al., 2008c; Bellassen et al., 2010; Higgins and Harte, 2012). Second, many key processes relevant to decomposition of carbon are missing in models (Todd-Brown et al., 2012), and particularly for permafrost carbon and for carbon in boreal and tropical wetlands and peatlands, despite the large amount of carbon stored in these ecosystems and their vulnerability to warming and land use change (Tarnocai et al., 2009; Hooijer et al., 2010; Page et al., 2011). However, progress has been made (Wania et al., 2009; Koven et al., 2011; Schaefer et al., 2011). Third, nutrient dynamics are taken into account only by few models despite the fact it is well established that nutrient constrains NPP and nitrogen deposition enhances NPP (Elser et al., 2007; Magnani et al., 2007; LeBauer and Treseder, 2008); see Section Very few models have phosphorus dynamics (Zhang et al., 2011; Goll et al., 2012). Fourth, the negative effects of elevated tropospheric ozone on NPP have not been taken into account by most current carbon cycle models (Sitch et al., 2007). Fifth, transfer of radiation, water and heat in the vegetation–soil–atmosphere continuum are treated very simply in the global ecosystem models. Finally, processes that transport carbon at the surface (e.g., water and tillage erosion; Quinton et al., 2010) and human managements including fertilisation and irrigation (Gervois et al., 2008) are poorly or not represented at all. Broadly, models are still at their early stages in dealing with land use, land use change and forestry.

                You are correct, not everything is in the models, though we can look at paleoclimate to get a rough indication of changes, such as the mid-Pliocene Warm period in the absence of perfect models.

                There are many models with many different results and it is not clear which, if any, are correct.

              • George Kaplan says:

                These results are not included in existing models. They indicate about 0.45 ppm per year increase at 1 degree warming (i.e. this is guaranteed now) and 0.71 ppm increase once 2 degrees warming is reached (which is looking inevitable now). The paper says these numbers are conservative and could be as high as 2.7 ppm. I don’t understand if there is a possible way that these numbers would drop off to zero in the future – i.e. so that a plateau of CO2 in the atmosphere would be reached: it seems maybe not. I think this is the mechanism – or the opposite of it – that explains how relatively minor changes in insolation from orbital cycle can lead to ice ages: as the permafrost advances south the carbon becomes trapped in the soil and the atmospheric concentration drops causing accelerated cooling (without this the earth would not cool much as cooling in the north would mostly be balanced by warming in the south).

                This partly explains why CO2 concentration is accelerating while fossil fuel releases are flat and why the increase in rate didn’t fall after EL Nino, but I think we should also expect another paper sometime soon that indicates the oceanic sinks are dropping in efficiency (and the effect is probably going to be shown to be also irreversible and accelerating as temperature rises).

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi George,

                  The atmospheric CO2 does not rise exactly in sync with emissions and we have had a recent el nino which tend to cause a bump in CO2 in the atmosphere.

                  The study you refer to uses a business as usual scenario (RCP8.5) which is not realistic. Fossil fuel use is likely to peak before 2030, I will read the paper. Found link below


                  • George Kaplan says:

                    RCP 8.5 might be unrealistic in terms of the source of CO2 being fossil fuels. I see no evidence of of it being unrealistic in terms of an actual trajectory for carbon concentrations in the atmosphere given possible sources from permafrost degradation, possible clathrate releases and changes in carbon cycle and ocean sink efficiency as the world warms. All of which are not fully understood, as I think you agree. RCP 8.5 is just a set of data that allows scientists to study scenarios from a consistent starting point. Currently it is the closest to what we are actually seeing. I think if things go on as they are we will need an RCP 10 (or higher) to ensure the RCPs actually bracket reality. To me (and I think others) your constant attempts at refutation of these higher level RCPs on a very narrow argument from only fossil fuel availability, which is not a fully understood aspect by a long way – even now for oil, gas or coal, is not far short of denialism, especially when all your arguments are based on a single source.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi George,

                    There are plenty of sources. Mohr, Laherrere, Campbell, and Rutledge to name a few. There is an extensive list of sources in Mohr et al 2015.

                    Yes there is a great deal of uncertainty about climate science, I agree.

                    There is very little uncertainty that fossil fuel emissions will be much less than RCP8.5, perhaps they will be as high as RCP6 if kerogen resources are used, methane hydrates are developed and the most optimistic projections of fossil fuel availability(Mohr’s high case) prove correct.

                    What are your estimates for oil and natural gas resources that are likely to be extracted?

                    Typically your estimates seem to be on the pessimistic side. Coal resources have been falling over time see


                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi George,

                    The paper below also questions the higher IPCC scenarios (note that A2 is similar to RCP8.5), authors are Mikael Höök, Anders Sivertsson, and Kjell Aleklett.


                    See especially section 3.1 and the dependence of the SRES scenarios on a single source (Rogner). They say:

                    Interestingly enough, Gregory and Rogner (1998) also mentions the “pessimistic” view on ultimate recoverable resources, represented by geologists and including Laherrere and Campbell, and the “optimistic” view, lead by economists Adelman and Lynch. Rogner, also being an energy economist, takes the optimistic side and points to the importance of unconventional hydrocarbon resources.

                    Note that the highest emissions of these scenarios is about 2200 Pg of Carbon from 1800 to 2100.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi George,

                  these effects are not included in recent models, but the subject is very complex, not sure if that study has considered all the angles, often there are nutrient limitations, and water limitations that affect the carbon cycle.

                  In summary, the balance between NPP and decomposition generally provides an adequate description of ecosystem C fluxes near steady state, for example geographic variation in C fluxes. However, understanding recent changes in the role of ecosystems in the global C cycle requires greater understanding of soil and microbial processes than is represented in most current climate–C cycling models. Critical gaps in the modelling of ecosystem-climate feedbacks include (i) nutrient and other controls that couple photosynthetic C input to respiratory C outputs, (ii) non-CO2 C fluxes that influence the climate system, and (iii) climate feedbacks in addition to C balance. Improved understanding and representation in models of soil C dynamics has important implications for patterns and rates of climatic change and for informed choices that society must make about the future condition of our planet.



      • Jeffrey Bromberg says:

        We should be planning now to harness the great economic benefits which may come from the melting permafrost. Just think about it, in the decades to come, an entirely new grain belt might emerge out of areas that are currently useless to us because the present climate doesn’t allow agriculture to flourish.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi Jeffrey,

          Let me guess, you seem to be new here, and either your sense of humor is dry English, or you are a bot, or a mouthpiece for the Koch brothers and their friends, or Sky Daddy help you, the only other likely option is that you are serious.

          Let’s hope you just forgot to add a sarc tag.

          • Jeffrey Bromberg says:

            Oldfarmermac, not new here. My internet crusade is to spread increased awareness of how the “shifting soils” and “climate change” of the future mean new areas of the world opened to humanity’s pursuit of agriculture.

            See — http://peakoilbarrel.com/a-surprising-look-at-oil-consumption/#comment-548466

            • Bob Nickson says:

              Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the production value of new agricultural lands made viable due to warming exceed the losses of existing ones from drought and desertification.

              How does this economic value compare to the economic losses and social impact of flooded coastal cities?

              • Oldfarmermac says:

                Lets go back to Jeffrey Bloomberg’s comment, that he is not new here, and he’s apparently not a bot, either. Bot’s seldom make comments that relate coherently to other comments.

                He provided a link to a previous comment he made here, about a soils migration map, and he is basically repeating his tale about how land that is frozen year around may be good farmland down the road.

                And so it might- SOME of it.

                Here is my response, the one I made then.

                oldfarmermac says:
                11/28/2015 at 5:38 pm

                This shifting soils map is a goddamned poor joke. It has the southeastern coast of the USA, which has been and is still heavily farmed, what of it is not under asphalt and concrete, for the last three centuries, listed as new farm land.

                I have never looked into the soils of northern ASIA , but when you get into the far north of Canada, you are basically looking at a shallow bog on top of bedrock. The yankee breadbasket is what it is because the glaciers stripped off the soil farther north and left it mostly south of the Canadian border.

                Growing anything there would be quite a challenge under any circumstances.

                And lets not forget that virtually nothing in the way of infrastructure necessary to support agriculture exists up that way. NOTHING.

                I copied AWS’s comment as well.
                aws. says:
                11/29/2015 at 7:20 am

                I am always amused by deniers who suggest we can farm the Canadian Shield.

                Gotta laugh to keep from crying.

                Here’s the wikipedia link about the Canadian Shield.


                It has some great pictures, and good map as well. Put that map side by side with the one JB posted, and you will quickly see that he is to put it as mildly as possible, delusional, when it comes to farming.

                The pictures tell the story. Rock and bog. Not much else except water. What soil there is, is VERY thin and exceedingly deficient in nutrients, and often as not highly acidic as well.

                It would be literally impossible to work that sort of terrain with existing farm machinery.

                What might possibly come to pass, in terms of our getting lucky with the climate heating up a few degrees, a couple of generations down the road, won’t do us any good at all now or for the next few decades, even as our present day good farmland, under current climatic conditions, becomes less productive over time, with some of today’s good land actually reverting to outright desert, and a lot more of it being submerged by rising sea water, or poisoned by the intrusion of salt water into near surface coastal area water tables.

                All other questions are academic when our short term survival is at stake.

                I don’t mean to imply that our short term survival as a SPECIES is at risk, but rather that we are collectively at high risk of economic collapse, regional famines, etc, which may in turn result in even worse troubles, such as massive uncontrolled migrations across national borders, and hot wars.

                • notanoilman says:

                  They also forget factors such as number of growing days, hours of daylight etc It is not just temperature that determines cropping.


                • Fred Magyar says:

                  The pictures tell the story. Rock and bog. Not much else except water. What soil there is, is VERY thin and exceedingly deficient in nutrients, and often as not highly acidic as well.

                  Since it will be warm and balmy, then at least during the long sunlit days of summer, we can do hydroponics… /Sarc

                  BTW, OFM. AI bots have had the capability of carrying on a coherent conversation for quite some time now. So our friends Nancy and Jeffrey could still very well be bots.
                  Though more likely paid trolls.

                  To illustrate:

                  She was supposed to come off as a normal teenage girl. But less than a day after her debut on Twitter, Microsoft’s chatbot—an AI system called “Tay.ai”—unexpectedly turned into a Hitler-loving, feminist-bashing troll. So what went wrong? TechRepublic turns to the AI experts for insight into what happened and how we can learn from it.


                  Compared to today’s dystopian reality, Orwell, 1984 and Sci Fi movies like Bladerunner are beginning to look like a Tom and Jerry cartoon…


                  • Oldfarmermac says:

                    Hi Fred,

                    Yeah, you are right about the bots getting to be so good it’s hard to tell them from real people.

                    I think the ones we find here in this forum are nearly all el cheapo bots, or else trolls.

                    But we cannot rule out my last option, Sky Daddy help him, this guy might actually believe his own bullshit. This is a lot more common than most people would ever guess, and I am going to post a comment about successfully communicating with this sort of person later.

    • Survivalist says:

      I’m not familiar with Guy’s hypothesis. By what mechanism does everybody die within ten years? I’ve lived in minus 50*C and plus 50*C and it seems to me it’d have to get pretty hot to kill everybody everywhere. Famine will kill a lot of people I suppose but I think no matter how severe a famine there’s likely to be somebody somewhere who’s hanging on and delaying an extinction. Can anybody share a link that explains Guy’s theory on human extinction within 10 years more clearly? I know a dude with about 20 years worth of freeze dried food. Famine will take a while to get to him. And I find it unlikely the temps will get so hot that we’ll all die from heat related illness.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        First, let me be clear, in that I don’t think the human race will be extinct in the next ten years!

        However I do find it plausible that if we continue with business as usual we might pass irreversible tipping points in the near future, if we haven’t already done so, therefore putting our survival as a species, up for debate. IMHO biodiversity loss is one of the greatest impacts of rapid climate change. Everything points to a sixth mass extinction event currently well underway.

        If someone wishes to see where Guy is coming from he has a website. I’m sure he responds to direct questions.


        The Planet is Fine! It’s the people that are fucked!
        George Carlin


        • Doug Leighton says:



          “A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.”


        • GoneFishing says:

          Fred, we are an anomaly causing anomalies and reacting in anomalous ways to uncertain conclusions from incomplete data and knowledge.

          We learn as we go, too bad we don’t go as we learn.

          The one thing we can be happy about is that contemplating climate change does not cause one’s brain to hurt as is caused by contemplating the effects of time travel. The downside is it causes depression and melancholy.
          So best not to think about it at all and just act as if it’s happening, it might be bad, so do as much as we can to prevent further damage.
          If we have lost control over the situation, then staying busy with climate projects is good for us in the time we have left.

          • Doug Leighton says:

            Fish, that’s the most coherent explanation and logical analysis of our situation I’ve heard yet.

            And: “…staying busy with climate projects is good for us in the time we have left.” is admirable advice as well.

            But, it’s time for my dose of Single Malt while I contemplate adding more attic insulation tomorrow or…. maybe next week.

      • Preston says:

        Yes, it’s mostly a problem growing food and you are right, it’s hard to believe a few people wont hang on pass Guy’s 10 year mark. But, the heat can kill us directly also – try to imagine the hottest day of the year being another 10F hotter, say 110F and 95% humidity, humans can’t survive that. Plus, there is all the radiation from all the nukes and the storage ponds. If you think the fires in California and Kentucky are bad now, imagine how everything will burn at even higher temps. With the forests burned down and the oceans poisoned, even O2 levels will start to be an issue. Lastly, most will die in the mayham from the collapse of civilization. With the planet left uninhabitable, and without our technology to create artificial environments, humans wont survive.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Worst case scenarios are very bad. Doubt if it will be worst case, but the on-demand system we run can run out of food and needed parts quite quickly.

        • Survivalist says:

          So perhaps human extinction within ten years is not likely. What’s anyone’s guess on the probability of extensive famine secondary to massive agricultural system/food production disruptions secondary to drought. Personally I see a lot of drought the world over and if it continues to increase it’s surely to impact food production.

          The drought map looks ominous.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            Famine on the grand scale is entirely possible, given the current overall prevailing agricultural production system, which will continue to prevail for a long time yet.

            Sooner or later, a truly record busting ( recorded history record) drought is sure to hit one or another major bread basket, or an emergent disease will wipe out a staple food crop over a huge area, etc, or both might occur at the same time.

            As things stand right this minute, if consumers in countries such as the USA and Canada were willing to give up beef and pork, and eat a hell of a lot more beans and bread, it would probably be possible to prevent mass starvation by exporting the grain we feed to meat animals, if this export could be managed, politically. That’s an open question.

            But there is no longer a huge world wide carry over of grain or any other staple food from one year to then next, and it takes a year for farmers in a country such as the USA to respond to rising prices, and a couple of years to get a really strong response in production.

            It’s hard to say what the international response would be to a major crash in food production in a country such as India.

            My guess is that the international community would step up with a response adequate to prevent mass starvation, but I wouldn’t be big money on that guess.

            One thing is obvious, you can take it to the bank. Famines tend to hit suddenly, without enough warning lead time for the farmers of the world to ramp up production in unaffected areas quick enough to make up for the shortage of food.

            This means redistribution is a sort of zero sum game, with some people necessarily doing without so others can eat. Rich Yankees and Western Europeans can drop down the ladder, eating less meat, and still eat well, eating BETTER , actually, in terms of our personal health.

            But most people world wide don’t eat all that much meat to begin with.

            It’s not a question of IF, but rather a question of WHEN, at least until after the population peaks and declines significantly.

            It’s simple basic probability math that if there is a significant possibility of a given outcome, over time, that event WILL happen, given enough time.

            I am a long way from being a climate expert, or a mathematician, and don’t have the faintest idea what the odds are, any given year, of there being a drought comparable to the Dust Bowl in two separate bread baskets that same year, or most of the Indian subcontinent drying up and blowing away, any given year.

            But these odds are definitely not zero.

            If I lived in a place such as Egypt, I would surely have at least a couple of years worth of non perishable staples stashed, and nobody other than my most intimate friends would know about my stash.

            In the unlikely event anybody reading this comment is ever in a situation where there has been a run on the supermarkets, and he may actually be facing starvation, or at least losing fifty pounds, lol, it’s good to know that you might still be able to grab a few bags of livestock feed at a farm supply, or even pet food at a supermarket.

            Dairy feed concentrate would be the best, but any livestock feed is better than nothing, and will keep you functional for a long time, indefinitely, if you can score some greens and vitamins, etc.

            Some of the smartest, best informed people I have ever had the privilege of talking to, privately, have staple food stashes, not so much because they fear not being able to buy food, but more because they plan on going out as little as possible, in the event of an epidemic outbreak of an infectious disease, or any sort of violent disturbance of the public peace.

            This could potentially be a life and death matter if you live in close contact with people who are in close contact with a lot of international travelers.

            Air travel could spread an emerging new disease all over before the health care establishment realizes what is happening and implement control measures.

            • Survivalist says:

              Thanks OFM. Thanks for the info. I Googled Dairy Feed Concentrate. It comes up as a mix of corn grain, wheat grain ,barley grain, soya hulls, beet pulp, citrus pulp, etc.


              How would you theoretically perhaps recommend cooking/eating that kinda thing? like porridge?

              • Oldfarmermac says:

                Hi Survivalist,

                The thing that makes dairy concentrate better than other feeds is that you can’t feed milk cows feed containing any rancid fats, etc, which impart off flavors to milk, and you can’t legally add any ingredients that are recognized as harzardous that wind up in the milk.

                Other animal feeds may contain things that will make you gag, or roughage you simply cannot digest at all.

                I have sampled various animal feeds experimentally, including horse concentrates, that are at least palatable simply boiled with some added salt or sugar. You won’t likely ENJOY this sort of porridge, but you will be glad to have it within twenty four hours of your last meal, lol.

                Anything feed with fish or fish byproducts in it makes me gag, but I think I could eat some of that sort after maybe TWO days without anything else.

                If you ever do eat any, either as an experiment or as a matter of necessity, it would be best if it is thoroughly heated, as by boiling or baking a while, because the feed industry is not too particular about possible contamination with bacteria that could maybe give you one hell of a belly ache.

                Also remember that the heat associated with cooking breaks down chemical bonds enabling humans to digest otherwise indigestible ingredients that farm animals digest easily raw.

                It’s unlikely that any of us currently reading this forum will ever NEED to eat livestock feed, but knowing it’s possible doesn’t cost anything.

                But there are plenty of people in places where hot fights are going on right now would give their wedding rings for a couple of bags of dairy or horse feed.

                Some of us might travel to such a place, and get stuck there.

                • JN2 says:

                  >> But there is no longer a huge world wide carry over of grain or any other staple food from one year to then next <<



                  PS Why doesnt IMG tag work?

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi JN2,

                    The blog was set up by Ron, I am not great at web design and as set up img tags are not allowed, you can download the image to your computer and then upload using the image tool which works for png, jpg and gif as far as I know, file size is limited to 50 kB so gif or jpg usually work best (whichever is smaller) paint can be used to reduce image size in some cases (or a more sophisticated image editor if you have it.)

                  • JN2 says:

                    Thanks Dennis, I see the Choose File button now 🙂

                • JN2 says:

                  OFM, cereal stock-to-use ratio has been between approx 20% to 26% the last 10 years. Was it ever higher than that?

  2. islandboy says:

    The EIA updated their Electric Power Monthly on November 29 with data for September 2016. Below is the graph of th percentage contribution from the various sources.

  3. islandboy says:

    And below is the graph of solar output from the EIA’s latest Electric Power Monthly.

  4. R Walter says:

    You can’t make this stuff up. You can’t make up this stuff.

    Heretics will be heretics.

    Giordano Bruno was born in the Kingdom of Naples in 1548, only a few years after the death of Copernicus. At the age of 24 he was ordained a Dominican priest, although his curious and uninhibited mind had already attracted the disapproval of his teachers. Within a few years of ordination, he was accused of heresy – a first that would later occur many times. The very idea of heresy meant nothing to Bruno; he claimed for himself (and for others) the libertes philosophica, the right to philosophize, to dream, unfettered by authority or tradition. Poet, philosopher, loose cannon: Bruno wandered across Europe all his life – Italy, Geneva, France, England, Germany – stirring up a fuss wherever he went, offending Catholics and Protestants alike, shaking up preconceptions, rattling complacencies, asking philosophers and shopkeepers to entertain a doubt or two: The universe and God might be bigger than we think. He was a modern in many qualities of mind – materialist, rationalist, a champion of free and skeptical inquiry. The universe is a unity, he believed. He made no distinction between matter and spirit, body and soul, yet he was energized and exhilarated by the majesty of the universe as it was being revealed to the Renaissance successors of Copernicus. Among his more audacious dreams was of an infinitude of inhabited worlds – an idea that troubled the sleep of many a theologian. The problem, within Christian theology, had to do with the supposed uniqueness of Adam’s fall into sin, and of the redemption of Christ. If there are other sentient beings in the universe, did they share in Adam’s sin, and did they require separate acts of atonement on the part of the Redeemer? It may seem strange to many of us, but these questions exercised theologians from Origen in the third century to Karl Rahner in the 20th. In an article last year in the journal, Theological Studies, the Dominican theologian Thomas O’Meara surveys the long debate about the theological implications of multiple inhabited worlds, and comes to the conclusion that in these matters the Christian theologian should take a cosmic view and be guided by the discoveries of empirical science. An echo, it would seem, of Bruno.

    In 1591, at the request of a potential patron, Bruno returned to Italy, to the Republic of Venice, perhaps because he was homesick, perhaps because he sought the Chair of Mathematics at the University of Padua, which he knew to be open. Big mistake. He was soon denounced by his erstwhile patron to the Inquisition. Extradited to Rome, he languished in a prison of the Holy Office for seven years, struggling to accommodate his tormenters without forsaking his principles.

    Accommodation proved impossible. In February of 1600, he was taken gagged to the Campo de’ Fiori, or ”Field of Flowers,” and put to the stake.


    Giordano more or less told all of the big wigs in all of the churches to take a hike. Giordano Bruno was not going to submit to anyone’s bs. Nothing was sacred to Giordano. Doesn’t matter if you are the Pope or Sigmund Frued, you’re all full of it thought Giordano. Probably drank like a fish. lol

    A mother nature’s son, that’s for sure. Hilarious, A Lenny Bruce of his time.

    No more reading, the end.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Beware crossing the true believers, they will break their own laws and kill you.

  5. islandboy says:

    Having watched the video with Guy McPherson linked to above, the though exercise I’m about to bring up is probably pointless but, what the heck! Let me do it anyway!

    Below is one of the graphs I produce from the EIA’s electric power monthly that, shows the seasonal variation of the total amount of electricity generated, juxtaposed with an amplified view of the output from solar. I did this to get a view of how solar might be able to satisfy the peak demand for electricity during the summer months. Note that in terms of the relative proportions the total mid summer peak is a little over 400,000 GWh while the total mid summer solar output is a little under 6,000 GWh. The 400,000 GWh also includes output from wind, hydro and nuclear so, in my next comment I will look at how much solar would be needed to replace the FF component of mid summer generation.

  6. HuntingtonBeach says:

    An ‘Unprecedented’ 102 Million Trees Have Died In California’s Drought-Stricken Forests


    “The scale of die-off in California is unprecedented in our modern history,” Randy Moore, a forester with the agency, told the Los Angeles Times. Trees are dying “at a rate much quicker than we thought.”

    • Doug Leighton says:

      That sounds like defeatism, the trees will all grow back — unless the area becomes another Sahara of course!

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        Hey Doug, there not going to grow back. At least not until the history of man is written.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Just to give some perspective:
      Between 3 billion and 6 billion trees are cut for wood products worldwide each year. Who knows how many trees are killed to clear forests for farmland and development?
      From Think Global Green
      “Nov. 24 2016: Protected forests in Europe felled to meet EU renewable targets. Protected forests are being indiscriminately felled across Europe to meet the EU’s renewable energy targets, according to an investigation by the conservation group Birdlife. Up to 65% of Europe’s renewable output currently comes from bioenergy, involving fuels such as wood pellets and chips, rather than wind and solar power. Bioenergy fuel is supposed to be harvested from residue such as forest waste but, under current legislation, European bioenergy plants do not have to produce evidence that their wood products have been sustainably sourced. In Slovakia, the drive to reach the EU’s renewable energy targets has seen a 72% increase in the use of wood for bioenergy since 2007, according to Birdlife ” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/24/protected-forests-in-europe-felled-to-meet-eu-renewable-targets-report

      “In 1950, about 15% of the Earth’s land surface was covered by rainforest. In fewer than fifty years, more than half of the world’s tropical rainforests have fallen victim to fire and the chain saw, and the rate of destruction is still accelerating. Unbelievably, more than 200,000 acres of rainforest are burned every day. That is more than 150 acres lost every minute of every day, and 78 million acres lost every year. More than 20% of the Amazon rainforest is already gone, and much more is severely threatened as the destruction continues. It is estimated that the Amazon alone is vanishing at a rate of 20,000 square miles a year. If nothing is done to curb this trend, the entire Amazon could well be gone within another fifty years. If deforestation continues at current rates, scientists estimate nearly 80 to 90% of tropical rainforest ecosystems will be destroyed by the year 2020. ”

      The Amazon is starting to self-destruct, drying out and burning on it’s own. We have pushed too far and continue pushing.
      Indonesia has the highest rate of forest (jungle) loss in the world. Maybe the government can slow it down.
      CO2 output from forest loss is more than equivalent to all the vehicles in the world.
      Now start imagining the weather and hydrological changes from this essentially ripping away of earth’s forests.

  7. HuntingtonBeach says:

    Tennessee Wildfire Death Toll Hits 10


    “We’ll be okay,” said Mayor Mike Werner of Gatlinburg, the town hit the hardest by the fire. “We’re mountain-tough and we have strong, strong faith in God.”

  8. HuntingtonBeach says:

    November Was A Bad Month For Arctic Sea Ice. The Overall Picture Is Much Worse.
    “We are all ice-dependent species.”


    “The 10 lowest years [of Arctic sea ice] have all occurred in the last 10 years,” said Julienne Stroeve, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

    • R.Rutledge says:

      Having a bet with a buddy that ice on the Great Lakes is going to last into June, again this year. Saying around June 19 though with that big polar vortex thing looking like it’s coming back this winter, ice could possibly stay to the first week of July? All I know, springs and summers and the growing seasons keep getting shorter & shorter every year here in Michigan. Meaning, expect even more price rises at your local Meijer.

      Cass Tech ’64

      • GoneFishing says:

        Potential Climate Change Effects on Great Lakes Hydrodynamics and Water Quality


        Spatial analysis of ice phenology trends across the Laurentian Great Lakes region
        during a recent warming period
        We examined spatial patterns of trends in ice phenology and duration for 65 waterbodies across the Great
        Lakes region (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ontario, and New York) during a recent period of rapid climate
        warming (1975–2004). Average rates of change in freeze (3.3 d decade21) and breakup (22.1 d decade21) dates
        were 5.8 and 3.3 times more rapid, respectively, than historical rates (1846–1995) for Northern Hemisphere
        waterbodies. Average ice duration decreased by 5.3 d decade21. Over the same time period, average fall through
        spring temperatures in this region increased by 0.7uC decade21, while the average number of days with snow
        decreased by 5.0 d decade21, and the average snow depth on those days decreased by 1.7 cm decade21. Breakup
        date and ice duration trends varied over the study area, with faster changes occurring in the southwest. Trends for
        each site were compared to static waterbody characteristics and meteorological variables and their trends. The
        trend toward later freeze date was stronger in large, low-elevation waterbodies; however, freeze date trends had no
        geographic patterns or relationships to meteorological variables. Variability in the strength of trends toward
        earlier breakup was partially explained by spatial differences in the rate of change in the number of days with
        snow cover, mean snow depth, air temperature (warmer locations showed stronger trends), and rate of change in
        air temperature. Differences in ice duration trends were explained best by a combination of elevation and the local
        rate of change in either temperature or the number of days with snow cover.


  9. HuntingtonBeach says:

    Meet Trump’s Pick To Dismantle EPA


    Ebell’s work has been funded by some of America’s biggest polluters. CEI jealously guards the sources of its $7 million annual budget, but research from records of Exxon Mobil and others show a long track record of taking money from polluters (ExxonMobil said they halted funding to CEI in 2006).

    • Nancy Gebauer says:

      The EPA hucksters and scam artists are about to get Trumped! Hopefully afterward the agency can transition to projects that make the environment better for all (including our corporations) without conceding further wealth or power to marxist elites who have no ability to actually fix anything they say they are concerned about. ~

      • GoneFishing says:

        They put away people that sell and use drugs, they put them in jail. Yet it’s OK to poison whole landscapes, toxify rivers, pollute the air of millions. It’s OK to kill by the thousand and wreck people. As long as there is money to be made. Is that your point? Is that what you support?

        • Nancy Gebauer says:

          NO that’s not my point. Re-read what I wrote. My point is under obama’s cronies the EPA has become just another political organization pushing specific agendas designed to force “lifestyle modifications” and take jobs away from hard-working citizens. Once Trump becomes president the agency will transform away from advocating leftist agendas to instead focus on it’s ORIGINAL mission protecting our air and water while also ensuring access to the jobs and lifestyles of our choosing. ~

          • Fred Magyar says:

            My point is under obama’s cronies the EPA has become just another political organization pushing specific agendas designed to force “lifestyle modifications” and take jobs away from hard-working citizens.

            Don’t worry Nancy, you may yet get to see plenty of unforced lifestyle modifications coming soon to a town near you! With your brilliant mind, highly developed critical thinking skills, deep knowledge of science and world history and your keen sense of civic duty, I’m sure you will find a way to make great contributions to society at large.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Having cake and eating it too never worked out.

          • Bob Nickson says:

            Hi Nancy,

            Two questions for you:

            What evidence do you have that your claim about ‘Obama’s EPA’ are true?

            What evidence do you have that Trump, a billionaire real estate developer has any intention of doing what you claim he will do to improve the effectiveness of the EPA at its core mission to protect the integrity of the natural resources of the U.S., and by extension the health and well being of the public?

            You can answer on the board if you like, but really, consider revisiting those questions for yourself, and consider the possibility of expanding your information sources beyond the ones that you typical turn to.

            Are they primary sources of information, or secondary ones? Are they sources that are aligned with any one particular political viewpoint?

            Are there non-political sources that are available to verify or refute your evidence?

            • Nancy Gebauer says:

              Breitbart Science and Drudge have been covering the dangerous ideologically motivated work of obama’s EPA for years. Those “primary sources” your talking about must be the mainstream media outlets which are well known to have taken a far-left liberal turn in the last decade. But they will be powerless soon enough anyway under the Trump Presidency since Trump will have a direct line to Breitbart and all other true conservative news organizations. ~

              Works Cited

              Ten Ways to Fix EPA and Jump-Start the Economy

              GOP Platform: It’s Time To Get Rid Of The EPA

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Breitbart Science and Drudge have been covering the dangerous ideologically motivated work of obama’s EPA for years.

                Nancy dear, whether you are a bot or a paid troll or just another run of the mill fascist neo nazi, why don’t you go fornicate with yourself and equine you rode in on! For the record some of us don’t hold neo nazi white supremacists and racists in very high regard… Some of us do not want to repeat history and the kinds of things that happened in Weimar republic!

                Breitbart Science?! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
                And you have the gall to talk about ideology?!

              • notanoilman says:

                Hoo boy, I’m glad I read that first sentence between sips or I’d have needed to clean my screen. Quoting a fake news site that trolls for ad money as a source.


              • doggyoga says:


                Those “sources” you quote need to be cross checked against verifiable sources. You can’t cite a heavily biased, ideologically based website as a source. You have to corroborate the story with other sources first. Sorry. It ‘s just not as easy as saying, “The fox says everything is just fine in the hen house!”

                Do you understand?

            • George Harmon says:

              Most conservatives believe mitigation of climate change is just another form of socialism going about masquerading as empirical science. Can’t you see how it would appear that way? Anthropogenic climate change theory just so happens to give the political left everything they have ever craved!

              Perhaps some of the most strident label givers here would like to explain what purpose is served by handing out the label “climate change denier” and all of the intolerant baggage that comes along with it? Irony is, climate scientists’ inability to accept any questions about their science actually strongly discredits the science. True science always welcomes skepticism.

              • Bob Nickson says:

                Hi George,

                You wrote:Anthropogenic climate change theory just so happens to give the political left everything they have ever craved!

                Could you elaborate on this a little more, because it’s not obvious to me how this is so.

                Also, I completely agree that true science always welcomes skepticism, but could you point me in the direction of more information on climate scientists’ not accepting questions about their science?

                • George Harmon says:

                  The -ism being sold by anthropogenic climate change theory is Statism. Known by the characteristic of an always expanding desire of the state to control its own people. For decades the political left of the US has totally dedicated itself to this. It has been called many different -ism though including liberalism, progressivism, socialism.

                  Academia’s need to feed the beast to please their masters plays a principal role in what has been going on. The proof is in how power hungry global bureaucrats pay big bucks for studies that prove climate change. In turn the bureaucrats then go lobbying down to your state legislature, city council, school board, e.t.c. to try convincing the members to impose more and more regulations and controls over the bitter clingers (their own words) of the hinterlands. All neatly packaged up in the name of climate change.

                  • notanoilman says:

                    Ah, you mean how the Republicans are doing this with peoples’, especially womens’ rights.


                  • doggyoga says:


                    You wrote: “Anthropogenic climate change theory just so happens to give the political left everything they have ever craved!”

                    No one on the left, no one sane, craves anything that climate change is bringing us.

                    You right-wingers (wingnuts) project your own vision of authoritarians in jackboots on the left when in truth, it is Trump who cuts a Mussolini-like figure. You are blinded by your own projections.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Perhaps some of the most strident label givers here would like to explain what purpose is served by handing out the label “climate change denier” and all of the intolerant baggage that comes along with it?

                You are absolutely right George, it would be an exercise in futility! So in lieu of an explanation, that would be an utter waste of time, let me just put the cards on the table face up. You and others like you deserve zero tolerance. You are not interested in any explanation. Your minds are made up and you are set in your world view, too bad it just isn’t compatible with reality and the survival of humanity but hey, C’est la vie!

                Another bot or paid troll!

              • Lloyd says:

                Can’t you see how it would appear that way? Anthropogenic climate change theory just so happens to give the political left everything they have ever craved!
                This is, of course bullshit.

                What is it, exactly, that an amorphous group presumably made up of 150 million people in the US, craves?

                And why do you translate for them?

                This is typical right-wing crap. Accuse a non-existant group of something or other that you haven’t quantified.

                And as you should be able to see, we are big on quantification here.

                Cite your sources.

                Though I suspect they will be as humorous as Nancy’s.

                  • Fred Magyar says:


                    LOL! Are you really fucking serious?! The founder believes in perpetual motion machines and thinks CO2 in the atmosphere causes cooling!

                    Same with the rest of the links you posted! Pure propaganda BS!

                  • Survivalist says:

                    “I’m a registered Republican, I only seem liberal because I believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and not gay marriage.”

                    ― Aaron Sorkin

                  • Lloyd says:

                    You didn’t disappoint.
                    Funnier than I have expected.

                    The scary part is that you might actually believe this.

                    I particularly like their interpretation of a poster for a UN Climate change conference: “Last year’s Climate Change poster for the UN. Note the all-seeing eye of Horus in the middle, as well as the Illuminati triangles.”

                    What can I say? Your sources are unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

                    And you’re proudof it?

                  • Geoff Riley says:

                    Oh, there really are many people out there who believe crap like this, and, what’s worse, at least around the parts where I live, they often aren’t afraid to show up to local city council, county board, or school board meetings and “educate” the members about all of their theories.

                    Sometimes they even get elected to these boards. My local school board has a woman who wishes the public schools would teach “Christian morality” and, last month, the voters nearly elected a guy who insists Sharia Law is creeping into all aspects of the curriculum and promised to bring in “experts” from around the country who would’ve proven him right.

                  • Bob Nickson says:

                    Hi George,

                    I did read your links. All of them.
                    I personally found them brimming with a shotgun barrage of allegations, unsupported anecdote, and no objective evidence.

                    If no ‘mainstream’ media can be trusted, and no governmental organization can be trusted, and academia can’t be trusted, and no scientists or scientific bodies who receive government funding can be trusted, not only within the U.S. but globally, by what criteria do you determine the integrity of an information source?

                  • Survivalist says:

                    Here are the U.S. states which have banned Islamic Sharia from being used by the courts or legal system; Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

                    Looks they got it just in time! lol

                    Personally I would have thought the Right Wing Conservative Christian types would have liked that Sharia Law stuff. It sounds like some good ol’ Old Testament justice! An eye for an eye and all that.

                    As well I don’t really feel the need to convince people over to my way of thinking. I’m much more interested in gathering information than sharing it. And anyone who is overly concerned because ‘last year’s Climate Change poster for the UN had an all-seeing eye of Horus in the middle, as well as the Illuminati triangles’ isn’t worth their rations. Frankly speaking, if someone is that ….. um stupid, I wouldn’t throw them a life jacket if they were drowning. But hey, that’s just me. I’m kind of a dick lol.


              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi George,

                The questions about climate science are answered at the link below.


                Read it and get back to us. Not a lot of discussion of socialism there that I have seen, though I have not read the entire report, perhaps I missed it. 🙂

          • HuntingtonBeach says:

            “ensuring access to the jobs and lifestyles of our choosing. ~”

            Fuck your choosing Nancy. You don’t get to burn your dirty coal for your electricity and stick the waste product in my lungs or turn mother earth into a hazardous waste site. Grow up, your not in kindergarten anymore. You need to learn how to play with others. It’s not all about you.

            • Nancy Gebauer says:

              After all the claiming to be the tolerant ones, democrats sure seem to be full of anger and hatred toward fellow Americans. Sad. ~

              • HuntingtonBeach says:

                There will be no tolerant’s for your choosing to endanger others for your selfishness. Your comments are of the nature of a “sad” human being. If it needs to be civil war, so be it. Your selfishness is a cancer and it needs to be cured. The sooner the better. There will be no free pass stepping on others.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                One can never be tolerant of facism!
                I know your posts are intended as flame bait with the sole purpose of eliciting exactly the responses you are getting! Congratulations to you and your handler’s

              • Survivalist says:

                Hi Nancy, Do you believe WWE wrestling is real?

            • Bob Nickson says:

              Maybe I’m old fashioned, naive, or simply stupid, but I tend to be of the opinion that respectful dialog between folks who disagree will lead to better outcomes than vitriol, condescension, and personal attacks.

              Read the first three paragraphs of this article:


              “People therefore interpret political language through ideological lenses. What sounds obviously appalling to one person may seem totally unobjectionable or even desirable to another. People on the left, however, often fail to comprehend this fact.

              It’s critical that some attempt be made to hammer out a consensus on what constitutes objective fact. Can’t we civilly attempt to establish ties of common agreement as a starting point from which to discuss policy strategies?

              From Nancy’s comment, we can glean that she supports clean air and clean water. There isn’t a conflict of objective here. There is a difference of opinion on policy, maybe, or a disparity of perceived objective fact.

              For those who don’t agree that Breitbart is an objective source of information on, well, anything, then please step up with a link to one that you think is more objective.

              Nancy may be a bot, but so what? Not everyone who reads an exchange will be.

              The way to refute a science falsehood is to direct honest inquiry toward an objective source of science fact.

              Where are the responses to Nancy that don’t at face value validate her assertion of being the receiving end of hatred and anger?

              Something’s got to change in this vitriolic, hyper-partisan tribalism. Can we at least attempt to hear each other without attacking each other?

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Something’s got to change in this vitriolic, hyper-partisan tribalism. Can we at least attempt to hear each other without attacking each other?

                Actually tried that for the last half century and now we have Trump. My family directly suffered the consequences of Hitler.

                What do you suggest Bob? Should we just consider science denial or white supremacists the new normal?

                Or have I just completely misunderstood Steve Bannon’s position and if I sat down with him for a beer I’d find him to be just a good old boy?

                • Bob Nickson says:

                  Points taken Fred.

                  I have to admit the election of President Dunning-Kruger has drained away much of my already tenuous optimism, and I’m trending towards agreeing with Ron Patterson about our species, and what that portends for both us and the biosphere.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Bob,

                Read Nancy’s opening comment.

                When one starts with insults, the conversation quickly degrades.

                Nancy said:

                The EPA hucksters and scam artists are about to get Trumped! Hopefully afterward the agency can transition to projects that make the environment better for all (including our corporations) without conceding further wealth or power to marxist elites who have no ability to actually fix anything they say they are concerned about. ~

                I have added bold to the parts some might find insulting.

                Does this seem like someone interested in a civil dialog?

                • Bob Nickson says:

                  Hi Dennis,

                  No, it doesn’t.

                  But in my opinion your own ability to patiently and systematically try to keep dialog grounded with factual support, and to never resort to invective or ad hominem arguments, even when it is thrown your way, is exemplary. I respect you a lot for it, and I think it adds credibility to your positions.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    But in my opinion your own ability to patiently and systematically try to keep dialog grounded with factual support, and to never resort to invective or ad hominem arguments, even when it is thrown your way, is exemplary.

                    That’s why he gets paid the BIG bucks to run this blog… 😉

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Bob,

                    I try, but often fail.


            • Paul Helvik says:


              Your post is a good representation of the type of thinking by coastal elites that is making the Democratic Party fade into irrelevance in most parts of the country away from the coasts. In coal country out here in Montana and Wyoming, what people want are jobs. What they don’t want is to be lectured about “green” this or “mother earth” that as if they are idiots. That type of behavior alone does nothing to improve anybody’s economic plight or grow local economies.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                So Paul, how many tons of coal have you mined today? Must be hard to post comments while covered in coal dust.

                Your concern for the economic plight and hardships of workers the world over is duly noted…

              • HuntingtonBeach says:

                “In coal country out here in Montana and Wyoming, what people want are jobs.”

                The same is true in the “coastal elite” part of the country too. Burning down the house is not a wise way of keeping warm at night. If the shoe fits, the idiots need to realize that their wearing it.

                The Democratic Party is not irrelevant. It represents more of the country than the Republicans. The Republicans rigged the system.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Huntington Beach,

                  Read some history, the electoral system was set up before there were any Republicans (which in 1860 was the more progressive party).

                  The Republicans worked within the existing system and won, get over it. I would prefer that Trump was not president, but this should be a lesson to Democrats that the “safe” choice is not always the best choice.

                  I mistakenly thought Clinton’s chances of winning were better than Sanders’, I was wrong, though we will never know if Sanders would have been able to win against Trump.

                  • Bob Nickson says:

                    I interpreted Huntington’s comment about Republicans rigging the system as referring to gerrymandering. This seems like more of a case of exploiting a flaw in the system than working within the system. Regardless, the Democrats failed to either exploit the flaw themselves, or defend against it.

                    Dennis, you may enjoy this piece by Kurt Eichenwald, he addresses the question of Sanders viability against Trump.


                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Bob,

                    If it was Gerrymandering he was complaining about, those rules are decided at the state level and for the presidential election this goes back to the electoral system, put in place long ago.

                    The system is rigged to help less populous states, essentially minority rule through both the Senate and Executive branches and by extension though presidential appointments and Senate approval, the Judiciary branch as well.

                    That is why the majority population should support the National Popular Vote interstate compact, in my view.


                  • HuntingtonBeach says:

                    Hi Bob,

                    You can add voter suppression to gerrymandering. But the truth is the Dem’s sabotaged themselves pretty much the way Kurt Eichenwald in your posted article explains. Reading it was mostly confirmation of what I believe than new info. Thanks.

                    Hello Dennis, thank you for your “tolerance” of some of my posts. Sometimes the F word just gets the point a cross like no other. For myself, I’m not really a fan of it, but on the other hand it doesn’t bother me either. I’m pretty sure most of the adults here have heard it before.

                    Yes, I’m still in denial about the election. Instead of turning on the TV and facing it. I’m thinking maybe I’m going to cancel my cable for the next four years, spend more time making money on energy stocks in the market(that’s how and why I found TOD years back and ended up here today) and doubling up on my serotonin happy pills.

                    Thanks again for maintaining this site

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Paul,

                The extractive energy industry (oil, natural gas, and coal) will become increasingly uncompetitive as the price of wind, solar, and batteries (for transportation) fall.

                The difficulties in the coal industry are mainly a result of the success of the natural gas industry, the low price of natural gas is making coal less competitive and the falling price of wind and solar are making natural gas less competitive as well.

                Note that there are jobs created by the wind and solar industries, a smart person in Montana or Wyoming would look to those industries for future employment, rather than coal.

          • Lloyd says:

            the EPA has become just another political organization pushing specific agendas designed to force “lifestyle modifications”

            Oh my gawd!
            Those bastards at the EPA are responsible for all the gays and hipsters and working women and feminists and all those other commie un-americans who love Al Kidah? (though Al’s wife, Susie Kidah, gets a pass, ’cause you should stick by your man.)

            Of course, if I was a-writin’ this, I would specify how they were doing this, so right-thinking people like me could write their representative and get things changed, rather than just reciting a series of buzzwords designed to inflame the stupid.

            Of course, if your intention was to irritate the well-informed with populist gobbledegook that is essentially meaningless, then mission accomplished. Keep up the good work.

      • Survivalist says:

        Marxist elites lol that’s a good one

  10. islandboy says:

    Below is a graph of US Monthly Electricity Generation by Source. It clearly shows the seasonal variation in electricity demand (the “Total” line) with peaks in the mid summer and mid winter and troughs in the spring and autumn. I looked at the actual figures in the source table and calculated that, for solar (including Distributed Generation) to completely replace mid summer FF generation, it would need to grow by a factor of about 50.

    The output of solar in August 2016 was slightly more than twice the output of August 2014 so let’s assume a doubling time of two years for solar. If growth in solar output continues at the current rate how long will it take to get to 50 times the current output? Well six doublings gets us to 64 so, it would take less than 12 years to completely replace FF for mid summer generation. So, assuming Guy McPherson is out of left field (really optimistic assumption) one other thing that could happen is that FF consumption could be almost eliminated for electricity generation in ten years. Of course one of the other elephants in the room is transportation and for FF to be almost eliminated from transportation in ten years, Tony Seba will have to turn out to have been very conservative in his projections!

    Before I get flamed out of existence, this was just a thought exercise. We are probably all #@*%ed anyway you look at it!

    • Preston says:

      Yes Islandboy if we have the time, the plans going in place based on the Paris accords could see us off fossil fuels maybe not in 10 years, but in 20 or 30 years. A couple of countries have already announced plans to ban the ICE in new cars in 10 years – it’s very feasible that most miles driven would be with electrics by then. The IPCC adds in “negative” emissions (some kind of geo engineering) starting soon and going net negative in 20 years or so as their plan to stop the run away change and the keep us under a 2C increase. That’s the mainstream opinion, and requires immediate all out action. But Guy may be right and we don’t have enough time left.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Preston,

        If the optimistic scenarios of fast cost reductions for solar and batteries are correct, then we would be ok with the central estimates of climate sensitivity and if 1.75C of warming is not catastrophic. Geoengineering would not be needed in that case, to limit warming to only 1.5 C would require geoengineering, but that might cause more problems than it solves unless planting trees is considered geoengineering, cement that absorbs rather than emitting CO2 would help, better farming practices and possible carbon capture and storage of biofuel burning.

        Much is unknown, the simplest approach is to reduce carbon emissions as fast as possible.

        • Preston says:

          Thanks Dennis, you are right, that is what they are hoping for and I hope they are right. But If you use 1880 as your baseline then we are already at 1.3C (and maybe 1.5C if you go back to the 1700’s) and it’s now going up 0.15C per year. Maybe it’s just a spike like in the 1940’s or 1998, but maybe not….


          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Preston,

            Typically people use the 1850-1899 mean global temperature, using that baseline and Berkeley Earth data we have about 1.1C of warming in 2015.

            If we consider Holocene mean temperatures from 10,000 BP to 1750 CE using Marcott et al 2013, the 1951-1980 average temperature is similar to that long term average. It depends upon the baseline used, this higher baseline would mean we were about 0.8 C above the long term pre-industrial Holocene average global temperature.

            Typically pre-industrial refers to 1850-1899 and based on the MAGICC 6 emulator if we remain under 1000 Pg of total carbon emissions we might remain under 2 C (using the ensemble mean of 19 AOGCMs and 9 carbon cycle models used in CMIP3).

            There is much that needs to be done to accomplish that, it will be a challenge.

            • Preston says:

              Yes, 1.1C in 2015. But this year is again setting new records, it looks likely for 2016 to come in at near 1.3C.

            • GoneFishing says:

              I wonder why they call 1850-1899 pre-industrial when it was anything but pre-industrial. There was plenty of development, industry, mining, fossil fuel use and deforestation going on in that period.
              Must be their limited data set. I used to see the 1750 marker as pre-industrial.

              • Preston says:

                Yes, but Dennis is likely right about using a baseline from the 1700’s or 1800’s being a little lower than the Holocene mean temperatures. We were very slowly drifting lower maybe towards a new ice age in a few thousand years until the industrial age changed things. So the 1700’s were a little colder than normal.

                I don’t mind so much using the 1880-1920 average (used in the link I posted above) , but what is really annoying is you see more and more people using 1980-2000 as the baseline, which is ridiculous.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  So you are saying that there is a negative differential to the baseline and the global warming is greater than suspected due to working against a negative forcing instead of a flat baseline.

                  I think the 1980 -200o baseline is used since it had satellite data, which is the mainstream method now to observe global physical phenomenon. I agree that we should have a million people on the ground and flying in aircraft gathering data too, servicing millions of observation gathering stations. That is more expensive and we would rather spend hundreds of billions on frivolous entertainment than actually see what is going on around us that will effect many generations to come and millions of species.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Preston,

                  A lot of different baselines are used, I like 1951-1980 or 1961-1990, but using 1981-2000 doesn’t change things a huge amount, its about 0.25 C above the 1951-1980 mean and 0.2 C above the 1961-1990 mean global land-ocean temperature.

                  Note that around 6000 BP to 8000 BP global mean temperatures were about 0.45 C above the 1951-1980 Global land ocean mean, based on the Marcott et al 2013 analysis.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Gone fishing,

                There is not very good global temperature data before 1850.
                One could use estimate in Mann2008 from 501 CE to 1750 CE which would be 0.14 C relative to the 1951-1980 CE mean. Or if pre-industrial Holocene temperature is what you want one could use the Marcott et al 2013 analysis and use the mean from 10,000 BP to 1750 CE, which is roughly equal to the 1951-1980 mean.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Using the 1850-1899 range as a zero point causes a systemic bias. Averages don’t mean much on this planet anyway where the normal temperature distribution has an extremely wide range geographically. At a minimum we need a surface temperature distribution, which seems to be just being developed lately.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Gone fishing,

                    I agree, a single number does a poor job representing reality and using a different zero point than 1880-1920 makes sense. Maybe 1951-2000 would be a decent compromise, though this does nothing to represent the complexity of the changing temperature distribution in time and space which you point to.

        • CatMommie says:

          Dennis Coyne et all–at a chemical level, high atmospheric CO2 levels react with peridotite (original rock in the earth’s crust) to form CaCO3, other wise known as Limestone. It is earth’s self regulatory mechanism in dealing with CO2 increase, but does take much time.

          However since you brought up geoengineering processes, the good news is that one has been developed whereby we can duplicate the CO2–>CaCO3 Limestone process by causing CO2 to entomb into solid rock in large quantity, and all in just a course of three (3) years!

          There are scientific articles you can find about the process and how experts predict it might solve the carbon problem without the need for burdensome taxes on emitters. The last article I saw came from the National Post but it is behind a paywall.

  11. Doug Leighton says:

    Dennis, from above (and climate models specifically),

    Respecting the mid-Pliocene Warm Period (“mPWP”), atmospheric concentration of CO2 remain only partially constrained. Various techniques exist to estimate earlier levels but variability of estimates is high. The majority indicate CO2 concentration during the mPWP was higher than the pre-industrial; however, the increase above pre-industrial levels reconstructed from records is small and presents a challenge to attribute mPWP warmth to CO2. IOW, forcings and model experimental designs are at best incomplete or at worst incorrect.

    Importantly, core from Lake El’gygytgyn, in Russia, can be correlated to the oceanic stacks and hence placed within the same chronostratigraphic framework as marine sequences. Ability to correlate time series of terrestrial data with time series of marine data is very rare in a Pliocene context because of the difficulties in assigning precise chronologies to most available terrestrial data. One could note Lake El’gygytgyn records document polar amplification similar to that seen in marine records and summer temperatures 8 °C warmer than present, which persisted until about 2.2 Ma. This strongly supports other estimates of intense Arctic warming during parts of the late Pliocene — including the mPWP.

    For anyone is interested in this I suggest reading (easy read, no math): Nature Communications 7, Article number: 10646 (2016)



    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Doug,

      Yes there are problems trying tie things down 3.2 million years ago. Both temperatures and carbon dioxide levels are not well constrained and the models could be completely wrong. The ocean records are fairly widespread and give us some idea of temperatures.

      You are correct that this also is a very imperfect method, my point was that given the inadequacy of Earth System models it is just another approach.

      Often a mean estimate for atmospheric CO2 is given as about 400 ppm during mid-Pliocene with Global temperatures between 2 and 4 C above preindustrial (1850-1900 mean) global temperatures.

      Much is unknown, on that we might agree.

      I also think the article you linked gives a very nice summary.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        While it’s sort of like flogging a dead horse I will add that the Lake El’gygytgyn sediment data is one of the cleanest looks we’ve got into the Plicene (in a way it represents the sum of all feedbacks at that time for 400-ish ppm CO2). Some variables may have been different but in the main, the Lake El’gygytgyn data tell us pretty convincingly when you hit around 400 ppm, you’re going to get a much warmer Arctic — the last time the atmosphere contained 400 ppm of carbon dioxide it appears the Arctic was around 8 °C warmer than it is now. Of course, as opposed to our current wild run, it probably took several centuries back then for the CO2 to settle on 400-ish ppm.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          While it’s sort of like flogging a dead horse

          Don’t worry Doug, sooner or later a dead horse tends to decompose and turn to dust… unfortunately, while it is doing so, it tends to stink like hell!


        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Doug,

          The polar amplification is expected. The mid-Pliocene warm period is a good analog to give us an idea of Earth System sensitivity over multi-millennial periods.

          The data suggests global warming about 2 C above the 1951-1980 global mean temperature (land ocean) during the mid-Pliocene, we don’t have good estimates of other GHG during that period, but if we assume those were similar to the pre-industrial Holocene (10,000 BP to 200 BP), then ESS is about 3.81 C for a doubling of CO2, where ESS=2*ln(2)/(ln(400/278)).

          Note that under a 1000 Pg C emission scenario (total carbon emissions from all sources from 1750-2200 CE), atmospheric CO2 gradually falls from about 500 ppm to 400 ppm over 1000 years. To reduce CO2 emissions faster would require removing CO2 through carbon capture and storage, reforestation, or changes in farming methods to reduce carbon emissions from soil.

          Also the estimates of both temperatures and carbon dioxide levels during the mid=Pliocene are very uncertain so ESS could be higher or lower than this estimate. The lower we can keep total carbon emissions, the safer we will be (in case the best estimates are too low). We can always burn more fuel later if the best estimates of ESS are too high.

  12. islandboy says:

    As if to back up my assumption further up, “let’s assume a doubling time of two years for solar”:

    Renewables rise to 15% of U.S. electricity generation in Q1-Q3 2016

    However, the United States’ portion of solar will increase significantly in coming years, as solar and wind are the leading sources of new capacity coming online. The United States is expected to install 13-14 GW of solar PV this year, which will increase the overall capacity in the nation by 50%. According to Mercom Capital the United States will install another 13 GW in 2017, which means that the overall capacity of solar will double in only two years.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Islandboy,

      I think electricity produced is the better metric as not all solar PV has the same output per MW installed. It depends where it is installed and a number of other factors.

      In the most recent 12 months US solar output has increased by about 38% over the previous 12 month period. If that rate continues it will be about a 90% increase in 2 years, so almost double.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Here’s an interesting question that I have not seen addressed yet, about solar power, at least not by any body who likes modeling and crunching numbers.

        EVERY market, for every good or service, is at least theoretically subject to saturation, with growth no longer possible, or possible only at a slow rate if the population and economy are expanding.


        The manufacturers of solar panels, and associated goods, such as inverters and racks, etc, are at present investing heavily in increasing their production capacity. But as our biologically savvy contributors are fond of pointing out, eternal growth in a finite environment is obviously impossible.

        At some point, the manufacturers must realize that the sale of their product must necessarily fall off dramatically, because solar panels LAST. People aren’t going to throw them in a drawer, or give them away, like phones, and buy new ones every couple of years.

        And at some point, guys ‘n girls looking for new career opportunities will likewise realize that solar is no longer a hot job choice.

        How long will it be before this is likely to happen? I understand only rough estimates are possible.

        My guess is that the current extremely fast rapid growth of the solar industry in countries such as the USA will taper off rather sharply within five or six years, and after that the industry will continue to grow maybe five or ten percent a year. That’s still pretty fast.

        Let’s not forget that it’s not just the solar industry looking to displace the coal and gas fired electricity industry. The wind operators are going to be grabbing their share , and maybe some other industries as well, such as geothermal or wave power.

        And like it or lump it, we are STUCK with coal and gas fired generation for at least a couple of decades, most likely, because it will probably take that long to plan, permit, finance, and build enough wind and solar farms, plus the necessary HVDC transmission lines , to mostly do away with coal and gas fired electricity.

        Somebody WILL pay whatever it costs to keep enough coal and gas fired generating capacity ready and online, or at least in a standby mode ready to go within a day or two, for a LONG time, until adequate electrical storage capacity can be built, or the wind, solar, and long distance transmission industries are fully mature.

        For now we don’t even KNOW for sure that enough storage CAN be built at a price we can afford to pay. It could be that the only affordable and practical solution to the intermittency problem is to continue to use coal and gas to back up wind and solar power.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Old Farmer mac,

          Yes it will take some time probably until 2060 before all fossil fuel can be replaced by wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear power. In the mean time fossil fuel output will decrease gradually at first and then quite rapidly from 2045 to 2060 as non fossil fuel energy scales up. The HVDC is nice to have because it is more efficient, but the HVAC transmission will do in the mean time, there are just greater line losses with AC due to inductive losses.

          The storage needed is about 1% with widely dispersed wind solar and hydro built to capacity 3 times average load. Demand management with peak power pricing, vehicle to grid storage, as well as fuel cell and battery backup will enable load following nuclear to take up any slack.

          No need for coal, maybe a smattering of natural gas (0.1% or less of total generation).

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            Backatcha Dennis,

            Building wind and solar capacity to three times the average load is going to be a Herculean task, in more ways than one.

            You may have figures for a lesser level of renewable infrastructure. How much could we cut the use of coal and gas by building ( for instance ) out wind and solar capacity to only TWICE the average load?

            Nobody is going to do away with the law of diminishing returns, and that last third of the triple capacity is going to be built at enormous cost, in order to avoid using what would likely be only a VERY modest amount of coal and gas, compared to current use. But you are likely right that we could go all the way with gas, doing away with coal fired generation.

            I won’t predict that it won’t happen, but my gut tells me that convincing the country, collectively, to make such a huge investment, to avoid burning the last few percent of gas and coal is going to be a very hard sell.

            This might require that the job of getting it done take on some religious overtones, lol.

            Maybe we will get it done, if the renewables industries are able to sell the country on it, the way the head honcho of GM once told us with a straight face that “What’s good for GM is good for the country.” Most people believed him, as best I can judge.

            In the case of renewable energy, this would be true.

            I have read a number of articles about the costs of long distance transmission of electricity, and it seems to be the consensus opinion of people in the field that considering the HIGH losses associated with AC transmission over long distances, it will actually be a good bit cheaper to go with the more expensive HVDC lines.

            They are assuming of course that the constant money costs of DC transmission will fall whereas the cost of AC transmission will not, the ac tech being quite mature, and the cost of AC lines consisting mostly of materials and labor, with permits, right of ways, etc, being about the same in either case.

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Old Farmermac,

              The cost of coal and natural gas vs the cost of wind and solar will probably make it economic. Note that currently we have roughly 3 times capacity over average load, so this is pretty standard. The excess renewable capacity reduces intermittency for the system as a whole. Generally renewables operate at only about 33% capacity, so 3 times capacity is needed to meet average load, in many areas this is already competitive with coal and natural gas. Cost won’t be a factor, in fact alternatives will be cheaper by 2040.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Old Farmer Mac,

                Yes HVDC is definitely better and eventually we will save money by upgrading as much of the HVAC to HVDC as possible, start with the old lines that need upgrades then go for the lines with the most usage.

                My earlier point about HVAC is that it will function with the grid as it exists,but it will be far better with HVDC due to the lower losses over long distances.

          • Ulenspiegel says:


            I would start with defining a target for wind and PV, like 800 GW PV and 800 GW wind power for the USA,, each has a avarage production life of 25 years. (I do not know the exact numbers, only took four times the German goals, PV should be higher in the USA with its summer peak).

            With these assumptions I get for the sustainable annual addition around 32 GW for each, wind and PV.

            At the befinning these additions are mainly net additions, starting with year 26 we see no net additions but still need 32 GW per year for replacement.

  13. Oldfarmermac says:

    There are BOTH free and paid online courses available at Stanford including courses that cover renewable energy, etc.

    I haven’t had time to check them out yet, but Stanford is a top flight U, and the quality will likely be as good as any anywhere else and a hell of a lot better than most.


  14. R Walter says:


    Statement by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

    Planet Earth has experienced repeated changes of its climate throughout time. Periods warmer than today as well as much colder, during glacial episodes, have alternated. In our time, rapid population growth with increased demand for natural resources and energy, has made society increasingly vulnerable to environmental changes, both natural and those caused by man; human activity is clearly affecting the radiation balance of the Earth.

    4. Temperature on Earth is kept in balance, allowing life in its present form, thanks to the presence of so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These are dominated by water vapour and carbon dioxide (CO2) and include a variety of other gases with smaller contributions. The concentrations of several greenhouse gases are significantly influenced by human activity. In addition to CO2, they include CH4, N2O and CFCs. The effect on climate is both direct and indirect through the associated increase in atmospheric water vapour with temperature.

    Dominated by CO2? Are you kidding me? There is only 405 ppm of CO2 gas in the atmosphere, that is not a dominant concentration of a gas in the atmosphere. For every million cubic kilometers, 400 are carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide plays a huge role in relation to its volume in the atmosphere.

    The small amount of CO2 is a dominant factor? Well, actually, it is. If all of the CO2 that is exhaled into the atmosphere from one source to another, fauna, the amount of CO2 would continue to increase if there were no plants to breathe the CO2, the build up would continue, reach a tipping point and it would cause climate change like no other.

    Plants take care of the animals, they want animals here too, not just the plants. Unless you’re a dodo bird, too bad for you. T. Rex? gone. See ya. Humans? They’re at each others throats, so it don’t look too good in some places. Absolutely gone bonkers.

    Plants have more compassion for life than humans, hands down. They’re in control of the CO2, not humans. Plants have it all under control, they’re the carbon sink, not CO2 sequestration by humans via technology.

    Nobody is using climate change science to gain control of humans and their behavior, except for scientists. /sarc

    So, no, the basis for the study of climate change is not political to force people to change, make sacrifices, it is based on science, whatever that is. lol

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      We have all heard the old saying about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. In trade work, it is not uncommon to hear an old and competent man in his line say about a beginner that ” He knows just enough to be dangerous. ”

      It may not be obvious at first, but too much knowledge can be just as dangerous as too little, if the greater knowledge still falls short of a GOOD understanding of the issue or question.

      Those who know just a little may make costly, even fatal mistakes, due to their ignorance.

      Those who know a lot more ( but still not enough) often think they know enough to make good decisions, whereas they are still prone to making similarly costly and dangerous mistakes.

      Sometimes we encounter individuals who have a fairly extensive, but shallow knowledge of the natural variability of climate, over long periods of time. All of us have heard of the Ice Ages, and dinosaurs, and times when the world was much hotter than it is today.

      It’s very easy to spend a few minutes, or a few hours, reading about the way the climate has changed at any given location, and all over the world, and conclude that while the evidence is good that there is a warming trend at this time, this trend is the result of natural variability, rather than the result of our burning fossil fuels, clearing the rain forests, etc.

      I am old enough to remember buying text books that covered climate history on the geological or astronomical time scale that didn’t even mention greenhouse pollution. There are plenty of others.

      Anybody who graduated from college as late as the sixties or even the seventies and in some cases even later may have taken some hard science courses where in the books and instructors barely mentioned air pollution and the greenhouse effect. The instructors in such classes have a hell of a lot of material to cover, after all, and often expect their students to apply what they learn on their own time outside the lecture room.

      It is especially easy to believe this if you WANT to believe it, and twice easier again, when you read otherwise true accounts that either deliberately or inadvertently leave out an honest technical discussion of the effects of greenhouse gas pollution. Such accounts are often provided by writers and speakers whose agenda involves defending the status quo, and to be sure, they may not even give a damn, one way or another, about the fossil fuel industries as such. They may simply be doing what they can to further the economic and political agenda of the ” business as usual ” establishment, meaning in a nutshell that their actual goal is to keep large D democrats out of office, and thus maintain their desired social, cultural, and economic business as usual paradigm.

      OK-It’s fairly safe to assume that comments from the likes of Jeffrey Bromberg and Nancy Gebaur are the work of trolls, or not even trolls, but rather bots, when they appear in forums such as this one. Real and sincere people tend to get embarrassed very quickly when they make such fools out of themselves as to draw the responses they get here.

      I remember a young woman who was very intelligent, but woefully ignorant of the real world, who got into my university for reasons never quite clear to me, because you ordinarily had to make a respectable score on the old College Boards standardized exams to be admitted. She could do her math as accurately and as fast as anybody, and took chemistry with no problems at all. Chemistry professors never mentioned evolution, or geological time, etc, because they didn’t have time for irrelevant discussions. .

      Then she enrolled in the real introductory biology class, but as a sophomore, and just about had a nervous breakdown trying to defend the Biblical creation story within the first couple of weeks, with some us unable to restrain our incredulity and laughter. She left the lecture hall crying, withdrew and gave up her chosen major, and transferred into a field of study having nothing to do with the hard sciences.

      I tell ya true, you can take this to the bank. There are lots of people who do recognize that the climate is heating up but who also sincerely believe that it is either for sure or very likely that the warming trend is the result of natural variability. They so believe because they want to, or because they trust sources who tell them this is true, and in turn they trust these sources because they are cultural allies, rather than cultural enemies.

      It’s one thing to ridicule such people ( or bots!) in forums such as this one, because very few people, relatively speaking, read this sort of forum.But it’s a major mistake to ridicule them in other forums, where the audience is apt to be many times larger, and consists mostly of people who are NOT technically sophisticated, people who have NOT taken freshman chemistry and biology. That’s the vast majority of us, and we need to remember this indisputable fact. Even an Ivy League diploma, never mind one from Podunk U. is no guarantee that the owner of it actually knows doo doo from apple butter when it comes to physical reality.

      ( Most university graduates do seem to understand that the scientific establishment works on the basis of established experimental evidence, and peer review, and that all real scientists work from the basics as they are understood in every field of hard science. They do at least generally know that any so called scientists who fabricate evidence or accept money for saying things that are demonstrably not true, would be laughed out of their positions at respectable universities. This is fortunate, because it means most of them are willing to accept the word of the climate science establishment. The remainder seem to believe, or actually cynically maintain, that scientists and especially environmental and climate scientists, are for sale, like unscrupulous lawyers and accountants. This sort of person selectively believes in science that doesn’t conflict with his personal culture, political affiliations, etc. Anything that conflicts he ignores, and ridicules as propaganda of the political and cultural enemy camp. Cognitive dissonance not quite the right term, but this selective dumping of otherwise intellectually accessible science is closely related to cognitive dissonance, and all too often the name of the game.)

      Each and every one of us who mingles freely in the real world with ordinary people, as opposed to other scientists or academics, will encounter such people quite frequently, unless he makes a point of never talking to a stereotypical Trump type voter or typically ( POORLY ) educated man on the street.

      This is all for the moment, the next time I bring this up, I will outline some strategies I have found useful in slipping inside the intellectual box of this kind of person, and introducing a few liberal heresies, thus converting him into a ( gasp !) tree hugging whale lover who believes in the power of the wind and sun, or if not completely successful, then at least turning him into an agnostic when it comes to renewable energy, forced global warming, etc. Today’s faithful foot soldier in the faith can be tomorrow’s doubter, and next year’s heretic.

      • Paulo says:

        Good post, OFM. Well said.

        My right-wing best bud admits (when drunk) that there is indeed global warming. He actually admits it does exist. After all, he works in the arctic flying helicopters and sees first hand the effects of climate change, everyday. However, he always goes on to say that there is no evidence it is caused by mankind/activities. And that is when we are on the edge of the argument cliff. How do you reply to that stupidity and still maintain friendship? You can’t. The Industrial Revolution, 7 billion people, coal-fired power plants, just to name a few obvious items that points at man, nevertheless, for him it is simply not enough of a smoking gun (pun intended).

        Science sites? Forgetaboutit. Drudge? Maybe.

        That is why I just spent my lunch break chuckling at all the Nancy replies. There is no point and never will be a point in arguing with a brick wall. The only argument that will work with my buddy, or with Nancy, is another Katrina, or catastrophic crop failure with out-migration of non-muslim peoples. Anything else is simply a conspiracy and plot to personally destroy (their) entitled way of life.

        We have a flying saying among high timers that echoes your trade example. There are 10,000 hour pilots, and there are 1,000 hour pilots ten times over. And yes, they are also just good enough to be dangerous, but not bad enough to recognize or accept their limitations.

        regards to all, (and thanks for the lunch read)

  15. R Walter says:

    dark neb·u·la
    noun ASTRONOMY

    a nonluminous nebula of dust and gas that is observable because it obscures light from other sources.

    black hole
    noun ASTRONOMY

    a region of space having a gravitational field so intense that no matter or radiation can escape.


    a place where people or things, especially money, disappear without trace.
    “the moribund economy has been a black hole for federal funds”



    A dark nebula is the mist, you’re in the dark, nobody knows, kept uninformed, a mushroom, you aren’t in the need to know category. An Idiot Out Wandering Around like they do in Iowa, especially during the Iowa caucuses.

    A black hole is what you get when science is used to make sure the black hole makes sure that those uninformed in the dark are for certain to remain in the dark inside a black hole. Inside the black hole is the dark nebula and everything remains in the dark. All a black hole, except for the area of space surrounding the black hole, the place where there is light, twinkling stars burning bright to escape the black hole, the place where even light can’t shine, even if it tries. The immovable object and the irrepressible force together can’t budge a black hole.

    It is better to light a candle than it is to remain in the dark.

    At least you can see, even if your brain can’t and continues to curse the dark.

    If you shine a light on California energy consumption, you will see it is a black hole of carbon-based fuel consumption and not much contribution from the renewable energy sector of California energy consumption.

    We say we have renewables, but we burn gas and oil by a good 8 times more.

    A black hole of misinformation just to keep everybody in the dark.

    The real story of California energy consumption from the Energy Information Administration:


    Looks like the use of fossil fuels in California is a total of some 5500 trillion btu’s, while the renewable sector contributes about 750 trillion btu’s.

    The do as I say, not as I do crowd are energy hogs, hypocrites, live by a double standard, use fossil fuels like they are going out of style. They’re in the dark out there in California and don’t even know it.

    • Paulo says:

      I did see on a CNN broadcast last week that said there are a total of 75,000 coal miners. That’s it…total. But in California there are 550,000+ working in the renewable energy field (all sectors).

  16. robert wilson says:

    R Walker – From your link:

    In 2014, California’s per capita energy consumption ranked 49th in the nation…
    In 2015, California ranked … first as a producer of electricity from biomass, geothermal, and solar energy.

    One can argue that California has too many people.

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      Hi Robert, RW,

      Nuance is everything, if you really want to understand ANYTHING.

      It’s true California imports massive amounts of energy, and produces only a rather minor share of consumption from renewables. BUT it’s also true that California is a leader in terms of supporting renewables.

      I strongly suspect the reason California can come in with such a low per capita energy consumption, compared to the rest of the country, is that the weather is uniformly mild , compared to the rest of the mainland, which allows Californians to use relatively little energy for heat and air conditioning.

      Also there is relatively little heavy industry in California on a per capita basis, and heavy industries are heavy users of energy. A state such as Texas, which has lots of industry, plus both hot and cold weather in spades needs a LOT more energy per capita.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Old Farmer Mac,

        It gets pretty hot in central California and there is a fair amount of farming, but probably not a huge amount of heavy industry, there are lots of places in the south with similar weather to southern California and its a huge state with northern and mountain weather as cold or colder than the coldest parts of Texas.

        They use energy very efficiently in California and have high energy prices so people use it efficiently.

  17. Lloyd says:

    Do we have BOTS?

    My family had bedbugs about 10 years ago, at the very beginning of awareness of their resurgence. It was a source of social stigma: we essentially didn’t go to anyone’s house for nearly 6 months, as we felt that ethically we would have to inform people of the risk, and the cost and difficulty of eradication would have been unhealthy for family members, some in their 80’s and 90’s.

    Of course, now everybody knows someone who has had them (at least if you live in a large city.)

    I think we have to look at bots the same way. They are a pestilence, and require constant vigilance (I check hotel rooms carefully.)

    The question arises as to whether George and Nancy uphole are bots, trolls, or merely “trying to save us”.

    My original feeling was that it didn’t matter: that their attitude and disrespect for the nature of this forum justified my making fun of them. I typically chose humor because their attacks are usually ambiguous and/or scattershot: to refute them would require formulating a specific series of questions from their crap and then refuting them, opening one up to charges of putting words into their mouth (and wasting lots of time on boring stuff regulars here already know.) I also understand the anger that causes people to swear at them, and I am not above using strong language myself.

    However, I am beginning to wonder about our tactics: this is mainly because I am starting to wonder about their tactics.

    We don’t have enough data to go on, and I haven’t got time to parse the thousands of comments we get to try and form a statistical corpus of troll/bot traffic (which would be subjective: what to do with Javier and Fernando?) So I’m going to hypothesize broadly here.

    My current work is in User Experience design: how people interact with computer systems. At the higher levels of the field, companies invest in the development of User Personas: models of typical groups of users so that the company can tailor the behaviour of their system to that group. They also design parts of the experience outside the computer: for instance, a website for selling tickets might be designed knowing that certain elements required human intervention, and might have a follow-up phone call as part of the process.

    If I were building the UX for a bot system, I would model the group that it is meant to attack, and I would plan attacks that would get around the group’s usual social defenses.

    I would model essentially anti-personas for the bot’s personality and backstory.

    My thought is that the use of religious, right-wing females as anti-climate change advocates (as we have seen here recently) seem to fit in with this theory: we are largely older and male. The “Nancy” identity can cause a variety of potentially desirable outcomes: to make us look like crabby misogynists if we attack her the way we do males, to make her “ideas” seem plausible if we ignore her, or to bring out the gentlemanly kid gloves, with results much like the second case. Any of these responses works for the Climate Change denial cause.

    I don’t know how easily modeled our group’s behaviour is: are there enough academic forums out there that it’s worth someone’s money to decide on a strategy and run the support for it? I don’t believe that Nancy is a bot, but I do believe that her behaviour is programmatic.

    Let’s assume George and Nancy are creations of the same boiler room (while I’m not an expert, when I look at the sentence length and structure, I see different writers at work for Nancy.) Six comments in 2 days. More than half of them non-responsive boilerplate.

    And my guess is that the actual work for employees (as opposed to whoever wrote the boilerplate) took less than 10 minutes.

    The question is: are we worth $2 a day of someone’s media manipulation budget?

    And if we are, how do we short-circuit it?


    • Doug Leighton says:

      Lloyd, my opinion is that comments by “people” like George and Nancy should be ignored; entering into a “dialog” with their inane comments/opinions is a waste of space. I’m rarely visited by Jehovah’s Witness cult members who really believe they have God’s messages to themselves, that all other religions are wrong, that the end of the world will come and only those in “The Truth” will survive. They’ve predicted the end of the world five times. They also believe Satan has ruled the earth since 1914 (Imagine that!). I have, on occasion, threatened to have them charged with child abuse (when I see a pair of children too young to read on my porch holding Bibles while parents hide in a strategically positioned car). George and Nancy make The Witnesses seem like Oxford Dons.

      • Lloyd says:

        Doug, I agree with you.
        The problem is that if we don’t engage, they win. Their stuff is still mixed in with our stuff and will have weight in SEO results, and appear to drive-by viewers to have value as it is unchallenged.

        Letting them in gives their cause legitimacy, and degrades whatever it is we’re doing here. I’ve placed comments in the past on right-wing sites and found my comments removed (I believe OFM has commented on this as well.) This is because they are dishonest and ruthless, and uninterested in debate.

        So: can what the Nancy and George identities are doing be considered “debate”? Their actions are those of provocateurs, not people trying to discuss the serious issues we are facing. Their motivation is financial and political, not education and scientific inquiry.

        I don’t like to be a chump.

        The question is really for Ron and Dennis.

        Do you require terms of service that would provide concrete rules of engagement that would clarify how you would handle this kind of misuse of the site’s goodwill?

        And yes, I am suggesting that if you suspect something is produced for political gain and in denial of the science without citation, you declare it outside the terms of use and remove it.


      • Lloyd says:

        And furthermore…

        1) Tell us about “automated propaganda”… how has it evolved and how did it impact the 2016 election?

        Automated propaganda, or computational propaganda, refers to political disinformation and harassment campaigns on social media platforms. These efforts often occur on sites like Twitter and Facebook and are driven by the use of bots–automated, software based, accounts that look like real people, produce content, and interact with real users. Political bots have been used by regimes and political actors around the world as a instrument for massively, and computationally, ramping up efforts to threaten journalists, interrupt communication amongst activists, and spread propaganda in attempts to manipulate public opinion. Emphasis mine.


        The chatbots — basic software programs with a bit of artificial intelligence and rudimentary communication skills — would send messages on Twitter based on a topic, usually defined on the social network by a word preceded by a hashtag symbol, like #Clinton.

        Their purpose: to rant, confuse people on facts, or simply muddy discussions, said Philip N. Howard, a sociologist at the Oxford Internet Institute and one of the authors of the report. If you were looking for a real debate of the issues, you weren’t going to find it with a chatbot.

        “They’re yelling fools,” Dr. Howard said. “And a lot of what they pass around is false news.”

        I believe that the George and Nancy identities – and suspect that several others over the past few months- are products of a more sophisticated subset of these types of bot activity, probably involving automated keyword finding programs that direct humans where to post .


        • Nancy Gebauer says:

          All this garbage about being bots or not is pure lunacy. You guys must have poor memories or something because you already made me explain once before how I found this web-site. I wanted to research why the gas prices were going way up again here in Idaho, and I had this place on the list of My Google results. Keywords were the oil and gas discussion along with all the comments at the time by somebody named “Duncan Idaho”. Is that enough to finally clear things up once and for all or is everyone who doesn’t support far-left liberal viewpoints going to have to show a picture of there drivers license and Social security card to gain “entry” from now on? ~

          • Lloyd says:

            Some excerpts:
            I Was a Paid Internet Shill
            “The site-specific info in the second binder included a brief history each site, including recent flame-wars, as well as info on what to avoid on each site so as not to get banned.”

            “The second, and larger, section was called “Strat” (short for “strategy”) with long lists of “dialogue pairs.” These were specific responses to specific postings.

            If a poster wrote something close to “X,” we were supposed to respond with something close to “Y.” “You have to mix it up a bit, though,” said my trainer. “Otherwise it gets too obvious. Learn to use a thesaurus.” This section also contained a number of hints for de-railing conversations that went too far away from what we were attempting.”

            At first, like I said, my job was “meme-patrol.” This was pretty simple and repetitive; it involved countering memes and introducing new memes, and didn’t demand much in-depth knowledge of the subject. Mostly just repetitive posting based on the dialogue pairs in the “Strat” section of the first binder. A lot of my job was de-railing and spamming threads that didn’t go our way,

            Don’t bullshit me.

            This is what you do.

            Anyone who looks at your responses upstream can see evidence of dialogue pairs and of efforts to derail the conversation like this little gem:
            Nancy Gebauer says:
            12/03/2016 at 2:16 pm
            After all the claiming to be the tolerant ones, democrats sure seem to be full of anger and hatred toward fellow Americans. Sad. ~

            People come here and stay here because they like the people and the nature of the inquiry that goes on here.

            They stay because they have found their people.

            You are not my people.

            People who have found their people don’t come here to spam us with bullshit. I suspect another motive: maybe you’re some kind of twisted true believer with a lot of spare time on your hands.

            Or maybe you’re paid.

            And if I had to guess, I’d guess you’re Peggy Hahn, too.

          • Survivalist says:

            Nancy Dear, why you would come here to express opinions about Marxist elite conspiracies and EPA enforcing lifestyle choices is beyond me. I submit that you are intentionally being a troll because you’re seeking a critical response and then you can follow up with points about folks here being intolerant democrats and liberals. BTW, I’m neither a Democrat nor particularly liberal. I just seem that way to you because I’m critical of your point of view. Obama is not a Marxist Nancy. If anything he’s a Tory. If you can’t tell the difference between a Tory and a Marxist then you’re politically illiterate. Google that one snowflake.

            PS if you took Trumps stump speeches about a wall with Mexico greater than the Great Wall of China, getting rid of NAFTA, getting rid of ‘Obamacare’ and Hilary going to jail as promises to be kept then you must be feeling very disappointed by now.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              BTW, I’m neither a Democrat nor particularly liberal. I just seem that way to you because I’m critical of your point of view.

              Same here, I actually find it almost amusing that most of the trolls come here and use terms like liberal and Democrat or communist and Marxist when addressing people here who disagree with them.

              To me that right there is a huge red flag that they are not intellectually honest. Assuming they are even human. If they can’t even conceive of the fact that the people here are more like independent minded cats that can not be herded. The standard labels just do not apply to most of us.

              To be clear, at least speaking for myself, I am neither a Remocrat nor a Depublican. Not even a member of the Green Party. I am and always have been an independent. I think Capitalism and Communism are irrelevant opposite sides of an economic and social coin that has completely lost it’s value. They are throwbacks to the industrial revolution.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            Ok, Nancy, so you are not a bot and you are not a paid troll but you are still fractally wrong about most of the people commenting on this site. The labels, liberal, Marxist or attempts to peg us with a particular political affiliation simply fall short.

            While there may be large differences of opinion among us as to what the data and science are actually saying about our current predicament and how things are going to turn out, most here, are at the very least conversant with the math, physics, chemistry and relevant biology. That is what most of the discussion here is about.

            While the current political developments around the world are tangentially relevant, since non of us exists in a vacuum, It is the underlying science from multiple areas of research that concern most here. And while scientists are human and have political views, the science itself is politically agnostic so if you or anyone else comes here and tries to paint people here with political labels you will find the response to be less than sympathetic.

            So please take your political BS somewhere else!

          • Paulo says:

            Probably lives in a compound in northern Idaho….

            Couldn’t resist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Light_Foot_Militia

          • Lloyd says:

            Hey Nancy identity and your handler (and the George Harmon and Peggy Hahn identities:)
            What can I say? Ron and Dennis are busy guys…maybe they don’t have time to ban you or rework the terms of service.

            But hey…every time I see your handles, or a dialogue pair, or any of your (or your next plant’s) shit, I’m going to call it out and refer back here and to the “I Was a Paid Internet Shill” article.

            I think I might date and number them, and add a list after each one (#37 using the same wording!) so people can see that you post the same shit all the time.

            Educational and embarrassing….and hopefully making your sleazy business here counterproductive.

            And anyone who has encountered these people (or behaviours) on other sites, get in touch. It’s like fighting bedbugs: they rely on secrecy and shame. Constant vigilance is required, and we shouldn’t keep infestations a secret.

          • Lloyd says:

            Yo Nancy identity and your handler (and the George Harmon and Peggy Hahn identities:)
            What can I say? Ron and Dennis are busy guys…maybe they don’t have time to ban you or rework the terms of service.

            But hey…every time I see your handles, or a dialogue pair, or any of your (or your next plant’s) shit, I’m going to call it out and refer back here and to the “I Was a Paid Internet Shill” article.

            I think I might date and number them, and add a list after each one (#37 using the same wording!) so people can see that you post the same shit all the time.

            Educational and embarrassing….and hopefully making your sleazy business here counterproductive.

            • Nancy Gebauer says:

              Oh get over yourself already. Anyway what even gives you the right to dictate that people with opinions different from your own aren’t allowed to post here? That sounds like communist Un-American censorship to me which I find very rude. By the way I’m not this Peggy you keep going on about, I never have been. Now my new thought is maybe you have multiple personalities here and your trying to deflect by bringing this whole subject up? ~

              • Lloyd says:

                DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THE COMMENT ABOVE. (Nancy Gebauer 12/05/2016 at 10:14pm)

                The “Nancy Gebauer” handle is an internet troll, probably created by a Media Manipulation Boiler Room. He/she/they/it are trying to re-frame our discussions here as being ideologically-based rather than fact-based. They also want to reduce the educational value of this site by diluting it with conspiracy theories and false news.

                For more about Media Manipulation Boiler Rooms and paid trolling, see: “I Was a Paid Internet Shill” http://consciouslifenews.com/paid-internet-shill-shadowy-groups-manipulate-internet-opinion-debate/1147073/#
                See if you can pick out the tactics she is using from their playbook. It’s FUN!

                • Tony Cowley says:

                  That website advertises numerology readings and has an article, Stunning Discoveries Have Scientists Confirming the Existence of God. Do you have a better source about these kinds of people? As combined with that website, that article, seems more like a conspiracy theory instead of anything definitive.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      DEFCON 19: The Art of Trolling (w speaker)

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        Hi Fred,

        I believe your concerns of Fascism are justified. I am still in touch with my 89 year old German high school teacher. Who was born in Germany and migrated to the states in 49. She has grave concerns for the future and direction of America and was pointing it out during the election. Stay strong and don’t let what we saw for the last year and a half become the norm. Push back at it every chance you get.


        It’s a beautiful day here today. I’m heading out on my bike in a few minutes.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Thanks HB,

          Just saw this on Yahoo News and the comments sounded like a Gestapo mutual support forum.

          VIENNA (Reuters) – Austria’s far-right presidential candidate was soundly defeated on Sunday, confounding forecasts of a tight election in which he would ride a wave of populism sweeping the West.

          Norbert Hofer lost to former Greens leader Alexander Van der Bellen, who had put the June Brexit referendum at the center of his campaign, saying the far right would lead Austria down the same road and warning voters not to “play with this fire”.

          Perhaps Austrians are somewhat more aware of their own history…

          Here is a typical comment on this Yahoo News Article about the loss:

          Dennis I 51 minutes ago
          GDP, Hitler didnt do anything worse to Germany than liberal (ie socialist / communists) have done to China and Russia.

          It even got 3 up votes!

          Facism is alive and well in the USA! This is not the time to be tolerant of these people nor silent. They must be held accountable!

          Noam Chomsky: ‘The Republican Party Has Become the Most Dangerous Organization in World History’

    • notanoilman says:

      Yes, I believe we need a strategy against trolls and that we will come under heavier attack with the goal of trying to make the blog unreadable. I doubt these are bots, more likely Mechanical Turks operated by handlers.

      The primary need is to reply to the third party and not the troll. Put the facts down so that other readers can see for themselves and understand the falseness of the claims.


  18. Boomer II says:

    I don’t usually read the non-petroleum open threads because I figure there will be a lot of politics and trolling.

    But I just saw this and thought it was worth posting (perhaps it has already been posted). The one silver lining is that fewer jobs likely means less consumption which means less energy use which means less carbon in the air.

    Stephen Hawking: AI will automate middle class jobs – Business Insider: “Technology has already gutted many traditional manufacturing and working class jobs — but now it may be poised to wreak similar havoc with the middle classes.

    A report put out in February 2016 by Citibank in partnership with the University of Oxford predicted that 47% of US jobs are at risk of automation. In the UK, 35% are. In China, it’s a whopping 77% — while across the OECD it’s an average of 57%.”

    • Fred Magyar says:

      A report put out in February 2016 by Citibank in partnership with the University of Oxford predicted that 47% of US jobs are at risk of automation. In the UK, 35% are. In China, it’s a whopping 77% — while across the OECD it’s an average of 57%.”

      Which is why anyone promising jobs and fixes for the economy, whether they be sincere human, bot, troll, demagogue, Remocrat, Depublican, Free Market capitalist, or Marxist idealogue is just blowing hot air and demonstrating a total cluelessness about what is transpiring.

      There is no fixing the current system and there will be no jobs in the traditional sense either. Though there is plenty of work that will still need to be done. We are undergoing major disruption and a systems reset. Pretending that manufacturing or bringing back coal mining jobs is any kind of a solution is beyond ludicrous.

      Next For Disruption: Your Job

      • GoneFishing says:

        Automation takeover has been going on for decades. Industrial jobs are flying out the window. Whole manufacturing sites with just a couple of workers.

        Oxford Martin School -CITI study on automation.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Whole manufacturing sites with just a couple of workers.

          The future has arrived…

          The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.
          Warren Bennis

          I very much doubt Warren Bennis would think very highly of our President elect’s leadership qualities.

          His work On Becoming a Leader, originally published in 1989, lays the foundation that a leader must be authentic, i.e. author of one’s own creation;[14] a combination of experience, self-knowledge, and personal ethics.
          Source Wikipedia

          Ethics?! WTF is ethics?

          • Paulo says:

            Everyone needs some help time to time building something, or with their electrical and plumbing. I have been a carpenter for almost 40 years, even though I have worked in other careers. Now that I am retired I build and design, everyday. My son is an electrician. He also works, everyday.

            Self-employed trades…the only way to go. Thankfully, not everyone can or wants to do it. Pick your career, wisely. Now just think, my sister-in-law a PhD in medievel french literature. How smart was that?

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Now just think, my sister-in-law a PhD in medievel french literature. How smart was that?

              Je ne sais pas 😉

              Seriously though all knowledge has value, especially art, architecture, music, literature, history and culture. You never know how a particular form of knowledge can expand your horizons nor where it might lead you!

              • Doug Leighton says:

                “You never know how a particular form of knowledge can expand your horizons nor where it might lead you!”

                True Fred. I was exposed to classical music (and French, etc) from a young age and its music now, in old age, that forms the most pleasurable part of my days: that and my old dog. And, my skill in foreign languages helped me practice my profession around the globe, indeed lead to many opportunities that wouldn’t likely have been there otherwise.

            • Synapsid says:


              Have you asked your sister in law why she pursued a doctorate in Medieval French literature?

  19. GoneFishing says:

    Everything you ever wanted to know about global dimming.
    Over large land regions forcing is greater than -20w/m2. Globally averaged is -4.4 w/m2.


    • Preston says:

      Even the 2007 IPCC numbers on the first slide have -1.2 W/m^2 from aerosol’s (-0.5 direct plus -0.7 added clouds). Total net anthopogenic is given as +1.6 W/m^2, so aerosols are cooling us a lot. But, if it really is -4.4 W/m^2, then wouldn’t we be cooling?

      Anyway, if 2016 is measuring at +1.3C (since 1880-1920) plus we have another 0.8C in the pipeline if we shut off the coal plants, then we are already past the 2C limit right now. Plus, there is a time lag from emissions to steady state, so we have a lot more heating in the pipeline even if emissions went to 0 today. I just don’t see how the math works with a 50 year time frame for phase out, or how even holding to 2C would be possible without geoengineering.

      Germany managed to move to wind and solar without harming their economy, why can’t we?

      • GoneFishing says:

        “But, if it really is -4.4 W/m^2, then wouldn’t we be cooling? ”

        You will find the answer to that question in the presentation.
        Yes there is less light reaching the surface which should cool the planet, however the black carbon and brown clouds absorb the incoming light and heat the atmosphere, thus canceling some of the effect.
        See page 43 for the distribution of surface forcing vs. atmospheric forcing.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        I expect some holier than thou, nose in the air lord of pc and multiculturalism to take me to the wood shed for saying so, but there are some easily understood reasons Germany has succeeded in getting well along in transitioning away from fossil fuels and to renewable energy, but they are the sort of reasons we mostly shy away from due to fear of having uncomplimentary labels slapped on us by the aforementioned holier than thou types.

        For one, Germany, compared to the USA, is a small, less diverse country, with fewer competing factions diverting the energy and attention of the leadership into culture wars and other distractions that tend to hinder the USA in taking decisive action in when action is needed. .

        Another- Germans are simply better educated, and better informed, as a national people. I used to work with some of them. Their technical expertise and dedication to the job blew me away, and even though I say so myself, I used to be known as well seasoned multi craft journeyman welder, mechanic, equipment operator, etc. . Everything I read indicates this observation applies right across the board, in terms of the average German being better informed about the hard facts of physical reality than the average American. I might better express this not by emphasizing the knowledge of the Germans, but rather the ignorance of us Americans, on average.

        Another- Germans have had their necessary measure of something along the lines of what I refer to as Pearl Harbor Wake Up Events, although these events are now fading from the memories of the people , as the older generation dies off.

        WWII was as much or more a resource war as any other kind of war, and as much a resource war as just about any war, but I will not argue that Germany started WWII ONLY because of her resource problems. There were many other factors in play, that had they not been in play, would have resulted in the cards of history falling differently, and the Nazis would not have come to power, and WWII might never have been fought.

        You won’t see much about it in print, but the German people have not forgotten WWII. They are ACUTELY conscious of the fact that their economy is more than anything else based on the importation of raw materials, including fuels, and exporting manufactured goods and services associated with those same goods.

        They are acutely aware of the fact that they buy huge amounts of fuel and raw materials from countries that, to put it mildly, do not necessarily think of them as friends.

        Being better educated, and more inclined to serious thinking, and less inclined to living in the moment with the goal being to consume as much as possible today and to forget about tomorrow, than Yankees, Germans are better situated to come to agreement in respect to existential problems such as depending on imported raw materials and exported goods in order to live.

        They have DONE SOMETHING about the problem, namely, producing as much as possible of their energy using domestic resources, avoiding the necessity of purchasing imported fossil fuels subject to depletion, fuels will inevitably grow ever more expensive as the better deposits are used up.

        They get a two fer in this matter, because they are not only avoiding the risky and expensive purchase of imported fuel, but also working to ensure that they will be competitive exporters of what promises to be the NEXT BIG THING- renewable energy infrastructure and service.

        There’s a LOT more to it than I have sketched fast with my broad brush, but this throws a little light on some normally overlooked reasons Germany was ABLE to make the commitment to transition to renewable energy.

        We Yankees will get around to the transition too, eventually, hopefully before it’s too late, and fossil fuels are so scarce and expensive we can no longer MANAGE the transition, but as a nation, we just aren’t in the habit of taking preemptive action to solve tomorrow’s problems today, while ” A stitch in time saves nine” still applies.

        • Boomer II says:

          I keep hoping some sense of global competitiveness will kick in at some point and the US will realize it is in our strategic interests to promote renewable energy as part of the mix.

          And if the US doesn’t grasp this, I hope the rest of the world realizes it can become less dependent on the US by adopting policies and technologies that give them a potential technological and even economic edge over the US.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Preston,

        You don’t add up a rate. The AR5 report estimates -0.45 W/m2 from aerosols.

        See Chapter 8 of AR5


        As I have pointed out before, if you drive 10 hours at 60 miles per hour, you have not reached 600 miles per hour.

        Likewise -0.5 W/m^2 for a decade is not the same as -5 W/m^2 of forcing.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Get with it Dennis, it’s a rate of change per year. It’s how an increasing rate is stated. That’s why it has time factor, unless of course those scientists don’t know squat about simple math.
          5 watts/m2/year means in 5 years it would be 25 watts/m2 and in 6 years it would be 30 watts/m2. Get it?

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Gone fishing,

            You are correct, I missed the per year.

            The 20W/m^2 didn’t look right, but the reason for this large difference is that it is at the surface and the typical numbers reported for effective radiative forcing are at the top of atmosphere (TOA). The Mount Pinatabo eruption was a test of the AOGCM’s ability to model aerosol forcing and they did a pretty good job. Aerosols from human aerosol emissions should be modelled fairly well also.

            Scenarios can easily be created in MAGICC with lower aerosol emissions to see the effect on global temperature, it is not 8 C (or 16 C) as you seem to think, certainly not at a global level. I agree the aerosols have an affect on local weather patterns, there life in the atmosphere is short (especially the trophospere), about a month or two, so these effects are short lived unless emissions continue, which hopefully will not be the case.

            • GoneFishing says:

              Aerosols are just one component of the dimming picture. The black carbon and brown clouds are part of it. SOx forming more reflective clouds are another part. NOx plays a part but I don’t have much info on that. Any dimming also reduces evaporation rate in that region causing less GHG in that area as well as disturbing rainfall patterns.
              Some warming is occurring in the atmosphere instead of at the ground level, due to brown and black particles. Ozone formation in industrial areas plays a large part in increasing heating.
              As regions produce less aerosols they will get more ground heating, less atmospheric heating and rainfall patterns will change.
              My overall take on it is that the effect of aerosols is not well measured or completely understood.
              The 20W/m2 (or more) concerns some regions that will receive that much more insolation at the ground when the air clears.
              What is interesting too is why there was a slowing of aerosol rate into the atmosphere. I wonder if it was the introduction of pollution devices on vehicles and increased burning efficiencies. Still, coal use has been steadily increasing and for a while bunker fuel was increasing, both very dirty and sulfur laden.

              The fact that contrails can modify ground temperatures by 1C was interesting, just adding another factor for fast forcing if we taper off jet aircraft use.

              The effects of significantly less ground insolation on plants is varied, some like more diffuse and lower light levels while others become slowed or stunted in their growth. Reducing sunlight in very bright areas might be helpful to plants.
              The shifts to the hydrological cycle are regionally harmful or helpful, no real known assessment.

            • GoneFishing says:

              Solar Radiation budget with aerosol effects

              • GoneFishing says:

                The reduced insolation will have cause solar PV to have a reduced power output. As fossil fuels and other aerosol producing burning is reduced, solar PV will produce increased power.

                The radiation reaching the ocean is also reduced, thus reducing it’s heating. So global warming has been slowed by aerosols.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Preston,

        I set aerosol and carbon emissions to zero and the increase “in the pipeline” is 0.3 C.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Gone fishing,

      In that presentation it suggests from 2000-2003 Global net radiative forcing was -2.8 W/m^2, I doubt that would make it by peer review.

      A good review of global dimming is here (from 2006)


      A more recent summary at link below (2013)


      Another discussion of dimming by Gavin Schmidt


      Also note that the dimming estimates mostly refer to land. Climate experts such as Gavin Schmidt suggest the problem is less important than some believe and by AR5 the estimate of the aerosol effect (direct and indirect) was reduced significantly from -1.2 W/m^2 in AR4 to -0.45 W/m^2 in AR5. If aerosol emissions cease radiative forcing increases by 0.45 W/m^2.

      A doubling of atmospheric CO2 leads to an increase of radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Since you could not even cite the slide number you are referring to I will not waste time trying to find out what you are talking about.
        I could care less about watered down mediocre results of the IPCC. I don’t care about models that show politically determined results either, just so everyone can feel good about things and think there is lots of time to “fix” things since they are not really going to get that bad anyway.
        There has been a rise of 1C in just 100 years, global average. Parts of the planet have been several times that. The natural feedbacks are kicking in. This is a non-linear situation. The next 100 years will see at least 2C rise minimum.
        If you understand that as the base line, the lowest boundary result, even that will wreck agriculture as we know it, cause a much greater degree of forest burning, stronger storms and mass migrations from ocean rise, famine and water source loss.
        That is the minimum that can occur, if one ignores a number of factors and the scale of the system changes. The whole chemistry of the world is changing, the effects of CO2 and water vapor, as well as methane are causing vast and accelerating changes.
        The fact that 2/3 of the Arctic Ocean ice is gone in just 36 years should be enough of a red flag.
        Apparently not, the la-de-da “things won’t get bad at all” “we can set a number and we will be dead before we are wrong so who cares” crowd is running the show. So be it.
        The models be damned, the actual observed effects and changes are all large and obvious at this point. This is not going to stop on a dime, it will be changing for the next 20,000 years. Kids born today could very well see the evacuation of New York City if they live a normal lifespan.

        All I hear on this site is how close civilization is to a downfall, how the natural resources are near an end and how the economics is running on magic now. How much more of a push will it take to start the downfall? Will global weather disasters, reduction in agricultural output, reduction in fish populations, overheating of large regions, droughts, floods, massive fires, pestilences be enough? All this century, all this century.

        Nope it’s all just the weather, it’s just natural changes, nothing to do with us. The cry of the politicians and corporations as things start to go tits up. Or maybe it’s just the price of oil.

        • Doug Leighton says:

          “The models be damned, the actual observed effects and changes are all large and obvious at this point.”

          Indeed they are. As just one example: a 2012 paper in the journal Science examined the geological record in an attempt to find a historical analog for current global conditions as well as those of the future…

          They determined that the current rate of ocean acidification is faster than at any time in the past 300 million years. They concluded the geological record reveals that the current rate of CO2 release stands out as capable of driving a combination-magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in Earth’s history, raising the possibility that we are entering [have entered] an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change.


          • mr.razler says:

            who is this (((they))) and whose money are (((they))) using to fund the research???

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Doug and Gone Fishing,

            The point is to try to use the models to understand the potential impacts.

            Clearly the models are imperfect, but assuming that we have already passed tipping points, does not make it so.

            Yes there has been a lot of sea ice loss in the Northern hemisphere and the ocean has acidified rapidly. My question is what happens if we reduce emissions as rapidly as possible. I would think as the emissions fall and the ocean turns over (which takes about 400 years or more) the acidity will gradually be reduced, though I am no geochemist so perhaps I am incorrect. Certainly as carbon emissions fall the rate of increase in ocean acidification will fall.

            Much damage has been done, on that I agree.

            My interest is what do we do now, and what is the likely outcome based o the “mediocre” understanding we have at present.

            • Bob Nickson says:

              Is anyone aware of analysis that looks at anticipated rate and volume of ice sheet loss and calculates the dilution potential of the liberated water to mitigate the reduced alkalinity of the oceans?

              • Doug Leighton says:

                Well water locked up in ice is say 1.7 percent of all water on Earth and there’s 1.3 billion km^3 of salty water in oceans: a simple calculation for you. However, FWIW, I wouldn’t expect to see the Antarctic ice fields (or Greenland) melt away in the near future ((estimated average yearly mass loss = 69 ± 18 Gt/y from (2002 to 2010)). So, I’d say dilution potential is insignificant.

                • Synapsid says:


                  The dilution potential for the world ocean is small, I agree, but locally it might just be important. The two regions where the north end of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (got it in one!) are located are the Labrador Sea and sort of SE of Greenland. Greenland is and will continue to be one of the largest sources of meltwater and I wonder if in the fulness of time that fresh water lid will act to slow the sinking that allows the AMOC to operate. It’s been suggested that that might be part of the reason for the cold blob in the North Atlantic.

                  • Doug Leighton says:


                    True, but then I almost always agree with you so replying isn’t really necessary. But there is anyway. 🙂

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    Greenland is and will continue to be one of the largest sources of meltwater and I wonder if in the fulness of time that fresh water lid will act to slow the sinking that allows the AMOC to operate.

                    Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms Video Abstract

                    Narrated by Dr. James Hansen

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Doug,

                  I had thought the same in the past, but Hansen et al 2016 argues the process is highly non-linear and may happen more quickly than IPCC AR5.

                  They use the more reasonable A1B scenario rather than the RCP8.5 scenario, A1B is similar in total carbon emissions to RCP6, so possibly a bit high (SRES B1 or RCP4.5 are more reasonable given fossil fuel constraints), paper linked in a reply to Bob Nickson below.

              • Dennis Coyne says:
        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Gone Fishing,

          Page 45 of the presentation you linked from 2008.

          -4.4 W/m^2 is the 2000-2003 global mean in that presentation.

          This is very different from the more recent (2013) IPCC estimate, of -0.9 W/m^2 for aerosol ERF (direct and indirect and including black carbon forcing on snow and sea ice as well as aerosol /cloud interaction) These are ERF (effective radiative forcing estimates). See Chapter 7 AR5 page 618-620. Part of the difference is that that the IPCC is using TOA rather than the surface.
          When comparing at top of atmosphere the difference between the estimates is small. The IPPC estimate is the change from pre-industrial (1750) to 2010, it is not clear what period is referenced from the presentation, but probably 1750 to 2000. Some of the difference may be due to the difference in the periods covered when comparing TOA estimates. Typically the forcing analyses are done at the top of atmosphere. So the radiation that is not scattered or reflected by clouds and aerosols and makes it to the surface (or is reflected back to the surface is what we are trying to measure (the 1.6 W/m^2 from all GHGs on page 45 of the presentation).

  20. Doug Leighton says:


    “This development is a game changer for quantum computing making it accessible for industrial and government use. We will construct a large-scale quantum computer at Sussex making full use of this exciting new technology.”


    • GoneFishing says:

      I am waiting for a computer that answers my questions before I ask them. Would save a lot of time and effort on my part. 🙂

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        Sorry, your days of sexual activity are over 🙁

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        Yes, the IRS is going to ask for a copy of all your receipts back to 1990

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        That Saturn transmission slippage is next week auto repair bill

        • GoneFishing says:

          Very good HB, but you forgot the big one.

          ICE’s are no longer produced.

          • HuntingtonBeach says:

            light weight personal use vehicles — 1/1/2030 production

          • Fred Magyar says:

            ICE’s are no longer produced.

            Whaddayatalkinabout?! Of course they are!


            WATER ICES

            Berry Burst
            Blue Hawaii
            Cherry Cola
            Cotton Candy
            Passion Fruit
            Red Raspberry
            Sour Cherry
            Strawberry Margarita
            Black Raspberry
            Bubble Gum
            Malibu Bay Breeze
            Root Beer


            Chocolate Mousse
            Orange and Cream
            Mint Chocolate Chip
            Vanilla Chip

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      I would not hold your breath.

  21. GoneFishing says:

    The reasoning behind Guy McPherson’s human extinction within ten years. Start watching this seminar at 29 minutes.


    • Fred Magyar says:

      Actually I found his talk is oddly comforting and uplifting…


      People whom suffer from depression are usually highly aware and sensitive and also creatively gifted or perceptive in some way. As a result they are people that find it difficult to feel normal in a society that places value on things that are leading humanity and the environment to destruction. People that suffer from depression find it difficult to connect with others on a personal level and mostly they are simply overwhelmed and disheartened by the amount of injustice, destruction, greed, cruelty and abuse that goes on in an increasingly hostile world.

      A number of other environmental scientists such as Dr. Stephan Harding, a deep ecologist like myself see the value in needing to restore our lost connection with Earth and understand that we are all part of One greater consciousness. Deep Ecologists will tell you that there is something wrong with you if you are not deeply saddened or depressed by the state of things at the moment. We are living in the sixth greatest mass extinction, we are killing off the last of the dolphins, whales, tigers, great apes, elephants, rhinos, insects, bees, amphibians, destroying the oceans, ripping apart the last of the Rainforests and indigenous people, we are seeing the largest scale ecocides and genocides. The amount of torture and abuse that our fellow creatures suffer out our hands is just overwhelming let alone the killing, torturing, abusing and trafficking of women and children en mass worldwide, innocent victims of insane wars, exploitation and slavery.

      But it’s the economy stupid, and differences between the left and the right political parties trump all else! And I somehow still have to find a place in my hollowed out heart to be kind and nice to all the ignorant neo fascists too.

  22. GoneFishing says:

    The ever accelerating rate of growth of GHG’s in the atmosphere becomes apparent just from human caused insertion of GHG’s. When one considers the natural feedbacks, which move with temperature and time, the growth rate is even faster.
    Here is a summary of GHG’s from human caused growth of GHG’s, it is non-linear.

  23. Boomer II says:

    I just watched some of McPherson’s videos. Depressing stuff.

    So the Trump administration appears to want to stifle any scientific research which suggests we have severe climate issues ahead of us.

    Now, I assume the Trump cabinet appointees sincerely believe all this scientific stuff is nonsense, but what if what they are actually trying to do is to keep the American people in the dark so they can plot their escapes and to keep the people from panicking. Maybe Trump is like the orchestra on the Titanic. “Maybe if we keep playing, people won’t notice we’re sinking.”

  24. Boomer II says:

    I have another question after watching some of McPherson’s videos. So there will be a series of rapid changes that together will doom life on the planet as we know it.

    To get more people to pay attention, it would be helpful to point changes going on now that are evidence of this. Temperature rise, decreased ice coverage, and increased flooding are mentioned most.

    But at least of a year or two ago, most scientists wouldn’t go so far as to say individual events (fire, drought, severe weather) were directly a result of global warming.

    Should they be saying that many of the natural disasters happening around the planet ARE the result of climate change to increase the level of awareness and urgency?

    • Boomer II says:

      (Un)Natural Disasters: Communicating linkages between extreme events and climate change – World | ReliefWeb: “… there is still widespread confusion about the linkages between human-induced climate change and extreme weather, not only among the public, but also among some meteorologists and others in the scientific community. This is an issue of communication as well as of science. Many people have received the erroneous message that individual extreme weather events cannot be linked to human-induced climate change, while others attribute some weather events to climate change where there is no clear evidence of linkages.”

  25. GoneFishing says:

    Bill Nye Climate Change Documentary


  26. Boomer II says:

    I just saw this article from a few days ago. I don’t know if someone has already posted it here. But since so much of the discussion is on feedback, I thought it was relevant.

    Scientists have long feared this ‘feedback’ to the climate system. Now they say it’s happening – The Washington Post

    • Survivalist says:

      I find it concerning that drought is so extensive with only the small amount of warming we have already experienced.

      Go to this site for a graphic. From the drop down menu at the top of the image select ’48 months’ to get the 4 year measure.


      It seems to me that on a long enough time line famine due to drought is pretty certain. How long that time line is anybody’s guess. On the weather depends the harvest, on the harvest depends everything.

      • GoneFishing says:

        It’s not only drought but when precipitation occurs. If the timing is wrong crops can go dry, even if the total annual amount is similar. What happens if the rains come in just a few short but large bursts, instead of being distributed more evenly.

        Take Wichita for example:
        Wichita precipitation-day distribution and precipitation accumulation distribution from 1889-2013. This graph illutrates that even though relatively light daily precipitation amounts of less than one-quarter inch constitute over 61% of Wichita’s precipitation-days (dark blue and red pie sections upper left graph), they only constitute about 13% of Wichita’s total precipitation accumulation (same pie sections lower right graph). In contrast, relatively heavy daily precipitation amounts of one inch or more constitute only about 10% of all Wichita precipitation-days (light blue, orange, gray pie sections upper left graph), but constitute over 45% of Wichita’s total precipitation accumulation.

        • Survivalist says:

          I can’t see your graph

        • Boomer II says:

          I assume you guys have been following the irrigation situation in Kansas. There are many articles about this. This is just one of them.

          Western Kansas farmers worry as Ogallala Aquifer disappears: “For more than seven decades, farmers and other industries have been mining the Ogallala Aquifer — the lifeblood of the western Kansas economy — faster than nature can recharge it.

          Those farming the western plains don’t receive enough rain to grow crops like corn. They’ve depended on the aquifer to sustain their crops.

          However, too many holes have been poked into the Ogallala. It’s been declining a little each year since the advent of irrigation — which largely occurred in the 1940s and 1950s.

          Some areas already have exhausted the resource to a point where it is no longer viable to pump it anymore, said Kansas Water Office Director Tracy Streeter.”

            • GoneFishing says:

              Another big factor in the hydrological cycle is global dimming. Right now with large areas of the land and some ocean areas receiving less light at the surface the rate of evaporation is reduced. This in turn shifts rain patterns. Once we slow down and stop putting all the aerosols in the atmosphere, those regions will get up to 20 watts/m2 more sunlight at ground level and evaporation will skyrocket. Again shifting rain patterns.

              There will be very little delay in this action, as the ground heats more, the air less so and the evaporation patterns in regions change dramatically.

            • Nathanael says:

              Back to farming in NY, breadbasket of the nation (in the 1830s), eh?

          • GoneFishing says:

            I always thought of Kansas as a big wheat producer. Will they shift away from corn and back to wheat?

  27. Boomer II says:

    I’ve been browsing articles to see to what extent the above warnings have translated into news that average Americans can understand. I mean, telling people about temperature rises that are decades down the road is something they are blowing off.

    Seems to me that Florida may be the key to getting some awareness. Florida cities are already having to deal with the consequences of rising water. So far they seem to believe they can budget more money for improvements and stay ahead of the game.

    But if changes are coming as fast as predicted in the above discussions, then before long, Florida should find itself unable to keep up with the flooding. Perhaps that will be the wake-up call necessary to shake up average Americans.

    • Paul Helvik says:

      The issue is, most conservatives like myself can believe that the climate is changing. What we can’t believe is that any of it is man-made. In my opinion, dropping the latter notion while sticking with the former and necessarily advocating for renewable energy completely free of taxpayer subsidies would go a long way in getting liberals and conservatives united in how to deal with the climate. View the latest Pew Research on this matter here.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        The issue is, most conservatives like myself can believe that the climate is changing. What we can’t believe is that any of it is man-made.

        Oh well, you might as well not believe in the theory of gravity either. Sorry to burst your bubble but whether you believe it or not there is a vast amount of empirical evidence that tells us that we are experiencing anthropogenic climate change. Reality, and the universe are not swayed by political views.

      • Roger Blanchard says:

        Here is my response to those who question the science:

        Climate science denialists seek to take science back more than 200 years when it comes to climate. It has been known for over 150 years that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, absorbs infrared radiation. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius published a scientific paper in which he calculated a significant temperature increase with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. His work was based upon the knowledge that CO2 traps heat.

        The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased dramatically in recent decades.

        It’s not hard to conclude that increasing greenhouse gas concentration will lead to warming. The expectation is that warming will not be globally uniform, it will be more pronounced at higher latitudes. That is largely due to changes in albedo.

        I monitor temperatures throughout northern North America. Let’s look at temperature data for a few locations. First, in terms of Sault Ste. Marie, MI, here is decadal temperature data from 1970 on:

        Decade……………………………………….Average Temperature (oF)
        2016 is on track to average a bit over 45oF

        Do you see a trend here? I have data going back to 1890 for Sault Ste. Marie and there is no decadal temperature data prior to 1970 that is comparable to the last few decades.

        Here are some temperature data for a wide variety of locations in northern North America:

        Location…………….1971-2000 Ave (oF)….2010-2015 ave (oF)….2016 Temp. Dev. (oF)
        Prudhoe Bay, AK……11.85……………………15.07……………………….+8.14
        Moosonee, Ontario…30.02…………………….32.84……………………….+3.24
        Nome, Alaska….……27.10……………………..27.82………………………+5.38
        Churchill, Man……….19.58…………..…………22.91………………………+2.67
        Iqaluit, Nunnuvut……14.36……………………17.23……………………….+2.45
        Yellowknife, NWT……23.72….………….……..26.66……………..………..+4.33
        Goose Bay, NFL..…..31.10…………..………..33.92……….…………..….+1.26

        The 2016 temperature deviation data in the last column is relative to 1971-2000 averages and is for the January through November period.

        The science associated with climate is solid. That is why all major scientific organizations globally that have made a statement on climate science have stated that the science is solid, that atmospheric temperatures are rising, and that humans are causing the warming. In the U.S., the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society and many others endorse the results of climate science.

        For those living in higher northern latitudes, it’s becoming absurd to deny warming because it’s obvious even without temperature data. But there are those who will deny to the bitterest of ends.

        If you question all the data, I would suggest watching the video Chasing Ice, which has time lapse photography of receding glaciers.

        A little recognized outcome of global warming by the general public is that large areas of the globe will get a lot drier, including the contiguous U.S.

        What impact will that have on agriculture in the U.S. and other major agriculture areas? We’ll find out. The breadbasket of America will be a central target.

        If your lifestyle is tied to the consumption of large quantities of fossil fuels, as is the case for most people who live in developed parts of the world today, you may wish that the conclusions that climate science has come to were other than they are.

        Many Americans like the Gospel of Greed promoted by various media sources on TV, radio, print and Internet. The Gospel of Greed justifies acquisitive self-interest above all else. When greed is the primary motive force for people, truth must be sacrificed.

        But there will be significant consequences to global warming whether one accepts the science or not.

      • scrub puller says:

        Yair . . . .
        PAUL HELVIC.
        Likewise an old uneducated bushman (like myself) can’t believe that even conservatives (such as yourself) lack the understanding to get their heads around the basic notion that taking all the coal and oil that has formed and laid dormant over billions of years can be burnt in a two hundred year window without consequences . . . it doesn’t take many cigarettes to foul the air in a cinema.

        Removing taxpayer subsidies from fossil fuels would be an excellent suggestion. It looks like our government (Australia) has just ante’d up a billion bucks to build a railway to a new open cut mine, will the madness never cease.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Paul,

        When the subsidies for fossil fuels are eliminated, the subsidies for renewables can also be eliminated. See link below


        In addition there are master limited partnerships for extractive energy industry.


    • Fred Magyar says:

      Yep, I have front row seats and lot’s of popcorn 🙂

  28. Boomer II says:

    I have a question. I don’t suppose anyone here believes the 10 year timetable for the end of human life.

    But some of you do believe in changes coming at an exponential rate. Do you think things will happen so fast that we could see some serious environmental, weather, and/or economic disasters happening during the next four years? If so, I wonder what the political response and political repercussions will be.

    • Survivalist says:

      Temps, soil moisture and food production concern me. Peace likes a full plate, grub before ethics and all that.

      Good video here.


      The Seneca cliff at the 46 min 35 second mark looks interesting.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Do you think things will happen so fast that we could see some serious environmental, weather, and/or economic disasters happening during the next four years?

      I started diving on coral reefs back in 1975. I can assure you very serious environmental damage has already happened and I have seen nothing that indicates the biodiversity loss is not already catastrophic. That is but one ecological niche that I am personally very familiar with. I have also worked in the Amazon rain forest in Brazil and a little over a year ago went back and I haven’t seen much there to say that things have improved at all. Deforestation continues unabated. Granted these are personal observations but I also read and try to keep up with the published science about ecosystems and how they are affected by human impacts. So let’s just say there has been an almost never ending stream of bad news on that particular front.

      You might be able to fool economists but mother nature is a bit harder to fool.

      Having said all that I am seeing a sea change, no pun intended amongst the younger generation and the things that are important to them. I won’t go as far as to say that I’m hopeful but since I have a son at university and nephews and nieces in Europe and South America, I do get to interact with a somewhat younger crowd than all the gray haired old foggies on this site (I include myself). You never know, they may somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat yet. Unfortunately the coutervailing forces of anti science, anti intellectualism and rampant facism the world over could not be raising their ugly heads at a worse time than now…

      We do live in very interesting times! I do agree with Guy McPherson that hope and fear are four letter words but that action is the antidote to both.


  29. GoneFishing says:

    Stephen Hawking on the rejection of elitism during the most dangerous time on this planet and on the need to break down barriers between nations to provide a framework to deal with what is ahead.


  30. R Walter says:

    Actually, the science proves that concentrations of CO2 less than 180 ppm, plants will suffer, be stressed. Controlled atmosphere experiments that limit seaohtwo concentrations show stunted plants with weak tissue.

    Optimal see-o-2 concentrations need to be at least 295 ppm to have good plant growth.

    Just so you know.

    If I would write words like “Stephen Hawking is a stupid ignoramus” some people might be offended.

    Donald Trump might say words the same or similar and some folks would praise his wisdom.

    I know Stephen Hawking is not an ignoramus and is far from stupid.

    Donald Trump is a stupid ignoramus and I think I know for sure beyond any reasonable doubt I am right on the mark there.

    For one, he ran as a Republican, too funny. A RINO, a fraud, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    No need to go on anymore, if you run for office as a Republican, it makes you a stupid ignoramus.

    Proof positive, case closed.

  31. Oldfarmermac says:


    I STRONGLY encourage everybody here in this forum to read this Greeer essay about the shortcomings of free trade.

    It doesn’t matter how smart you are, it’s very easy to convince yourself that a political policy is a good one if you happen to be one of the people it’s good for, and I do recognize that free trade is very good for a hell of a lot of Yankees, Germans, Chinese, etc, and even for Little Green Men from Mars , in case there are any around.

    But what’s good for you short to medium term is not always good for you, long term, and it’s not necessarily good at all for millions and millions of your fellow citizens.

    And let me be BLUNT, and just say up front that anybody who doesn’t believe political backlash is a real thing is an idiot in my estimation. Political backlash is the shortest and best possible bare bones explanation for him being prez elect.

    I don’t want to defend Trump, but it’s hard to find anybody in politics who doesn’t say SOMETHING you agree with at least once in a while. He’s a demagogue, and what he WILL do, as oppose to what he says, is anybody’s guess, most of the time. So I won’t predict that he will keep any significant number of jobs here, or bring any significant number home.

    AND YES, I do understand that automation and other economic changes have destroyed many jobs and will continue to destroy many more, but we are living in the here and now, and the here and now reality is that while there is very little that can be done to stop technology, the offshoring of jobs and capital CAN be prevented, to at least some extent, via the political process.

    I am not opposed to free trade as such, but we all need to recognize that as it is practiced by the immortal alien life forms known as multinational corporations, it’s very good for these corporations and their owners, but not for the ordinary people in the countries that happily happen to be the richer ones- the ones where the corporations in cooperation with their sibling and Siamese life forms the big banks and governments move jobs from places they pay well to places they pay a hell of a lot less.

    Now here’s the actual score as it reads on the board in my own naked ape brain. My home team, the guys and girls I grew up with, who did not get lucky, the way I did, and move up and out of the laboring class, have lost their asses to the Chinese and other workers who now hold so many of the jobs they used to have.

    It’s not that I have anything AGAINST the Chinese, but rather that I have something FOR the working people of America. If you are a teacher, as I was, once, globalization is good for you, at least short to medium term. It was good for me when I was employed for a time with a strong union, too, because the work stayed here, instead of leaving, and the union enabled it’s members to get more money than they would have gotten otherwise. It’s actually ok for me personally now, because I have non earned income as the result of investments, and can buy a lot of things cheap that I used to pay more for, when they were domestically manufactured.

    But nowadays, even though I have chosen to live among the working class ( meaning lower paid, mostly blue collar ) people, I am well enough off that I am paying the price of globalization in taxes to support folks who need food stamps, highly subsidized medical care, more cops and jailers and lawyers to deal with the crime problem, etc. There is NO doubt in my mind that the extra taxes cost me more than I save on imported clothing, hand tools, cars, etc.

    Anybody who thinks a substantial portion of respectable working people will not turn to crime, and have not done so, to make ends meet if they find they must, well, let me just say it, is an idiot.

    At this very minute I personally know people who are selling pot and alcohol in the black market nickel and dime fashion to supplement their burger flipping cashier income. I know women who sell their body, in a discreet fashion, to a boyfriend they would not otherwise have, because he contributes to the problem of feeding her kids and paying her rent. These women are not prostitutes in the literal sense, but the guys they are involved with are not the guys they would choose if they had a decent job.

    I have relatives living at the Graybar, long term, at my expense and yours, who would not be there, except for the fact that they couldn’t make good living working anymore, and decided that they would join the crooks, if they couldn’t lick them, and they consider the crooks to be the ESTABLISHMENT, which is an opinion shared by many of the regulars in this forum.

    I know two men, today, in the immediate neighborhood, who used to be crooks who by great good luck managed to land decent long term jobs where their record is not held against them, and they are now EXTREMELY careful to hew to the line of the law, so as not to lose those jobs. They have told me, personally, that they never managed to live as well as crooks as they do as mechanics repairing trucks and quarry machinery, plus they want their kids and relatives to be able to hold their heads up in public.

    People talk to me, personally, who know me locally, without reservation, most of the time, because they know I am not judgemental at the personal sense. For example a few days back I asked an attractive young woman about getting arrested, not yet having heard the details.

    She told me the cops stopped the car she was in, and found cause to search her and the others in the car, and found some shoplifted goods and a meth pipe on her. She told me this with no more evidence of being embarrassed or ashamed than most of the regulars here would about forgetting to renew their driver’s license on time and getting a ticket for not having a valid license.

    Such hazards, to people who live the way she does, are simply day to day hazards of the job, like getting fired or laid off or falling off a ladder on a construction job. She would naturally talk entirely differently if she didn’t accept me as an insider, a person in good standing with her in group, even though she knows I am well enough off that I don’t have any need to engage in any illegal activities- except I might potentially want to shop for a certain mind altering substance that’s not (yet) legal in this state.

    Fortunately the local cops are sick and tired of busting people for possession of very small amounts of xxx, so that’s not a serious concern, unless they have reason to want to bust you for something else, and can’t prove it. Then they have leverage.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      “except I might potentially want to shop for a certain mind altering substance that’s not (yet) legal in this state”

      I knew it ! Which explains your long endless comments.

      “Fortunately the local cops are sick and tired of busting people for possession of very small amounts of xxx, so that’s not a serious concern, unless” your one of the half million persons of color who are in jail of possession of xxx. It must be nice to be a person of white privilege who doesn’t have to be “concern”.

      The drug laws in America are being used as a means of racism and voter suppression. Plus destroy more peoples lives than the drugs themselves. Looking for a job, not with your crimial record.

      ‘Good People Don’t Smoke Marijuana’ – Trump’s Attorney General Pick – Click below to meet Jeff Sessions


    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Old Farmer mac,

      There are workers in places in the US besides Virginia that have jobs because of free trade.

      Now if we would like workers in the US as a group to be worse off, we could create trade barriers. Some workers would benefit, while workers in industries that export a lot of goods would lose their jobs. It really is that simple.

      In addition all workers would see prices rise, which would lead to a fall in real income adding insult to injury.

      Now one could argue that we need to consume less because it would be better for the environment and that lower income is a good thing for that reason.

      That is a tough sell for a politician, though it may indeed be accurate.

      Maybe the US economy will do very poorly under Trump, in which case it could be argued he is really a Green candidate. 🙂

      • Boomer II says:

        “Maybe the US economy will do very poorly under Trump, in which case it could be argued he is really a Green candidate. 🙂”

        I think a recession during his administration is quite likely.

        1. We’re about due for one.
        2. He can’t control a slowing global economy.
        3. I don’t think he or his administration will put into place policies that will spur growth because their solutions have already been tried and haven’t been that effective.
        4. There’s an excess of global labor and that will work to keep wages down.
        5. These days rich capitalists don’t create many jobs. The money they make comes from the stock market, real estate, art, etc. And when they create new companies, often those companies use less labor, or find ways to pay labor less.

        Trump and his nominees want to go back to an era that has long since past and there really isn’t anything they can do to bring it back. I anticipate that the Trump states will continue to go down economically. Other than some short-lived booms (e.g., North Dakota), most of those states don’t have much to offer that will attract businesses, jobs, housing developments, and so on.

        I suppose the Trump administration could pump so much money into the defense budget that there would be economic growth, but that defense money isn’t likely to boost the country as a whole — just the places with defense contractors and states that already have military bases not due to shut down.

  32. Boomer II says:

    I’ll ask this question again, but in different terms.

    If environmental problems are imminent (like in 10 years or less), will the sh*t hit the fan during the Trump administration? Will there been a natural or environmental or economic disaster hit during the next four years that is impossible to deny or BS away?

    On the one hand, we have the Trump administration promising even better than BAW. “We’ll have jobs. We’ll dig coal. We’ll drill for oil. We’ll suppress science we don’t like.” And on the other, we have McPherson saying it’s all over in 10 years. If I am going to freak out, should I be more concerned about Trump administration policies or about civilization’s imminent demise?

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      Trump will probably be left holding the bag.

      The only question is the spin on who is responsible.

      • Boomer II says:

        “The only question is the spin on who is responsible.”

        So we can look forward to environmental problems blamed on Mexicans and Muslims.

        Of course, we’ve had a number of people blaming natural disasters on gays. I guess you can blame anything on God getting mad at something. Still, God seems to take it out on people who believe they haven’t transgressed. When God gets mad, you could be the target, no matter how much you have prayed or gone to church.

        And of course, we have those who believe the demise of human life IS part of God’s plan.

    • Doug Leighton says:

      “If environmental problems are imminent….”

      So, what planet do YOU live on? Here on Earth we are currently in a state of emergency with environmental problems piling up around us. To mention a few, there’s pollution of our air, water and soil, a population explosion in less developed and developing countries straining already scarce resources. We also have natural resource depletion and waste disposal issues abetted by dumping waste in our oceans and health hazards associated with nuclear waste plus massive loss of biodiversity with human activity leading to the extinction of species and habitats and eco-systems which took millions of years to perfect currently being destroyed via deforestation and ocean acidification and urban sprawl and, and, and………..

      • Doug Leighton says:

        FWIW (On Planet Earth),


        “A study by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) suggests almost a quarter of company revenues depend on deforestation-linked commodities: the commodities are cattle products, soy, palm oil and timber products. The findings are based on disclosures from 365 investors worth US $22 trillion.


      • Boomer II says:

        “So, what planet do YOU live on? Here on Earth we are currently in a state of emergency with environmental problems piling up around us.”

        I mean, if civilization destroying problems are imminent. Even in this forum there isn’t agreement on how soon Earth will become uninhabitable.

        • Boomer II says:

          Which will come first? Disasters that Americans can’t ignore, or Trump being out of office?

        • Doug Leighton says:

          “how soon Earth will become uninhabitable”

          Earth has already become uninhabitable for many species, more-and-more every day. But if you’re caught up in the Carrying Capacity Syndrome (as in only humans really matter), as the Sun ages, its luminosity will increase, making it become larger and brighter; this will play out over hundreds of millions of years so it’s not like this is something that will occur during our lifetimes. But it’s already at work and will make its effects felt in about one billion years. Is that a satisfactory answer?

          • Doug Leighton says:

            It seems even seagrass is in trouble,

            “It’s big, it’s old and it lives under the sea, and now an international research collaboration has confirmed that an ancient seagrass holds the secrets of the oldest living organism on Earth. Ancient giant Posidonia oceanica reproduces asexually, generating clones of itself. A single organism, which has been found to span up to 15 kilometers in width and reach more than 6,000 metric tonnes in mass, may well be more than 100,000 years old.

            “Seagrasses are the foundation of key coastal ecosystems but have waned globally for the past 20 years. Posidonia oceanica meadows are now declining at an estimated rate of five per cent annually. The concern is that while Posidonia oceanica meadows have thrived for millennia their current decline suggests they may no longer be able to adapt to the unprecedented rate of global climate change.”


      • Boomer II says:

        I assume that the average Trump voter doesn’t care what is happening to reefs, doesn’t care what the global temperature will be in 2100 or even 2050, and doesn’t care how many species have already died off.

        I’m asking for predictions about how soon an environmental, weather, or economic event will hit the US to make them say, “Oh sh*t.”

        • GoneFishing says:

          Several extreme storms, floods and a large economic event have already hit. The trumpsters will merely think that is the status quo now and be more worried about their next pay raise, benefits and taxes.
          So the answer is no event will wake them up or make them shift the blame. Besides America is going to be great! They will even hire Tony the Tiger to promote that. Nobody said when though.

    • Preston says:

      Yes, I’ve been saying for over a year that Trump would be the last president.

      I can see the world being a lot like Soylent green or maybe MadMax within 10 years but I’ve got to believe some people will hang on for a lot longer. This year was crazy hot, if we get another record year next year it’s likely game over.

      • Pierre Lechelle says:

        Don’t the Noaa and Nasa now say every year is the warmest ever? If they are trusted, it should already be game over, no?

      • Boomer II says:

        “Yes, I’ve been saying for over a year that Trump would be the last president.”

        I wonder if he and his administration would go so far as to declare martial law so we can’t get rid of them.

    • Survivalist says:

      Well if humanity is gonna be extinct in 10 years then the shit better start hitting the fan soon. There are some remote populations that will take some time to even realize industrial civilization has collapsed. The only thing that I can see wiping out humanity is a really bad famine followed by/ causing nuclear war followed by every nuclear power plant melting down. The objective of the global military industrial complexes is profits and power, not nuclear holocaust, so I’m not big on believing nuclear war will occur. Nuclear holocaust will be bad for shareholder returns. My black swan theory of choice is maybe a really nasty bit of famine due to climate change factors and the resulting unregulated mass migration and state failure that that will bring. I’m not trying to hang metals on myself but it’d take some pretty serious sh*t to see me dead in 10 years. So I don’t believe in human extinction in 10 years. I’ll still be alive 🙂

      • Survivalist says:

        Further to last; 2 bad annual grain harvests in a row and it gets pretty Hobbesian. Now I guess we have to ask ourself what’s the probability of 2 bad annual grain harvests in a row. Or perhaps 3 bad ones in five years or so. I’m no expert but I’m guessing rice, wheat and corn are the big ones to watch.

  33. Oldfarmermac says:


    The incoming prez has nominated a hack to run the ed dept, while settling a lawsuit for personally running a fake university, and now the R types that want government off their backs are likely about to find out about the federal government abusing its power.

    There is a small chance Trump will do as he implied he would, during the run up to the election, and leave pot policy up to the states. But I wouldn’t bet on it, given his record of fibbing and flip flopping.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      A, but, but, but, but let’s not forget Hillary emailed Vince Foster once upon a time. I mean really, what was she thinking ?

      I promise Mac, I only plan to give you shit for the next 4 years. If we make that long.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      Mac, last month you called me naive about the election. Well, I’m not the only one who thinks your part of the first 201 reasons why we have a future President Trump.

      Things I Blame For Hillary Clinton’s Loss, Ranked


      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Hi HB,

        IF people like you WERE NOT so naive as to believe a candidate with Clinton’s baggage was a good choice as the nominee, there would be a D following Obama in the WH.

        Virtually any D in the country EXCEPT Clinton could have mopped the floor with Trump, who is the worst candidate the R party has run in modern times. .

        You are simply in denial, and there’s nothing I or anybody else can do for you, about that.

        Someday you may put enough distance between your unfulfilled wishes and desires and the working part of your brain to understand that the millions of young people who Sanders set on fire had numerous and compelling reasons to want ANYBODY BUT HRC on the ticket, but she had such an octopus like grip on the D party machinery that every other D in the country, except Sanders, was basically convinced they had no chance running against her.

        Now let’s just act like ADULTS for a minute, and tell us honestly, wouldn’t you be foaming at the mouth and SCREAMING about any R candidate who could have been S of State and put in a secret email system that intermingled her personal and family business with government business, and took millions of dollars from banks for secret speeches from banks she would be regulating as president?

        There’s a dead fish smell about her, and she lost for numerous reasons, just ONE one of which in and of itself would have probably won the election for her, if she had had sense enough to listen to Bill.

        I posted a link to this effect some time back, from a right wing site, and somebody commented that I should not put any credence in the link simply BECAUSE it was from a right wing site.

        Well, this time I picked it up from Fox, another right wing site, repeating what the NYT has had to say about the same mistake. I guess the NYT is still considered a reputable paper in your circles. I used to read it every day, until they cut off my free access, via my student id, which expired. But I can still read ten articles a month, and sometimes a lot more, because the paywall is full of holes.

        Here ya go:

        “According to The New York Times, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton privately told her staff that she made a huge error when she denounced her Republican opponent Donald Trump‘s supporters as a “basket of deplorables.”

        The Times piece details Bill Clinton‘s failed attempt to get his wife to campaign for rural and working class white votes, which the Clinton campaign ultimately chose not to do.”

        Fox goes on to say the NYT says that Clinton said that she didn’t need to reach out to white Catholic voters, who are mostly working class, by the way.

        She made numerous mistakes, and admitted only a few of them, the ” deplorables remark being one that admitted few.

        Every thing else she blames on other people.

        Well let me ‘splain it to ya in working class language. If she weren’t as arrogant as an EMPRESS, and as dumb as fence post, considering she was determined to run for Prez, she would have had better sense than to have CREATED the secret email system which sort of leaves COMEY altogether out of it, when it comes to the blame game, as working class people judge such matters.

        She has consistently shown that she has nothing but contempt for the intellects of those she took for granted one time too many – working class voters.

        It seems rather obvious to me that you simply don’t KNOW any working class people, except maybe casually. I do, I come from that background, and have spent substantial portions of my adult life living and working and mingling socially with lots of them, from union electricians to migrant farm laborers.

        As they see things, she took them for granted, and as they see things, her actions indicate that while she occasionally talks the working class talk, she consistently walks the big money, big business walk.

        I suppose you have heard that saying about talking that talk, and then having to walk that walk, or failing to do so. 😉

        They voted for Trump not especially or particularly because the LIKE Trump, although some (mostly the ones who have lower wattage bulbs between the ears ) DO like him, but because they were desperate for ANYBODY outside the business as usual establishment. Working class people in the big Rust Belt states will seldom vote R, except maybe locally for sheriff or other local office, but this time around………..

        Well, they didn’t see Trump as a big R Republican.

        They see Trump as the outsider who successfully crashed the R party’s party, and given the choice available, they took the ” not really a R” Trump, hoping he will or at least MIGHT live up to some of his campaign positions, such as keeping jobs inside this country.

        You are like a spoiled kid, a kid who blames all his troubles on somebody else, without even the slightest glimmer of understanding that his problems are of his own making, rather than being the fault of his teachers, or coach, or playmates, or parents, or siblings, or whatever or whoever.

        You put your money on the WORST candidate the D party has ever run, at least in modern times, the one with the MOST baggage, the WORST negatives, EVER.

        And then you pee and moan and blame her losing on the people who didn’t vote for her, lol. People who have the social disease gonorrhea generally get it as the result of a lack of discretion, except when a cheating spouse brings it home. When you get it, and you don’t get treatment, you moan when you pee, you see, because it HURTS, while at the same time most likely blaming it on the person you caught it from, rather than facing up to the fact you should have had better sense than to get in bed with that person.

        And just for the record- I ALWAYS said Trump was or would be worse, and that I was afraid he might win, not at first, but in the middle part of the campaign.

        Back in the early days of the campaign, I would have bet big money against him even getting the nomination, never mind winning the election. Then near the end I spent too much time reading the liberal wing of the press, and hanging out with my liberal friends, physical and cyber, and not enough time with the other sort, and became convinced Clinton had it in the bag.

        People like you are always ready to shoot the messenger who brings you news you don’t like to hear. So go ahead, shoot me. I ‘ve been shot at before, and hit too, so far as that goes.

        My old Daddy believes in his KJB, and Jesus, and the Devil. You seem to believe in Clinton, religiously, and the Devil you believe in is the Great Right Wing Conspiracy, and you’re convinced that the GRWC Devil cost Clinton the election.

        So in your mind, I’m one of the GRWC Devil’s little imps, helping him along with his dirty work, right?

        You can blame in on me , you can blame in on Sanders, you can blame it on millennials, you can blame in on anybody, except Clinton herself, because your religious convictions will never allow you to open your eyes to the reality that Clinton was a badly flawed candidate.

        Over the last few weeks, I have read pieces in major newspapers and on liberal tilted sites by a dozen written by people who like you, are in denial. They have blamed Clinton’s loss on white women, minorities that didn’t turn out in large enough numbers, fake news, the MSM, talk radio, Little Green Men ( just kidding) , banksters, gangsters, the FBI, and Jesus, who may not even have ever actually existed. I have overlooked quite a few, but I’m enjoying myself, and if you want, I can find add some more.

        So far, hardly any hard core Clinton fans are ready to admit the truth to themselves, in my estimation.

        And virtually all of the ones who have anything to say publicly are sticking strictly to the CLINTON PARTY dogma, this being that the problem is all the devils and imps and sinners and nincompoop stupid conservatives and Christians, etc etc, who refuse to worship her, as she deserves, or at least VOTE for her.

        I seldom attend church services these days, except for funerals and holidays, but I have heard hundreds of sermons written and delivered with the obvious intent of keeping the flock in line, of keeping the foot soldiers from ever even THINKING about whether there might be something WRONG with the church.

        You folks who go around constantly blaming Clinton’s loss on her political enemies are sort of like preachers, in this respect. You are doing all you can to keep the congregation, the voter, from thinking about the shortcomings of the dogma that the candidate is worthy .

        I spent a considerable amount of time with Sanders millennials, both physically and on line, and you can take this to the bank. The majority of Sander’s supporters were and are idealistic, liberal, well educated, and well informed politically.

        They don’t believe in the GRWC devil. They weren’t screaming lock her up, like Trump fans. They were willing to cut her some slack, as far as the LETTER of the law goes, in respect to her secret email system, but they sure as hell were not willing to give her a free pass on her obvious lack of respect for the SPIRIT of the law, or her failure to follow the rules the way everybody else is expected to follow them.

        Can you spell arrogance? Clinton had it in spades.

        They saw Clinton for what she WAS, a BADLY flawed candidate. It turns out the flaws were bad enough that they were fatal.

        They saw in Sanders what Trump voters saw in Trump, hope for change.

        Obama got elected on that hope, and HRC should have had sense enough to follow his example, and sense enough to listen to Bill C who in my estimation is without any doubt the most perceptive and capable campaigner, with the best feel for the mood of the people, bar none, within the last fifty years at least.

        Arrogance in and of itself cost her the WH. If it hadn’t been for the email system, she would have won, and if she hadn’t been so arrogant as to believe she could get away with it, she wouldn’t have created it.

        And if you believe she did it for CONVENIENCE, well then, naive is not NEARLY a strong enough word to describe your political IQ.

        I TRIED to tell ya, but you wouldn’t listen.

        • Boomer II says:

          Whatever Clinton was accused of, Trump has done much worse, so in my mind the Clinton bashing doesn’t hold up. Was she flawless? No. But I felt she was more than qualified for the job.

        • HuntingtonBeach says:

          Mac- “except I might potentially want to shop for a certain mind altering substance that’s not (yet) legal in this state”

          Keep on smoking Mac

          Mac- “any R candidate who could have been S of State and put in a secret email system”

          Do you mean like Powell and Rice did ?

          Mac- “There’s a dead fish smell about her”

          MISOGYNY – “It’s why people can’t quite put a finger on it, but they just don’t like the cut of her jib”

          • Boomer II says:

            Yes, that’s what I think. The standards were so much higher for her than virtually any other politician that I think sexism was a big factor.

            The religious right was willing to toss out whatever moral grounds they once claimed to support Trump.

            A lot of hypocrisy in the election.

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              What Powell and Rice did compared to what Clinton did is about the same as shoplifting a candybar compared to committing armed robbery of the store, and I am not only sure you know it, but also sure you will never admit it.

              Neither Rice nor Powell headed up the R ticket, so their bending the rules is irrelevant, in terms of the perceptions of the voters passing judgement on presidential candidates.

              Besides which………… Remember me pointing out that you are like a spoiled kid, blaming your problems on others?

              The fact that Rice and Powell bent and broke rules is NO justification at all for Clinton doing the same, especially on the scale she did it.

              CLINTON created the secret email system, CLINTON took the millions for the speeches, Clinton insulted the the intellects and morals and culture of tens of millions of decent ( if ill informed ) people by calling them deplore ables.

              Republicans didn’t hold a gun to her head and make her do and say these things. She’s responsible for her own actions.

              If these are the best arguments you can come up with, you are proving my case for me.

              If you like, we can debate some of the scandals she has been involved in.

              Shall we start with the first one I remember hearing about, Cattle Gate?

              We can use the archives of the NYT, the Old Gray Lady, the Paper of Record, to establish the known facts, if you care to take me up on it, or the Washington Post, or both.

              From there maybe you would like to discuss the number of her former PERSONAL business associates that have spent time in jail.

              Sometimes I get pretty busy, but winter has finally arrived, and the fire is warm, my recliner is comfy, and I enjoy this sort of thing. The forecast is for rain for the next couple of days……… My outside chores are caught up, I’m retired, and my old Daddy really likes for me to be in this chair, close by, keeping him company.

              So I’m ready to debate the dead fish smell up to the point that either Dennis C or Ron P tells me to take it elsewhere.

              I will give you this much, there are some things in her record that have been blown way out of proportion by her enemies, but the emails are not one of them.

              You just might also remember that HRC , as best I can remember, said she would work to legalize pot.

              Liberal, well educated people as a group are very much in favor of legalization, you know. It’s the Trump types who want to keep us drinking ethanol and smoking tobacco, lol.

              Which side of this question are you on anyway?

              No, I DON’T like the cut of her jib, but my not liking her has nothing to do with her being a female. I don’t like arrogant people who act as if they are ENTITLED to special treatment, male or female. I would have been happy to vote for any of the D women who are senators, OTHER than Clinton.

              It’s pretty much par for the course, when you ( the rhetorical you ) are losing an argument so badly as you are losing this one, on the merits your arguments, to resort to calling the opposition names, and especially names that are code words used to identify heretics, outsiders, enemies of the church… in this case the church being the Church of Clinton.

              You can go ahead and call me some more names, if it will make you feel better. How about racist or xenophobe? I have after all said I care more about my relatives and friends and coworkers and American citizens than I do about Chinese people, and I have argued for tightly controlled borders on the grounds of controlling the population growth of this country, preserving the jobs of poorly educated workers already in this country, taking better care of this country in terms of protecting the environment, with the population being relatively smaller, etc.

              So you will at least be able to twist my words about these issues and portray me as…….. one of the unwashed and unenlightend and morally and intellectually inferior rabble…………. without sense enough to know what’s good for me.

              I like Trump even less than I like Clinton. He’s even more arrogant, and by comparison, Clinton is the shoplifter, and he’s the armed robber.

              Neither of them should ever have headed up a major party ticket because neither of them has in my opinion the judgement or temperament needed in a president. Neither passes the ethical smell test, when I am doing the smelling……….

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              Hi Boomer,

              You may detest and despise the the culture and ethics of the people generally referred to as the religious right, that’s your right and privilege as a citizen of this country.

              But it’s THEIR right to believe what they please, in terms of culture and morals. We aren’t entitled to our own facts, in terms of the hard sciences, and physical reality, lol.

              But so long as we are a democracy, we are entitled to believe what we please about culture.

              And like it or lump it, Clinton stands for a lot of things that the so called religious right finds detestable, such as gay marriage.

              They are entitled as free people to decide on their own morality and culture. There is no question in my mind that millions of them voted AGAINST Clinton, rather than for Trump, on cultural grounds. There is no question in my mind that millions of other people voted for Clinton , and against Trump, for the same basic reason…….. their cultural values aligned better with Clinton.

              I have not disputed these obvious ( to me at least ) facts.

              To the contrary, I have EMPHASIZED them, and pointed out several times that too much change brought on too fast via the court system might result in political backlash which would set back the overall liberal agenda for years and years, and that it might have been better if some of the recent changes had not occurred so soon.

              My reasoning was that the core R type voters , the social conservative law and order old folks voters, are departing this old world at a fast and ever increasing pace, and being replaced by younger, more liberal, generally better educated, more tolerant younger voters………

              Well, the backlash effect is real, and there is no doubt in my mind AT ALL that it is one of the more important reasons that Trump is prez elect.

              Do you want somebody telling YOU what to believe, or do you want to make up your own mind on such matters?

              Note that I am an atheist, a Darwinist thru and thru, intellectually, and do not take any religion seriously, at the personal level.

              This does not mean I don’t understand and respect religious people. They have a right to live as they want, just as you do. Fights erupt when cultures clash.

              The religious right won this round, this presidential election.

              Obama won for your side, and Bill Clinton won for you too.

              Trump the politician is far better aligned with the desires of the religious right, compared to Clinton .

              You are mistaken in calling their voting for Trump hypocrisy.

              They may BE hypocrites, and indeed many of them ARE, but they voted their beliefs and values.

              If you want to win elections, you must set aside your personal convictions long enough to get truly acquainted with the minds and values of the people you must convince to vote for YOUR candidate and party, and find common ground without asking them to give up values they hold as strongly as you hold your own.

              You will never win their votes by calling them names, such as sexist, racist, xenophobe , homophobe , etc.

              You will never win their votes by insulting their intellects, or their morals, or their inherited culture, or lecturing them as if they were children, and not intelligent enough to understand what is in their own best interests………. even though it is true that they don’t in some respects…….. 😉

              I am NOT a Trump partisan. My goal is to force disappointed D voters to deal with the reality of WHY Trump is prez elect.

              In coming years, I sincerely hope D voters will collectively remember that running a candidate with the highest negatives EVER …..resulted in Trump being prez elect.

              I hope they will remember that when the country is sick and tired of the status quo, it’s a colossal mistake to run a more of the same candidate. Clinton would in my opinion have won had the R party run any of the ” more of the same ” R hopefuls.

              But Trump offered what so many people craved ….. hope for change, which is what put Obama in the WH.

              Don’t forget he came out of nowhere, just as Sanders did, having almost zero in terms of a national reputation……. and he whipped Clinton’s ass handily….. WHY?

              Well in my opinion, based on knowing a lot of D type voters who just happen to also be devout Christians, or just plain old social conservatives, or whatever, ENOUGH of them were ready to vote for ANYBODY BUT HILLARY….. so, in the D primaries with their votes, and the votes of other D primary voters eager for CHANGE, Obama did the near unthinkable.. and won the primary starting out as an unknown on the national stage.

              It may sound strange to a Clinton true believer, but there are one hell of a lot of modern, well educated women as well as old fashioned women, who won’t say so in public, but in private they will tell you that they have ZERO respect for HRC, at the personal level, for sticking by her man, which in their eyes is one hell of a lot worse than staying home and baking cookies…… when the man displays the personal shortcomings of her husband.

              This sort of woman might believe in sticking by her man for the sake of her kids, but when HRC not only stood by her man, when she had ample resources to leave him, without suffering any hardship at all, but also attacked the women he abused, well…. she crossed a line that put her forever outside the pale, in terms of that sort of D voting woman.

              That sort of woman didn’t vote for Trump, but the odds are pretty good she didn’t vote for Clinton either. She stayed home.

              I don’t know how many of them there are, but it is my strong opinion that there are enough of them in each of the big three Rust Belt States who stayed home to have won it for Clinton.

              • Boomer II says:

                I’m not planning to debate Clinton.

                Suffice it to say I felt she was smart enough, experienced enough, and skilled enough to be president.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Boomer II,

                  Agreed, just not very inspiring, which might be why Sanders may have been better candidate, I mistakenly thought Clinton was more electable, but I doubted also that Trump would win the nomination, to be honest I thought anybody would have been able to beat Trump, I was wrong on that as well.

                  • Boomer II says:

                    I liked both Sanders and Clinton for different reasons. Whichever one got the nomination, I would have supported.

                    Sanders had great ideas, but I didn’t think most of them would actually happen.

                    Clinton was much more cautious about overpromising, which I considered a plus, but of course didn’t get voters as excited.

      • hightrekker23 says:

        Ah yes, the Puffington Host—
        They still don’t get it.
        Even the Bewildered Herd knew something was wrong.

  34. Longtimber says:

    “Jerri-Lynn here: President-elect Trump is expected to name his nominees to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Energy sometime next week. The latter section of this post provides a useful primer on the backgrounds, connections and biases of possible nominees for spots in the Trump administration’s climate and energy team. ”


  35. HVACman says:

    Despite low gasoline prices, US plug-in electric vehicle sales continue to push new highs:


    November’s 13,337 unit sales blasted past any previous November’s high. Annual sales to-date, at over 133,854, now tops the previous-best FULL-years sales (2014) – by over 11,000 vehicles.

    December is usually the top sales month each year as buyers rush to purchase in-time to take advantage of EV tax credits. December also should see initial retail sales deliveries for the Chevy Bolt EV, higher sales for the new Prius Prime (their new plug-in model), and perhaps the new Chrysler plug-in Pacifica mini-van. Telsa is behind schedule for meeting their 2016 target deliveries, so expect Elon Musk to crack the production-whip again to push out a lot of S’s and X’s.

    With all that in-play, next month’s report could show total 2016 US plug-in sales topping 150,000.

    • Bob Nickson says:

      And look at that global number, nearly 600,000.

      Next year will very likely be the first year over one million.

  36. Survivalist says:

    An interesting take on the Dems move to the right and the Repubs move towards the common worker people.


  37. Oldfarmermac says:


    Bad news, but in the end, a few years down the road, such policies will come back to bite the R party on the ass, and hard, as the rest of the developed world frees itself of the necessity of buying depleting fossil fuels, while at the same time creating far more jobs than even exist in the mining industries.

    We’re going to be way behind, with the Koch brothers calling the shots.

    But I am confident we will make up the lost ground, once the truth about climate change, resource depletion, etc, become obvious to the man on the street.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      Maybe, but at least Trump doesn’t email on a private server. He tweets his few thoughts to everyone in the world.

      Donald Trump, Alec Baldwin Tweet Over Continuing ‘SNL’ Skits –


    • islandboy says:

      “Draining the swamp”? Hmpff! Anything but! When I read the article I nearly threw up, I felt so sick. I will never forget the time one “Glenn Stehle” and I had an exchange (it started here: 10/17/2015 at 1:55 pm), in which I think I “busted him pretty good” for presenting propaganda from the Koch brothers funded “Institute for Energy Research” as factual data.

      From the LA Times article linked to by OFM

      When an obscure nonprofit group attacked one of California’s signature green-energy projects this summer — warning a congressional panel that the embrace of solar energy would lead to crippling hikes in electricity bills — officials in the state shrugged off the testimony as noise from the fringe.

      With Donald Trump’s election, however, that group, the Institute for Energy Research, has moved suddenly from the fringe to the center of power. The president-elect has sent the group’s president, a former Koch Industries lobbyist named Thomas Pyle, to the Energy Department to take charge of its transition.

      For years, Pyle has led a coordinated national assault on renewable power. His groups and others that belong to the sprawling network bankrolled by Charles and David Koch, whose vast fortune stems originally from oil refining, pressure lawmakers to roll back policies that promote green power. The Koch network gave Pyle’s groups $3 million in 2015.

      This is very depressing news to me. The fox is being put in charge of guarding the hen house.

      P.S. Where is good old GS theses days anyway? He seems to have retreated back into the @$$hole from which he emerged after repeatedly having a new one ripped for him around here.

  38. Boomer II says:

    If Trump won’t lead the world in renewable energy technology, I am putting my money on China.

    Did China’s Currency Just Drop Off a Cliff? | Foreign Policy: “The question is whether Beijing, by allowing its currency to suddenly slide, thus giving its export-based economy an immediate boost, gave Trump an immediate and provocative answer to his tweets — or whether global currency traders, seeing signs of increased tension between China and the United States simply got bearish on Chinese money.”

  39. George Kaplan says:

    PIOMAS arctic ice volume for November is out and not looking good. Far from catching up with previous years it has further deviated low, and there is expected to be another stall over the next few days. The open seas, especially Hudson Bay which is weeks behind it’s normal freeze up, are leading to unusually humid air and a lot of snow in some places. I don’t know what that means in the long run (i.e. negative or positive feed backs). There was supposed to be a change in the trend gradient after the 1998 El Nino because prevailing weather patterns were changed, though I must say a can’t really see it, and perhaps we are getting another one now

    • George Kaplan says:

      Please ignore the chart above – too early, no coffee, and maybe too old – so I managed to screw up the cutting and pasting – here’s the correct chart without the kink. Not quite as bad, but not much change.

  40. George Kaplan says:

    This shows running yearly average which continues to fall at a fairly constant rate. A lot of comments indicate that the ice state in winter is mainly relevant only in how it influences the next seasons melt, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. The extra cold conditions over Siberia and Europe earlier this year and now through North America must be related to the switch of the Arctic from continental type climate when ice is present to now more oceanic with lots of open water.

    • George Kaplan says:

      The chart didn’t seem to make it through. I’ll have another go here – apologies if it shows up twice.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi George,


      Solid black line is 1981-2010 average, gray shaded area is +/- 2 standard deviations and dashed line is 2012 when the minimum sea ice extent from 1979 to 2016 was observed.

      Sea Ice Extent from


      • GoneFishing says:

        Sea Ice area extent without a percentage coverage distribution is not a valid measure, since it can vary from 15% ice to 100 percent ice cover and still be counted as covered area. Just a wind or current can change the extent.

        The mass is by far a better measure of ice and the only reliable method.

        • hightrekker23 says:

          New GRACE is up, I believe.

          And we won’t be confusing snow for ice, which has been done recently.
          Mass is the measurement.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Gone fishing,

          The problem is we don’t have a very long data set for total Arctic ice mass, I agree it’s the better measure though. Just reporting the data from the NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, CO). As long as the data is reported consistently, it’s worthwhile in my view. And if we are interested in Albedo change it is extent that is more relevant don’t you think?

          • GoneFishing says:

            Dennis, we have mass and albedo data back to 1979.

            Why do you think that albedo would be accurate for a measure that gives the same value for zero open water as 85% open water? An area of sea ice can be 85% open water and still be called ice covered, yet it’s albedo will be tremendously different than a fully ice covered region.

            Measuring the albedo of sea ice from space is extremely difficult due to the side angles of ice diffusing and reflecting light at angles other than the normal angle. Making me wonder if satellite observations are capturing the full albedo change.
            But that is the best we have so:

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Gone fishing,

              Let’s say we had good sea ice extent data, say that used 85% or some other number to define the edge of the ice, wouldn’t that be a better measure to estimate albedo change than mass? The ice is not uniformly thick so if we are interested in albedo, mass doesn’t really answer out question unless we have ice thickness data as well.

              In any case the chart was presented as another data set confirming that this year is unusual.

  41. Oldfarmermac says:


    Considering the fact that one hell of a lot of agriculture professors, all of them most certainly having at least a few credits in biology on their own personal transcripts have long endorsed putting antibiotics in animal feed, it makes me feel ashamed that I took my degree in the field.

    This will not end well.

    Only an over educated idiot, or somebody standing to make money out of this practice, could possibly believe it would end well. It’s easy to believe what we want to believe, no matter how much contrary data we encounter.

    Farmers don’t even make any money using these antibiotics, long term, except in the case of individuals who are able to get them when other farmers cannot. Farming is pretty much a break even proposition in the economic sense, with just about all the important cost reducing strategies being widely available to just about all commercial farmers. If something lowers the cost of production, prices go down, because farmers as a whole have no control over their collective production.

    Consider a retail store that is compelled to collect sales taxes. All the competing stores likewise must do the same, and profits in retailing stay about the same, with the industry just passing along the cost of collection. If the cost is removed, prices in a fully competitive industry will theoretically and in actual practice come down , on average, everything else held the same.

    Of course things seldom remain the same, and minor variations in costs and profits due to particular minor changes in costs are hard to distinguish given the noise level, but this does not disprove these observations, which are consistent with widely accepted economic theory.

    • Nathanael says:

      Non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals was banned years ago in the EU — and in much of the rest of the world, too. Only the backwards, short-term-money-uber-alles US continues to allow this destructive, world-endangering practice. I really wonder when the rest of the world will sanction and isolate the US for its threats to world health.

  42. Oldfarmermac says:

    Scanning the news I notice the next item down in health in my news feed is about tobacco, with representative coverage along these lines.


    I picked the Fox link especially to show that even an outfit like Fox gets a lot of stuff right, which they most likely would have gotten wrong, back in the early days of the tobacco wars, but there was no Faux News back then, lol.

    The fact that they do get most things right goes a long long way in explaining why so many reasonably well educated and decent people tend to believe what they see, hear, and read there.

    Face up to it folks, Fox News is NOT without credibility, except in a very few controversial areas, and yes , I am one of the people who does not believe there is any real controversy among scientists regarding global warming, etc.

    It’s a big mistake to assume that the portions of the msm media which happen to agree with your own political and cultural opinions and values will always tell you the truth, and especially the WHOLE truth.

    It’s a big mistake to just automatically decide that something you see at Breitbart or some similar outfit is a lie, simply because the more liberal msm have not reported it – yet.

    At the extremes, the editors and owners of just about all media tend to emphasize what they like, and minimize coverage of what they don’t.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Old Farmer Mac,

      A good news source is always accurate in its reporting of news.

      Partial truth, doesn’t really cut it.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        One hell of a big bang, health wise, for a very small investment

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Hi Dennis,

        I agree, but my argument was and is that when a source consistently reports the vast majority of the news accurately, even well educated and well informed people who read read, watch, or listen to the very large portion that IS accurate, and that they KNOW is accurate, are inclined or predisposed to believe the questionable or demonstrably false portion – which is after all in the case of Fox a rather minor portion of the Fox total content- if they WANT to believe it.

        This doesn’t mean people who believe the false or misleading content are stupid, or racists, or that they hate women, etc.

        It does prove they are human beings. 😉

        In the case of climate and associated environmental issues, it’s also pretty good proof that they are not well enough educated in the sciences to know doo doo from apple butter.

        But it’s hard to make the case that middle aged and older women are at fault because they either didn’t go to college, or majored in fields that don’t include study of chemistry, biology, geology, etc. Ditto for millions and millions of older men, and younger men who majored in law, or business administration, or political science or economics, if they were fortunate enough to get a higher education.

        Making fun of them won’t help large D Democrats and environmentalists win elections.

        There is no practical, reliable way of controlling your message, and tailoring it to a particular audience, and keeping those you don’t want to hear it, from hearing it.

        The net and social media meant the end of that strategy working.

        I know of some sources of news that are consistently accurate , and make very few mistakes, on average, but I don’t know of ANY, not a single one, that consistently reports both sides of culturally and ethically divisive questions fully and accurately.

        They all either ignore or minimize one side or the other of some issues. If you know of any that do not, please enlighten me.

        I can’t see any hope of this ever changing, because the news is gathered and reported by human beings, and we all have our own agendas and prejudices and deeply held beliefs that are heresies to other human beings.

        Absolute truths may be realities , in terms of laboratory experiments run by chemists and physicists, or math theory, etc.

        But in the affairs of men, for any one thing you can point out as being accepted as an absolute truth by any one group, faction, ethnic or economic subset, etc, I believe I can find another group that disagrees with heart felt passion.

        Take abortion, for instance. It may be your opinion, as it obviously is the opinion of a majority of well educated younger women, that this is a matter of reproductive choice, and a decision that absolutely should be left up to individual women. There is no doubt in my mind that if I were a young woman today, I would agree wholeheartedly with that position.

        But there are just as obviously many women and men who believe abortion is the murder of a human being. I know both kinds. Most of us do.

        I am glad that I am too old to have to worry about a potential girlfriend aborting a baby – fetus to you, perhaps- that I would be looking forward to holding and cherishing and teaching math, biology, hands on gardening, love of the land, and nature, and good books.

        Otoh, I have personally helped two women get abortions, by way of loaning them a modest sum of money to help pay for the procedure and associated travel, etc. and advised two or three more that I believed that an abortion, if the adoption option was out, would be the best long term choice for them, given that they didn’t want to be mothers at the time, and that they had little hope of providing the potential child with a decent home.

        If they were deeply conflicted, I advised them to carry thru and then put the baby up for adoption, regardless of what their family and community might think or say or do, if that seemed to be the right thing for her and the kid, once born.

        There is no way whatsoever to resolve such a dispute in any objective fashion, after the fashion of a repeatable laboratory demonstration.

        Where might we part ways in deciding when enough is enough, and that old folks should be allowed to die, or FORCED TO DIE, for lack of expensive medical care?

        Which is it, allowed, or forced?

        You tell me, if you can.

        My own mother was in chronic ill health for about her last fifteen years, and her medical bills ran well over a million bucks, closer to two million, with countless stays in the hospital, a good many of them in IC. I am at this minute sitting next to a specially constructed super high tech bed in the sunroom, which Daddy does not want moved out, which cost over fifty thousand bucks including the technicians visits necessary to keep it working correctly -JUST for a BED, but it kept her from having bed sores, and relieved me of the necessity of turning her every hour, around the clock. It’s called a Clinitron, in case anybody wants the details.

        Now I am DAMNED GLAD I was never forced to decide HOW that million bucks plus would be spent, on an old bedridden woman, to keep her alive a while longer, or on vaccinating a couple of hundred thousand kids, thereby saving the lives of five or ten thousand or more of them.

        I would have been in an impossible situation, so conflicted I might well have committed suicide after deciding to spend the money on the kids, thereby condemning my own mother to death. But if forced into this decision, I would gone with the kids. I hope so, anyway.

        Funny thing about me and women, only a VERY VERY few were ever attracted to me as a boyfriend, or lover, but a fair number of them accepted me as a big brother or grandfatherly sort of figure, and were ready to talk dead serious matters over with me, things they wouldn’t or couldn’t discuss with their parents, boyfriends, or husbands.

        Even today, some young woman or a man who I hardly know will sometimes get into such a deep and involved discussion with me. This is probably due to my having studied the art of LISTENING, and responding without passing judgement on the values, culture, personal habits, etc, of the woman.

        And yes, I have had some professional training in this skill,all the way back in the Dark Ages, as part of getting my ticket punched as a professional educator, and I followed up on it learning more on my own.

        Teachers, preachers, salesmen, and lots of other people possess it to various degrees.

        I have some experience in all three fields, lol. I preach the environmental message and I preach the techniques needed to understand voters, or at least not alienate them, and win them over, setting up my soapbox on any available corner.

        The first and most important rule I teach is that when you lose, you had best look to your own shortcomings, rather than blaming your loss on others, if you want to win the NEXT election. You can do a lot, enough if you try really hard, about your own problems, to win next time, most likely, but there is very little you can do to control the beliefs and passions of those who are opposed to you on cultural grounds, at least not in the short and medium term.

        In the long term, you have the option of waiting for the core of the opposition to die, n terms of our current day cultural wars, lol.

        Anybody who wants to become an accomplished listener can learn this skill, and the more they practice it, the better they will get at it.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Old Farmer Mac,

          Hey maybe some day people won’t be conned by a salesman.

          I doubt it.

          I always wonder to myself it ever occurred to that the people who watch Fox News that when a newscast says they are “fair and balanced” over and over, maybe that suggests the opposite is true.

          It was taken as a given that Walter Cronkite was fair and balanced, he didn’t need to say it.

  43. Oldfarmermac says:

    The overall tone of this piece is such that it appears to have been written by somebody in Google’s pr or advertising department, but it has a good helping of relevant information concerning technical progress in using renewable energy efficiently, as well as energy in general.

    There are countless ways businesses and industries can get the same or a bigger bang out of the same energy inputs. Google is one of the leaders in discovering new ways to save energy, and a leader in putting them to use.


  44. Doug Leighton says:


    “THE PARIS AGREEMENT: There are multiple paths Trump can take to undermining the U.S. ratification of the deal, which saw the country pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. Under its requirements, already agreed to by the United States, Trump could not immediately withdraw from the deal, but he could do so by 2020….

    “THE CLEAN POWER PLAN: Domestically, Trump has appointed a prominent climate skeptic, Myron Ebell, to lead his transition team at EPA. Ebell, who leads the Center for Energy and Environment at the right-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute, has warned against climate “alarmism” and called the agency’s Clean Power Plan, issued in August 2015, “illegal” ….

    “REAGAN REVOLUTION, REDUX?: With oilmen like Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, and Forrest Lucas, the founder of Lucas Oil, named as potential candidates to lead the departments of energy and the interior, respectively, in a Trump administration, the mostly likely historical analog for the next few years could be the start of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, when he appointed senior officials who were often hostile to the policies of their own agencies…..


    • Oldfarmermac says:

      Hi Doug,

      I share your opinions right across the board, when it comes to environmental issues, and the obvious intent of Trump to do dirty deeds dirt cheap, even for free, in respect to the environment.

      You obviously get it when it comes to undesirable and non linear positive feed back in the natural world.

      Do you agree with me that in the political affairs of men, political backlash is analogous, or can be analogous, to runaway positive feed back in the physical world?

      Keep in mind that the world is populated by billions of naked apes, with only an exceedingly minute fraction of them being as well educated and informed as the average denizen of this forum.

      If not, please explain why, if you can, without writing a book, lol.

      But if you DO write a book, I solemnly swear on my copies of Darwin’s books that I will read every word, twice, slowly, lol.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        “Do you agree with me that in the political affairs of men, political backlash is analogous, or can be analogous, to runaway positive feedback in the physical world?”

        LOL. Mac, you’d be very lucky to get an intelligent political opinion from me. However, respecting political runaway feedback, why not? But, almost ANY system with a mix of dependant and independent variables has that potential.

        Politically, I suspect what we’re currently seeing is increasing inequalities, and poverty, while our billionaires are busy joining the trillionaire’s club with many on the sidelines rebelling. Perhaps there’s an analogous situation in Europe now, compounded by the influx of immigrants with social values often diametrically opposed to local populations. I have friends in Europe who are increasingly frustrated by ongoing deterioration of their wealth, and traditional values, under a system that seems too paralyzed to act.

        But, let’s be careful with the ‘feedback’ appellation which has become something of a cliché. As I’m sure you know, feedback actually refers to the modification or control of a process or system by its results or effects. Unfortunately, for many people feedback’s meaning is limited to imperfect dance or meeting hall speaker systems so they assume it only refers to something bad. In fact (controlled) linear feedback is a highly desirable component of many systems including economic systems. Obviously, in some cases (like climate), feedback can have complex non-linear action(s) with unpredictable results.

        • Nathanael says:

          “Negative feedback” is often good, it’s used for control. This is when a system is going in one direction, and the feedback causes it to go back in the other direction.

          “Positive feedback” is often bad, it makes things go out of control and break. This is when a system goes in one direction, and the feedback causes it to go *further in the same direction*. This is always unsustainable and must stop eventually. Most of the time we are trying to avoid this. As with the ongoing climate disaster.

          There are exceptions. Postitive feedback is good for the growth of the solar industry. It will eventually hit an unsustainable saturation point and a lot of people will lose money, but that’ll be after we hit 100% renewable energy production, so yay.

          Politically, I think we are seeing some negative feedback from insane right-wing policies — they’re causing more people to vote against those policies — thank goodness.

    • GoneFishing says:

      It’s not just climate that will suffer. Pursuing the old and fading ways versus newer ones that work better will do long lasting harm on all fronts.

      Into the Dark Age of Unreason.

      “But their populism was tinged with poison — a pernicious nativism that called for building walls to keep out people and ideas they didn’t like.

      Which brings us back to Trump and the hotheaded, ego-swollen provocateur he most resembles: Joseph McCarthy, US senator from Wisconsin — until now perhaps our most destructive demagogue. In the 1950s, this madman terrorized and divided the nation with false or grossly exaggerated tales of treason and subversion — stirring the witches’ brew of anti-Communist hysteria with lies and manufactured accusations that ruined innocent people and their families. “I have here in my hand a list,” he would claim — a list of supposed Reds in the State Department or the military. No one knew whose names were there, nor would he say, but it was enough to shatter lives and careers.”


      • Nathanael says:

        Actually, I think our most destructive demagogue was Andrew “Trail of Tears” Jackson. I’m not sure how the US survived his Presidency. (Martin Van Buren probably.)

    • Paul Helvik says:

      Harold Hamm is most likely out of the running to be in charge of the Department of Energy, though personally I doubt he was ever really in it in the first place. He doesn’t seem like the type who would want to give up being a CEO to become a bureaucrat.

      In any event, Rob Port is saying Representative Kevin Cramer is looking more and more likely to be Trump’s Department of Energy pick. That would be outstanding news for Bakken output as well as getting the U.S. on a truly “all of the above” energy policy that no longer discriminates against fossil fuels.


  45. GoneFishing says:

    LOCKED IN. Our energy system is locked into 1000 Gt of carbon budget by 2018. Of course no one here thinks that we will stop building new fossil burning devices and power plants after 2018, so it looks like either infrastructure will have to be shut early or we will pass through 1000 Gt carbon.


    • Fred Magyar says:

      All the people who are still promoting fossil fuels are simply on the wrong side of history, economics and science. Their tactics to delay the necessary transition away from the business as usual model will be judged quite harshly by future generations. Assuming of course, that there are any future generations!


      Re-assessment of net energy production and greenhouse gas emissions avoidance after 40 years of photovoltaics development

      Since the 1970s, installed solar photovoltaic capacity has grown tremendously to 230 gigawatt worldwide in 2015, with a growth rate between 1975 and 2015 of 45%. This rapid growth has led to concerns regarding the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of photovoltaics production. We present a review of 40 years of photovoltaics development, analysing the development of energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions associated with photovoltaics production. Here we show strong downward trends of environmental impact of photovoltaics production, following the experience curve law. For every doubling of installed photovoltaic capacity, energy use decreases by 13 and 12% and greenhouse gas footprints by 17 and 24%, for poly- and monocrystalline based photovoltaic systems, respectively. As a result, we show a break-even between the cumulative disadvantages and benefits of photovoltaics, for both energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, occurs between 1997 and 2018, depending on photovoltaic performance and model uncertainties.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Hal Harvey | How to Land on a Low-Carbon Energy Future
        Stanford Precourt Institute for Energy

      • GoneFishing says:

        Well there it is folks, energy payback time of about one year for PV and reduction of GHG goes off the charts. Essentially the EROEI of early oil production without all the downsides.
        As more renewable energy is implemented the energy payback will become superfluous.

  46. Bob Nickson says:

    Maybe this will get people to care about carbon emissions:


    “Orexins – which are neuropeptide hormones – in the brain stimulate wakefulness and energy expenditure. These hormones may be affected by CO2, and this can cause us to go to bed later, affecting our metabolism so it is easier for us to put on weight. But orexins are also involved in the stimulation of food intake.

    “The normal theory is that fat people get fatter because they don’t move as much as they should,” says Hersoug, now a post-doc at the Research Centre for Prevention and Health at Glostrup University Hospital. “But the study showed that thin people also get fatter, and this happened over the whole of the 22-year period of the study.”

    • GoneFishing says:

      Interesting hypothesis, we do know that increased CO2 reduces cognitive levels.
      There are way too many dependent variables to convince me that CO2 increase is an overriding effect on weight gain. CO2 increase is dependent upon greater energy use, which produces more food, especially foods high in starches and sugars. I will stick with the exercise, lifestyle and type of foods eaten as the major factors in weight gain, along with insulin production ability of the individual.
      Although CO2 making us stupid could come into it, more likely though the abundance of food in a richer world has done it, lockstepped with rising CO2 levels.

  47. Boomer II says:

    Vancouver’s Active Transit Success Explained – CityLab: “Fully 10 percent of commutes to work are on bikes, far exceeding U.S. and Canadian cities of a comparable size. As of 2015, half of all trips within city limits are taken on foot, bike, or transit—a goal the city had hoped to reach by 2020.”

    • Tony Cowley says:

      This is news out of Vancouver though, and that’s Canada. I can’t believe any of those methods will work anywhere here in the states where cars and gasoline are meant to = freedom to many people.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      +10 Tks!

  48. Oldfarmermac says:

    While it is exceedingly dangerous to assume the trend will continue, the economics establishment has generally been telling it like it is, in terms of our being able to move to new technologies, as older ones lose their viability due to lack of necessary raw materials depletion.

    We really have been able to substitute new materials and processes countless times, and so far the times we have not been able to do so, we haven’t suffered any major lasting harm, at least not in the immediate sense. Coal replaced firewood when firewood ran short, petroleum replaced whale oil, etc.

    Now there is additional evidence in the form of this study that solar electricity is viable in terms of the energy going into manufacturing the panels compared to the amount of captured free and non depleting solar energy converted into electricity.


    If the battery industry continues to progress as fast for the next ten years as fast as it has for the past ten, and we Yankees who make our living with our hands and clipboards and pickup trucks manage to get as good at doing small scale solar installations, during this coming decade, as Germans are NOW, well…….

    Any body living in a place with lots of sunny weather and able to pay cash or get a loan for fifteen or twenty grand will be able to cut his consumption of purchased electricity by three quarters or more, and a lot of people will actually be able to go grid free without suffering any major inconvenience.

    The economists who smugly tell us that we need not worry about the depletion of coal and natural gas might actually turn out to be right, maybe we CAN substitute free sun and batteries for coal and gas fired grid juice. Personally I don’t doubt that it will come to pass on the grand scale in some sunny locations within a decade, or two at the most.

    But Dennis C. is probably right, the overall transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy will likely take four or five decades, maybe longer.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi OFM,

      The 4 to 5 decades is a conservative estimate and assumes we will burn close to zero fossil fuels for energy use by 2060. In order to come close to the 1000 Pg of carbon limit that might keep global warming from becoming catastrophic (2 C or more above pre-industrial Holocene average global temperatures), we will need to eliminate fossil fuel emissions by 2060, sooner would be better.

  49. R Walter says:

    Today’s date is December 7th.

    National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, the day the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor.

    It takes a lot of work to have the correct facts.

  50. islandboy says:

    Google announces to reach 100% renewable energy in 2017

    To reach the 100% renewable energy goal Google will be directly buying enough wind and solar electricity annually to account for every unit of electricity its operations consume, globally.

    “And we’re focusing on creating new energy from renewable sources, so we only buy from projects that are funded by our purchases.”

    To date, Googles purchasing commitments will result in infrastructure investments of more than USD 3.5 billion globally, about two-thirds of that in the United States.

    These projects also generate tens of millions of dollars per year in revenue to local property owners, and tens of millions more to local and national governments in tax revenue, Google notes.

    From the interesting stories department:

    John Deere Reveals Electric Farm Tractor – (w/video)

    In late February, John Deere intends to present at the French SIMA show in Paris, a very special tractor.

    It’s called the SESAM (Sustainable Energy Supply for Agricultural Machinery), and seems to be the first fully electric tractor.
    John Deere Electric Tractor SESAM

    John Deere Electric Tractor SESAM

    Two 150 kW electric motors can be used together, or as a single drive unit, while second motor to incorporate other fucntionality, like a hydraulic pump.

    John Deer SESAM spec

    two 150 kW electric motors (300 kW total)
    130 kWh lithium-ion battery
    up to four hours or 55 km of range
    three hours recharge

    The comments section is more interesting than the post itself, the complete text of which is quoted above. The embedded short video is somewhat interesting as well. I’d really like to hear OFM’s take on this idea.

  51. Doug Leighton says:


    “Unusually high air temperatures and a warm ocean have led to a record low Arctic sea ice extent for November, according to scientists. In the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctic sea ice extent also hit a record low for the month, caused by moderately warm temperatures and a rapid shift in circumpolar winds.”


    • Doug Leighton says:

      “Antarctic sea ice really went down the rabbit hole this time,” said NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos. “There are a few things we can say about what happened, but we need to look deeper.

      NASA scientist and NSIDC affiliate scientist Walt Meier said, “The Arctic has typically been where the most interest lies, but this month, the Antarctic has flipped the script and it is southern sea ice that is surprising us.”

  52. Doug Leighton says:

    Now is this cool or what?


    “A new technique based in information theory promises to improve researchers’ ability to interpret ice core samples and our understanding of Earth’s climate history… In information theory, entropy is a measure of the unpredictability of information content. Permutation entropy essentially is a way to quantify the predictability of a future event…. Imagine an isolated climate system, void of game changers like supervolcanos or humans. Everything you’d need to predict the future climate would be contained in Earth’s climate history. When game changers arrive, they inject new information that couldn’t have been predicted from the climate’s past patterns — and that should manifest as an increase in permutation entropy (i.e., more unpredictability).”


    • Doug Leighton says:

      “In fact, there are early signs in the WAIS record [THE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET DIVIDE ICE CORE] of an entropy increase roughly 10,000 years ago, at the beginning of the Holocene, suggesting human impacts on our climate began well before the Industrial Revolution.

      “Confirmation of that finding is pending. Meanwhile, Garland and team have already made two other surprising discoveries using their technique. The first concerns Dansgaard-Oeschger events, during which Greenland rapidly warms during glacial periods, triggering ripple effects throughout the world.

      • GoneFishing says:

        10,000 years ago was roughly coincidental to increasing sunlight to Antarctica due to orbital parameters. One might expect increased entropy as radiation increased.

  53. Doug Leighton says:



    “This cheeky yet powerful number has caused more controversy and provided more delight than any other digit I know. For one thing, it allows us to forecast the future. But to comprehend why and to understand zero’s power, you first have to understand its birth and its battles, because zero’s path to greatness was a rocky one.… The idea of nothing being something was already deep in their culture. If you think about ‘nirvana’ it’s the state of nothingness – all your worries and desires go. So why not have a symbol for nothing?”


    • GoneFishing says:


      An empty cold heart at the very core. Oh the inhumanity!

      I get the impression that Florence was ridden with criminals and con-men.

  54. R Walter says:

    The Falmouth Bulletin, 5/10/13, By Scott Giordo.

    Falmouth Town Meeting voters, on April 9, failed to pass a proposed warrant article authorizing the town to seek special legislation to borrow about $8 million to remove the two wind turbines at the Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Facility. In total, Article 22 states it would cost the town an estimated $14 million to remove both Wind 1 and Wind 2 – including all expenses and debts.


    The costs of removal are greater than the cost of installation. Total cost of a windmill, from inception to dismantling, is going to be 11.5 million dollars for actual completion. Remediation is a requirement. You can’t have useless wind turbines spinning in virtual mode like they do in California and never remove the blasted things, which continue to cause destruction of fauna in the local ecosystem. Obvious issues with functional operation, wind turbines will become a bane.

    Why would you want to destroy pristine forest and countryside in Maine with wind farms? Seems a bit counter productive. Remove trees that breathe CO2 and replace them with wind farms which have a negative carbon footprint worldwide from the very beginning. Senseless and brainless both. Doesn’t make any difference if they produce enough energy to offset the costs in total, it is just plane cruel to the rest of the planet. A chimera if there ever was one. Good God Almighty.

    Somebody is getting it all wrong and they don’t get it. Clueless.

    • GoneFishing says:

      You would think the Koch brothers could at least keep the sites up. That comedian pretending to be a farmer was mildly amusing.

  55. Doug Leighton says:


    “Scientists have found evidence in a chunk of bedrock drilled from nearly two miles below the summit of the Greenland ice sheet that the sheet nearly disappeared for an extended time in the last million years or so. The finding casts doubt on assumptions that Greenland has been relatively stable during the recent geological past, and implies that global warming could tip it into decline more precipitously than previously thought.”


    • Doug Leighton says:

      “Unfortunately, this makes the Greenland ice sheet look highly unstable,” said lead author Joerg Schaefer, a paleoclimatologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “If we lost it in periods of natural forcing, we may lose it again.” With human-induced warming now well underway, loss of the Greenland ice has roughly doubled since the 1990s; during the last four years by some estimates, it shed more than a trillion tons.

    • Doug Leighton says:


      “First-of-their-kind studies provide new insight into the deep history of the Greenland Ice Sheet, looking back millions of years farther than previous techniques allowed. However, the two studies present some strongly contrasting evidence about how Greenland’s ice sheet may have responded to past climate change.

      “The other study in Nature — led by Joerg Schaefer of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Columbia University, and colleagues — looked at a small sample of bedrock from one location beneath the middle of the existing ice sheet and came to what appears to be a different conclusion: Greenland was nearly ice-free for at least 280,000 years during the middle Pleistocene — about 1.1 million years ago. This possibility is in contrast to existing computer models.


    • GoneFishing says:

      The oldest Greenland ice core is about 150,000 years old. Most of the ice sheet of Greenland was melted during the Eemian. Greenland has been losing mass for 23,000 years and with the new warming should continue to lose ice sheet mass, with subsequent raising of land levels.

Comments are closed.