Open Thread-Non-Petroleum, Feb 16, 2017

Comments not directly related to oil or natural gas should be posted in this thread. Thanks.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

268 Responses to Open Thread-Non-Petroleum, Feb 16, 2017

    • Caelan MacIntyre says:

      “The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” ~ Albert Einstein

      “Now, all that appalonian, platonic model is what the building industry is predicated on, and there are a number of things that exacerbate that…One is that, all the professionals– all the tradesmen, vendors, inspectors, engineers, architects– all think like this: And then it works its way back to the consumer who demands the same model. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, we can’t get out of it…” ~ Dan Phillips

      “Many people’s thinking is permeated by state perspectives. One manifestation of this is the unstated identification of states or governments with the people in a country which is embodied in the words ‘we’ or ‘us’… It is important to avoid this identification, and to carefully distinguish states from people…” ~ Brian Martin, ‘Uprooting War’

      “The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself… Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable…” ~ H.L. Mencken

      And then we have Snowden and…

  1. hightrekker23 says:

    The latest ECMWF forecast is quite aggressive at calling for the return of ElNino conditions over the next few months.

    And I wouldn’t bet to often against the ECMWF

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Dang, so much for that little ice age I was counting on. Especially given that this has been the hottest and wettest winter I can remember in my last 20 plus years of living in Florida. Daily highs have been in the upper 80s. Normally we should be getting at least a few weeks of cool dry weather with temps in the 50s and 60s. Guess I’ll just have to relist that snowblower I bought on ebay… And I hate to see what’s going to happen to the corals come next summer.

    • Javier says:

      And I wouldn’t bet to often against the ECMWF

      Why not? They already failed when they predicted a 2014 El Niño. It is not as if they had an untarnished record.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        I don’t really give a rats ass if you actually sincerely believe the bullshit you spout or if you are being paid by the Koch’s or some other organization like theirs. You are denying reality. It isn’t about one graph or one model or one scientific paper on atmospheric chemistry or physics. It is about the overwhelming tsunami of scientific evidence from multiple independent lines of research.

        Climate change or call it whatever the fuck you want to call it, is real and it is negatively affecting every single ecosystem on the planet, today. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it will be beneficial to the vast majority of the natural world as it currently exists or make life any easier or better for the greater part of humanity.

        Who knows, perhaps you are actively working on creating a world where life as we know it is extinct and the oceans are once again populated by organisms such as Desulfovibrio vulgaris and the like. We know nature doesn’t care one way or the other and the planet and some forms of life will continue for a few more billion years…

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          Another Brand of Denial, Inc.™

          quote from trailer:

          Frederick Madyear: “Not to worry your poor little hearts, people, because WE! Together! Will be able to CRISPR/Cas9 all those little corals back to health and well-being in a submerged Tesla, with the help of onshore solar panels, offshore windfarms, AI systems, biomimicry and assorted BigGreenBiz™ corporate tech and government-funded initiatives!”
          People: “But how do we know!?”
          Frederick Madyear: “Did I not mention Desulfovibrio vulgaris, CRISPR/Cas9, biomimicry, and Artificial Intelligence, etc., you assholes!? What part of The Lingo don’t you understand?!”
          People: “OMG, you sound very angry!”
          Frederick Madyear: “I am NOT ANGRY! YOU ARE! I’m enjoying a nice CRISP MALBEC! So how can I be angry!? I don’t suffer you fools easily!”

          The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            Go fuck yourself!

            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              The so-called elite, it has been written, are in their own little gated communities of denial as well.

              And their responses to protests can be just about where yours is right here.

              That’s how wars are started and continued.

              Like the ones being waged on Mother Earth.

        • Javier says:

          I don’t really give a rats ass if you actually sincerely believe the bullshit you spout or if you are being paid by the Koch’s or some other organization like theirs. You are denying reality. It isn’t about one graph or one model or one scientific paper on atmospheric chemistry or physics. It is about the overwhelming tsunami of scientific evidence from multiple independent lines of research.

          What a rant!

          After 30 years of Global Warming scare the planet is a little warmer, has a little less ice, has about 10 cm higher sea level, and is a little greener.

          Nothing bad has happened to climate. That’s why most people on the planet don’t care much about the climate. That’s why on the US presidential election debates the climate issue occupied about 2 minutes.

          You are the one living inside a bubble, thinking that the climate issue is a great danger we are facing. Perhaps in another 30 years you will have changed your mind. Or perhaps not, and after 60 years you would still think that climate change will turn dangerous any time soon. There is no way to demonstrate that a fear is unfounded except to let time pass. But as old fears are shown unfounded, people just subscribe new fears. Climate change is just the fear “du jour.”

          • notanoilman says:

            Paragraph 1
            In only 30 years, climate has changed.

            Paragraph 2
            Nothing bad.

            Paragraph 3
            Nothing to worry about.

            If it has changed in only 30 years, on an exponential, we should be shitting ourselves about what happens in the next 100. California is getting a sample at the moment.


            • Javier says:

              What a lack of perspective, NAOM,

              The climate change of the past 30 years should be put in context with prior climate changes. The world experienced a significant cooling around 500 AD, a significant warming around 1000 AD, a significant cooling around 1500 AD and a significant warming around 2000 AD. Climate has always been changing and will always continue changing. The problem is not with climate, it is with us and our tendency to extrapolate trends, specially if the underlying cycles are longer than a human lifespan.

              If California is getting a sample at the moment, it also got a sample, and a much bigger one, in 1861-62 when after a two-decade drought a massive flood submerged some parts of California for up to six months. It appears climate change was much worse then, so things must be getting better, not worse, with a warmer world.

              Scientific American: California Megaflood: Lessons from a Forgotten Catastrophe

              • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                I might feel a little better if one of us specialized in climate science, and we knew their full name and publications, etc.. That way they couldn’t quite remain in relative obscurity and they might feel less like they can write some things or whatever they please (and ‘get away with it’).

                In any case, if one reflects on the Trappist-1 system and considers the possible limits of where and how life can get a foothold– the system might, in all likelihood, be dead– one might give added consideration to it being unwise to be dicking around with the only planet we are sure to have life on, and to be less cavalier about that and its potential effects, much of which we know little about in our arrogance that makes some of us think we do.

                It’s some cavalier, arrogant, blinkered attitudes (that sometimes, perhaps more often than not, come from those in scientific professions) of course that are part of the dicking around, and lend it support.
                They might prove our undoing.

  2. GoneFishing says:

    Oklahoma near 100F in February.

    Many people may welcome a temperate day in February, but warm weather in normally cold months disrupts ecosystems. Trees may bloom after an unseasonably balmy spell — and then suffer frost damage when cold weather returns. Flowers may blossom and shed their petals before bees arrive to pollinate them. These minor destabilizations have a ripple effect, impacting flora, fauna, and the industries built around them.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      When should we start getting alarmed?

      • GoneFishing says:

        They should have gotten alarmed a long time ago, because they are not in Kansas anymore.
        As far as the rest of us, no problem, it’s 27F now and supposed to hit a high of 50F on Saturday. Nowhere near 100F.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Wait a second, why is it in the 50’s in February? Didn’t this used to be winter? You just can’t depend on the weather.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            50’s in February? Yeah that’s what we should get in winter in Florida. Not week after week of 80s…

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              I’m planning on getting some sun on my bare skin this afternoon working outside , it’s already above seventy and it’s only 12:40.

              Bare to the belt weather, and I could wear shorts today, but I need pants to protect my legs from minor injuries. And I’m in Virginia at almost 2000 feet. It’s been this way most of the winter so far, not quite so exceptionally warm, but a LOT warmer than it normal.

            • GoneFishing says:

              Hey Fred, hitting 70 up here in the north Thursday. The birds are coming back in droves. Getting a mid-winter spring here again. This should confuse the plants.
              My cross country skis are for sale.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                I keep my windows open at night but all my snowbird neighbors have been running their ACs at full power. Can’t wait for summer… maybe it will finally get cool but I doubt it!

          • Bob Frisky says:

            Several northern states have been working on solutions to get their older retired citizens to stay rather than move south. According to various consultants and stakeholders, global warming is expected to be economically beneficial in this regard to the historically colder states.

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              Personally I would benefit financially, maybe even making out like a bandit, if they keep coming.

              But most of the locals here would just as soon all those nice “damyankees” stay up north. When they come, the first thing the want is more cops, more social services, more roads, more subdivisions, more more more more of everything.

              I was naively expecting my little corner of paradise to remain nice and quiet and peaceful, up until a few years back, and would rather it stay that way than to sell out and move someplace where not yet in the crosshairs of the real estate industry.

              They bring money, no doubt about that, but the money only helps in the short term. In the long term it’s going to cost us dearly.

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        When should we start getting alarmed?

        When Canada starts building a wall

        • hightrekker23 says:

          It better be a tall and secure one.

          Idiocracy über alles! Ted Nugent discusses Senate run: “There is nothing I wouldn’t do to help in any way I possibly can.”

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            The wall may actually get built, err, finished I mean. Most people seem to be totally unaware of it, but it was effectively over half built already, even before Trump was elected.


            I do not support building it out the rest of the way, because it’s a major political mistake to do so, in terms of the relationship between the USA and Mexico ,and diminishes our standing with other countries.

            But it’s important to keep the facts straight.
            And for my little buddy and Clinton True Believer, HB:

            IIRC, HRC voted to build it. Yep, she sure as shit did, and her constant flip flopping had a lot to do with people with working memories deciding she was untrustworthy.


            From another source, one of those out fits that’s part of the “vast right wing conspiracy ” out to misrepresent her record:

            The Weekly Standard
            SUBSCRIBE NOW
            Print• Digital• Give a Gift
            Desktop View
            Sections ▼
            Hillary: I Voted for Border Fence to Keep Out Illegal Immigrants
            7:36 AM, NOV 10, 2015 | By DANIEL HALPER

            At a campaign event last night, Hillary Clinton bragged about something she does not usually mention: her votes for a border fence to keep illegal immigrants out of America.

            Watch here:

            “Hi Secretary Clinton, I was wondering what you think about my securing the Mexican border with some of the illegal immigrants that come in — just wondering,” asked a questioner at a town hall.

            “Well look,” Clinton said, “I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think you have to control your borders.”

            Clinton has said that, as president, she would continue President Obama’s precedent of dealing with immigration policy through executive action.”

            What we ought to be doing is to help the Mexican people raise their standard of living so they would not WANT to come to the USA in excessive numbers.

            I will NOT apologize for believing and saying that we have ENOUGH people in the country already, and need to get our own population stabilized and started down as fast as we possibly can, and every envirnmentalist in the country KNOWS this is true, although not more than about one in a thousand is actually willing to SAY SO publicly, for fear of being tarred as a Republican, racist, xenophobe , Trumpster, etc.

            I’m not here to make friends , so I don’t really care if I lose a few cyber friends for pointing out things that are true, but unmentioned for reasons of political solidarity or personal convictions.

            If anybody has any thing to say in rebuttal , I will surely copy it into my working notes, and thanks in advance.

            There are GOOD reasons why we should want to want to minimize and reverse our population growth, and all of them are consistent with good sense and good environmental policy.

            For instance, the FEWER there are of us Yankees, the less reason we will have to engage in foreign wars to supply our thirst for oil. Fewer people means farmers can allow more land to revert to meadow and forest. More wildlife.

        • Lloyd says:

          “Concerned, But Not Wanting To Offend, Canada Quietly Plants Privacy Hedge Along Entire U.S. Border”

          “A continuous growth of Cherry Laurel, the overnight hedge stands an average of two meters high, and is expected to grow to be at least double that by the end of Donald Trump’s first term, when a review of the green screen is planned. At that time the hedge will either be topped with barbed wire, or made into a tourist attraction by being trimmed to form a living storyboard of the Disney franchise.

          “What we do with the hedge will depend entirely on what’s happening to the south,” says one hedge-funder, Jim Freedman, a pretty nice guy who just wants to be left alone, while giving this reporter a tour of the newly defined perimeter. “If our neighbours opt to renew the presidency of a man who encourages nuclear proliferation, doubts climate change, mocks civil rights leaders – and anyone else who disagrees with him – all via the most reductive social media platform available well,” here Jim pauses and looks skyward, above the flourishing living fence he helped to put in place, “I’m told this thing can reach forty feet within a decade or two.”

          We do things differently up here.


      • Survivalist says:

        I’d be interested to see a volatility index of temperatures. Where I live it was daily high of minus 20*C last week. This week daily high is plus 15*C. Depends what side of the Jet Stream I’m on. And that seems to change a lot more these days than ever before. There seems to be increasing variability over shorter time periods.
        I’ve seen volatility indexes for markets and prices but not for temps/locations.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Can we call it, really really fucked up very very long term, weather forecast changes?!

        For many years there were plenty of gay Republicans hiding in the closet, who knows, maybe there are also Republican, closet climate realists, who are starting to get tired of being in the closet as well…

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Good morning Fred,

          After I finish another cup or two of coffee in hopes of slowing down approaching senility, I’m going out into the nice warm April sunshine and err, what’s that you say, it’s the middle of February? Nonsense, I worked outside yesterday morning in a tee shirt, and no shirt at all after dinner ( lunch to ignorant people ) and I say anybody with his eyes open can see it’s APRIL.

          In actual fact, there are literally at least tens of millions of R types who do believe in forced climate change AKA global warming but they are very reluctant to say so publicly for the same precise reason that tens of millions of environmentally savvy people are unwilling to say anything publicly about limiting immigration, legal or otherwise.

          The political solidarity, the us versus them problem, prevents these people from saying what they actually believe, in either case.

          Nobody wants to be called nasty names, especially if they have reason to believe that their social status and career will be harmed.

          Since I don’t HAVE either status or career to worry about, and believe that real thinking involves a clear and unbiased appreciation of actual facts and past mistakes and leads to making better decisions and fewer mistakes in the future, I point out obvious errors or what I believe should be accepted as obvious errors, given hindsight.

          It’s almost impossible for the average partisan on either side of the political divide to really appreciate the mindset of the other side, the “enemy”, because we have mental filters that prevent us from appreciating the other side’s arguments.

          But anybody who really wants to can learn ,with practice, how to turn those filters OFF, and let new thoughts IN.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            Nonsense, I worked outside yesterday morning in a tee shirt, and no shirt at all after dinner ( lunch to ignorant people ) and I say anybody with his eyes open can see it’s APRIL.

            The mango trees down the street from me seem to agree. They are already loaded with ripening mangoes. Normally they would only be in full bloom around this time of year and and it would be another two months or so before we would see green fruit.

            Granted it could just be a fluke. While our extremely warm winter this year can be chalked up as weather, it is about as normal, as Donald Trump’s first solo press conference was…

            • GoneFishing says:

              Between the wacky weather, climate change and twisted politics and business; I think that the chaos factors are on the rise.
              What happens when the constants become variable themselves?

    • Javier says:

      On warm days weather becomes climate, while on cold days weather is just weather.

      Oklahoma has had over 90°F days during February 1904, 1911, 1917, 1918, 1930, 1943, 1954, 1962, 1981 and 1996.

      Another freak snowstorm covers in white the desert of Saudi Arabia – Third time in less than 2 months

        • Javier says:

          That’s the beauty of a hypothesis that by explaining one thing and the opposite, doesn’t explain anything.

          • Survivalist says:

            Obviously you don’t understand increased arctic warming and it’s impacts on the jet stream, and the jet streams impact on weather patterns.

            Food System Shock by Lloyds of London (those whacky alamists)





            I invite readers to contrast the premise of Javier’s cartoons with the relevant data and research on the vulnerability of food production to changes in the jet stream and then come to their own conclusions.

            Propaganda Techniques in Editorial Cartoons

            Cartoon Analysis Guide


            • Javier says:

              I guess you don’t read what you link.

              The Food System Shock by Lloyds of London is based on a strong warm phase of El Niño Southern Oscillation scenario accompanied by the changes in precipitation that it causes and increased incidence of wheat rust.

              It has nothing to do with climate change, as ENSO is weather and nobody has been able to convincingly link ENSO occurrence to climate change.

              The wrong type of wacky alarmist.

              • Survivalist says:

                “It has nothing to do with climate change” – Javier

                Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming
                “evidence for a doubling in the occurrences in the future in response to greenhouse warming.”

                Climate Change Could Double Likelihood of Super El Ninos

                Frequency of Extreme El Niños to Double in the 21st Century

                • Doug Leighton says:

                  Quick question (or, three I suppose)

                  1) Is Javier as stupid as he appears,
                  2) Does he actually believe his own BS, or
                  3) Is he paid to disseminate misinformation?

                  • Survivalist says:

                    4) All of the above

                  • Javier says:

                    It is actually your ignorance that is showing, Doug, as you cheer Suvivalist on an issue on which he is clearly wrong, at least from the point of view of the IPCC.

                    Do you think the IPCC pays me to disseminate its conclusions? Or are you as stupid as you appear?

                  • Javier,
                    Perhaps you should get a mirror.
                    The way this works is if you can’t produce some interesting research on your own, then don’t try to use all sorts of rhetorical devices to try to win an argument. You end up looking a lot like Trump at a press conference.

                    ENSO is a standing wave pattern in the Pacific ocean. That will not change with AGW because it is forced by the earth’s geophysics. However, the results of ENSO — the teleconnections, in the lingo — can have effects across the globe that are essentially unknown with respect to AGW. It may in fact magnify the weather extremes as the atmosphere can hold more moisture.

                  • Javier says:


                    The difference between you and me is that I do not pretend to be a climatologist. You do pretend to be one yet don’t have a scientific publication to back up your claim.

                    Then you only show to promote your ENSO model that no journal wants to publish, to badmouth climatologists that have an impressive publication record, but that you somehow are convinced you are better than them, or to attack me.

                    A psychologist would have a lot of interesting things to say about you.

                  • Javier,
                    We live in interesting times. The way science works is that you lay out your work and then let others verify it . I am in absolutely no rush to justify any contributions I may make. You, on the other hand show increasing signs of desperation.

                  • Javier says:

                    “You, on the other hand show increasing signs of desperation.”

                    Not at all. Time is on my side. As time goes by and the climate apocalypse is delayed the credibility of the alarmists decreases.

                    That’s how all the doomers have been defeated, when their doom prophecies did not come to pass. So I just have to wait to be proven right.

                  • Javier,
                    There are no doomers here, only realists. And you keep on talking about paleo-data, where the changes take place over thousands of years. Face it, you’re all over the map with your arguments, flinging mud at the wall in the hope that something sticks — like Trump in a press conference.

                    “So I just have to wait to be proven right.”

                    LOL. There are no proofs in science, especially if one has to wait 20,000 years.

                    And you still haven’t responded to ENSO teleconnections.

                • Javier says:

                  Well, then you want to correct the IPCC, that on this issue has to say:

                  “14.4.4 Assessment Summary
                  ENSO shows considerable inter-decadal modulations in amplitude and spatial pattern within the instrumental record. Models without changes in external forcing display similar modulations, and there is little consensus on whether the observed changes in ENSO are due to external forcing or natural variability (see also Section 10.3.3 for an attribution discussion).
                  There is high confidence that ENSO will remain the dominant mode of interannual variability with global influences in the 21st century, and due to changes in moisture availability ENSO-induced rainfall variability on regional scales will intensify. There is medium confidence that ENSO-induced teleconnection patterns will shift eastward over the North Pacific and North America. There is low confidence in changes in the intensity and spatial pattern of El Niño in a warmer climate.


                  LOW CONFIDENCE.

                  Latif, M., & Keenlyside, N. S. (2009). El Niño/Southern Oscillation response to global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(49), 20578-20583.

                  “ENSO Response to Global Warming
                  It follows from the discussion above that the changes in ENSO statistics, as obtained from the ensemble of global climate models, need to be taken with large caution. Several studies addressed the issue of the ENSO response to global warming (29–34). The main result from these studies is that there exists large uncertainty in the response of ENSO to global warming (as expected from the discussion above) and that (from a probabilistic point of view) the likelihood of a major change in ENSO statistics is rather small. Although most models simulate an El Niño-like mean response, both increased and decreased variability is simulated in conjunction with it, with no clear preference for either of them.”

                  In other words, models do not agree, and show either no changes in ENSO, or increases, or decreases with global warming.

                  Well sorry Survivalist. The FAIL is on you. IPCC is on my side on this one.

                  • Survivalist says:


                    More recent data shows that the IPCC is wrong. Look at the year when considering the validity of conclusions that pertain to rapidly changing fields of science.


                    Remember back when all the deniers shit on the IPCC and called it alarmist/hoax. Now they love it because it’s the most out of date and conservative estimate on future trends in climate change.

                    Get with the program Javier. You’re almost 10 years out of date in a rapidly changing field of knowledge.


                  • Javier says:

                    For the second time you FAIL to read both my links and your own links.

                    My cite is from AR5, not AR4. And AR5 WG1 has a citing date of 2013. I see you don’t even distinguish between AR4 and AR5. Quite an expert on IPCC. They are separated by six years.

                    And now let’s look at what YOU CITE, clearly WITHOUT READING IT.

                    Too late to change it, I caught it:

                    This is your link erased not too quickly.

                    “Scientists know that El Niño contributes to an increase in global temperatures. But do rising global and ocean temperatures, in turn, intensify El Niño?

                    The science here is as yet inconclusive.

                    Other climate models differ in their assessment of future El Niño events. Some suggest the ENSO cycle will become more intense, others say it will weaken, and some find there will be little change. According to Schmidt, “There is a very large variation in ENSO statistics (frequency/magnitude) over time, and so detecting a shift due to climate change is very challenging. Models as a whole are all over the shop, and so it doesn’t fill one with great confidence.

                    You just gave a good demonstration on how stupid you are. Providing links that prove that I am correct and you are wrong.

                    Now keep digging.

                  • Javier,
                    Quit pretending that you are a geophysicist. ENSO is primarily forced by geophysical torques such as that supplied by the earth’s angular momentum and lunisolar variations.

                    You are in way over your head, Javier.

                  • Javier says:

                    Webby, I have cited the IPCC.

                    Take your quibbles over to them.

                    As usual you miss your mark.

                  • Javier,
                    You realize that you are wasting your time here, don’t you? We are much more cynical and skeptical than you seem to think.

                    That reference you provide does not tell the whole story. ENSO is a persistent standing wave pattern in the Pacific ocean. That will not change with AGW because it is forced by the earth’s geophysics and so will continue on indefinitely. However, the teleconnections of ENSO can have effects across the globe that have an unknown impact with respect to AGW. It may in fact magnify the weather extremes as the atmosphere is known to hold more moisture as warming increases. More moisture means more latent heat which means more extremes.

                  • Survivalist says:

                    Javier, I have cited Nature.

                    Take your quibbles over to them.

                    As usual you miss your mark.


                  • Javier says:

                    “You realize that you are wasting your time here, don’t you?”

                    Nah! I come to get information about oil, and while I am here I like to have a little fun. The moment I start correcting their misstatements, the alarmist group gets all worked up.

                    The general population does not buy the climate change scare. I think it is good that they get a voice even in a place like this where most people are convinced that we are all doomed due to climate change.

                  • Javier said:

                    “Then you only show to promote your ENSO model that no journal wants to publish”

                    Ha! At least I have the guts to present my ENSO research in front of a knowledgeable audience on a session devoted to ENSO and other equatorial phenomena at the American Geophysical Union

                    On the other hand, this is the pedantic stuff that Javier “publishes” on Judith Curry’s cesspool of a blog. A yawner, composed of a bunch of words and charts culled from encyclopedia articles. Reminds me of reports that I did in the 5th grade. That kind of stuff only empresses elementary school teachers and your grandmother. Well, I guess little Javier is showing some progress in his schooling.

                  • Javier says:

                    Ha! At least I have the guts to present my ENSO research

                    I don’t do research on climate so I have nothing to prove. You on the other side do research on climate that no decent journal wants to publish. I would not call that guts, but foolishness.

                  • So Javier admitted he doesn’t do research on climate. So now we know that all he does is spew RW talking points.

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          “Join us today, as As The Climate Burns features a special guest appearance by Caelan MacIntyre!”

          Hey folks! ^u^

          • Survivalist says:

            +10 lol nice

            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              Thanks, Survivalist, although I might have deducted two points for an unmatched font for the t-shirt’s ‘denialist’, and for not switching the two wheel-colors…
              Maybe if I was paid what Javier might be paid to comment, things would be different.

      • notanoilman says:

        Duh, you mean freak snowstorms in the desert are nothing to be concerned about?


      • Fred Magyar says:

        Hey, at least the Camels should do just fine with a little snow since they apparently evolved in the High Arctic.

        The Giant Camels of the Prehistoric High Arctic

        …Still, the paltry remains of the Yukon and Ellesmere camels indicate that the hebivores were capable of surviving in northern forests, and hint that camels as we know them today carry traits that evolved to help them survive in such cold habitats. The low-crowned teeth of modern camels might be an inheritance of ancestors that browsed in northern forests, Rybczynski and coauthors suggest, and a fatty hump that lets camels withstand harsh desert environments would have been just as advantageous in high latitude Pliocene habitats where the sky was dark for half the year. Adaptations that allow camels to thrive in deserts might have evolved in cool forests first, a testament to the flexibility of the wandering artiodactyls despite their ultimate extinction on the continent of their birth.

        • Synapsid says:


          It would be well to remind readers that there is a perfectly cold-adapted species of camel native to central Asia: the Bactrian fellow, the one with two humps. For that matter, South America rejoices in the camelids that live at high altitude in the Andes where it gets very cold: vicunha and guanaco (unless guanaco is the domesticated one and the alpaca is the wild one–I never could keep them straight. I think the guanaco is the non-domesticate.)

          • Fred Magyar says:


          • hightrekker23 says:

            Even my llamas had very few issues with cold.
            Sub freezing not a issue.

            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              Yes, I’ve heard of camels with northern roots (although maybe it’s new to Fred), and llamas and/or alpacas make very nice soft warm yarn, though not warm enough I guess.
              The ‘camel-toe’ might be an adaptation for the snow, but maybe it could also be for eye-candy, who knows.

              Maybe that’s what happens when we start surfing, and/or working at what we call, jobs, to pay for our boards, highways, etc., and things we call ‘cars’; and shopping at grocery stores and not growing, hunting for or gathering our own food anymore. We erode our ability to survive, such as when things take a turn for the worse.

              Humans can be forgiven; alpacas should know better.

        • notanoilman says:

          Careful or Javier will get the hump.


  3. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    The image, with hypothetical and somewhat sarcastic text added, seems to support the increasingly-weird weather that those in climate science have been hypothesizing.

  4. Doug Leighton says:

    For Fred:


    “This new specimen from China rewrites our understanding of the evolution of reproductive systems.”

  5. Survivalist says:

    Judith Currey hits rock bottom

    Javier gets a mention too.

    “I enjoyed you pointing out to javier that he/she can’t at claim temperature observations are meaningless/ unreliable/ wrong and at the same time claim there was, for sure, a hiatus.”

    Javier over at Judith Curry’s blog

    Javier’s Guest posts over at Judith Curry’s blog

    Javier is a very prolific commenter over at Judith Curry’s blog. Hard to believe he has time for the biologist work.

    • Javier says:

      Javier is a very prolific commenter over at Judith Curry’s blog.

      No. Not at all. I have comments in very, very few of her posts. Most posts I do not write any comment at all. I have written those two guest posts and I will continue writing guest posts there to review paleo-climatology for as long as she likes them. Judith Curry’s blog has a very wide distribution and is read by a lot of climatologists. The level of comments is pretty high and the feedback that I get on my articles is quite good.

      Most people have a very poor knowledge about past climate changes. Like young people they think that what they are experiencing is new and exciting. It is good that they get scientific information about past climate changes to put a little perspective.

    • hightrekker23 says:

      Poor Judith!
      Can she go any lower?

      • Survivalist says:

        My prediction is Yes.

        Curry Quotes

        • hightrekker23 says:

          I’ve underestimated her– she can go lower.
          Thanks for updating me.

          • That doesn’t include boneheaded quotes from her textbooks.

            I have been banned at her blog because I challenged Curry on her misapplication of Bose-Einstein statistics to cloud formation.

            Her argument would be considered a howler to any physics professor in the world. So easy to refute that I will leave it up to someone else reading this.

    • wharf rat says:

      He’s even been cited at Neven’s place

      And some of the other points made in that subthread by the same author (Javier) at Climate Etc.

      I don’t find his typical “skeptic” talking points about “alarmism” and ” phenomenal sea-ice rebound after the 2012 ” even remotely interesting…and such comments make it clear that I can’t assume any of his analysis is worthwhile…but he does raise some points that I would like to read other perspectives on

      Posted by: Joshua

      As far as that ‘Javier’ is concerned: I’ve discussed with him over at Paul Homewood’s blog. You can get quite a long way with him, further than most climate risk deniers, but you lose him when the time comes to draw conclusions (that’s when the dissonance takes over).

      There’s not much to learn over on Climate etc., especially about Arctic sea ice. All Judith Curry cares about, is disinforming people and somehow get paid/attention for it.

      Posted by: Neven | February 15, 2017 at 23:43

      • Survivalist says:

        Busy fella

      • Javier says:

        It is interesting to see how my arguments are taken over to alarmist blogs to be discussed further. Alarmists seem to have a hard time chewing over them even when I am not present to defend them. The insulating role of ice in the Arctic has been studied in the scientific literature, but most alarmists have a hard time reading papers.

    • Javier says:

      Judith Curry has over 140 published scientific articles with over 12,000 citations. Her scientific stature is beyond discussion.

  6. The below site has a photograph, or rather two photographs in one. It has a sliding line in the center. Slide it to the right and see the glacier before the break off. Slide it to the left and see the iceberg just after it breaks loose.

    NASA Satellite Spots Mile-Long Iceberg Breaking Off of Antarctic Glacier

    A massive, 1-mile-long (1.6 kilometers) chunk of ice has broken off Antarctica’s fast-changing Pine Island Glacier, and NASA satellites captured the dramatic event as the icy surface cracked and ripped apart.

    The Pine Island Glacier is one of the largest glaciers within the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, accounting for about 20 percent of the ice sheet’s total ice flow to the ocean, according to NASA scientists. The immense glacier is also one of the least stable, and in recent years, the ice sheet has been quickly retreating and losing massive amounts of ice. Previously, icebergs the size of cities have broken off of the Pine Island Glacier. [Photo Gallery: Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier Cracks]

  7. hightrekker23 says:

    If the PIG starts accelerating even faster, things are really going to get interesting.

    • GoneFishing says:

      You mean a shorter drive to the beach?

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        No, it means I will be looking for a used houseboat

        • GoneFishing says:

          I am more concerned about the salt marshlands. Loss of those will mean extreme loss of bio-productivity.

          • HuntingtonBeach says:

            Most of the salt marshlands here in the LA-Orange county were lost more than a 100 years ago by development from man. There has been an on going struggle to save whats left for as long as I have lived here.

            I don’t see a rising sea level as the issue, but mans development along the oceans.



            • GoneFishing says:

              Yes, half of the salt marshes went to development. On the eastern seaboard there are large protected areas now. It would be devastating to lose them and those in the ROW.
              Luckily LA-Orange County is not the world.

              • Doug Leighton says:


                Although these plants grow in vast meadows, fringing every continent except Antarctica, they are also being damaged on a large scale by human activities, with global losses estimated at 7% each year since 1990.


                • GoneFishing says:

                  Seven percent a year since 1990. Only 15% left? Yikes.

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  Yeah, I’ve been watching that for a few years now. Seagrasses constitute complex and very productive ecosystems and habitat for many different forms of sea life, and they are also nurseries for many species of fish. Here in Florida, despite efforts to preserve the beds we have suffered major losses year after year.

                  • Preston says:

                    The huge kelp forests off the coast of California were pretty much wiped out last year.

                    “Laura Rogers-Bennett, another Bodega Bay scientist, said it is as if whole terrestrial forests were disappearing, only in this case they are underwater and out of sight.”


                  • GoneFishing says:

                    That is both scary and sad. Most people do not have a clue about how ecosystems work.
                    They think of sea grass and kelp as weeds.
                    They do not seem to understand the relationships between various organisms and how a change can shift the balance, destroying the system.

  8. Hickory says:

    Regardless of whether the climate is getting warmer- this you may find interesting and relevant.
    A material science prof at tufts has been pioneering a new lithium battery type that looks to have big advantages. Hopefully it holds up to further testing and scale-up.

    “This represents the most significant breakthrough in my industry in more than 30 years”
    Mark Bertolami, Former President – Duracell

    Interview (first media)-

    Company site-

  9. Doug Leighton says:


    A new scientific paper by a University of Maryland-led international team of distinguished scientists, including five members of the National Academies, argues that there are critical two-way feedbacks missing from current climate models that are used to inform environmental, climate, and economic policies. The most important inadequately-modeled variables are inequality, consumption, and population.

    The study explains that increases in economic inequality, consumption per capita, and total population are all driving this rapid growth in human impact, but that the major scientific models of Earth-Human System interaction do not bidirectionally (interactively) couple Earth System Models with the primary Human System drivers of change such as demographics, inequality, economic growth, and migration.

    • Aws. says:

      Yup, essentially we will end up burning the future.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Even if we leave a legacy of intelligent machines, they will probably leave for a planet with a less corrosive atmosphere. Then nature can blossom again, growing vibrant and strong in the next million years.

  10. Doug Leighton says:


    They show that mapping across 1.27 million square kilometers of northwestern Canada points to large thaw-induced slope disturbances (thaw slumps) that delineate the margins of former ice sheets. Recent intensification of this thaw slumping has mobilized primary glacial sediments, triggering a cascade of fluvial, lacustrine, and coastal effects.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      After 30 years of Global Warming scare the planet is a little warmer, has a little less ice, has about 10 cm higher sea level, and is a little greener.

      Nothing bad has happened to climate.


      From wharf rat’s post upthread:

      Posted by: Joshua

      As far as that ‘Javier’ is concerned: I’ve discussed with him over at Paul Homewood’s blog. You can get quite a long way with him, further than most climate risk deniers, but you lose him when the time comes to draw conclusions (that’s when the dissonance takes over).

      cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
      the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

      This seems to be a pervasive problem with all climate change deniers they are just completely incapable of connecting the dots and admitting to themselves, let alone others, that we are in the throes of monumental changes that have profound effects. They either truly do not understand chaos math, feedback loops and tipping points in a complex non linear system or if they do they are just blocking out reality because it is too unpleasant for them to deal with.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        We all recognize Javier criticizes evidence supporting man-made global warming and embraces any (pathetic) argument that purports to refute climate change. The problem stems from all the space he takes up here which could be employed sharing scientific insights and knowledge of potential general interest. It’s hard to ignore his harebrained comments (I can’t even be bothered reading them) but arguing is simply “feeding a troll” and doing so encourages him. Maybe he’s paid by the number of words typed?

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Doug, while I agree with you about Javier in particular and how annoying it can be to have to wade through all the droppings he tends to leave behind on this site, the point I was trying to make was a bit broader and was just using his comment to illustrate it.

          We have a very serious global issue on our hands and it seems that an inordinately large percentage of the population at large seems to suffer from this same sort of cognitive dissonance.

          I understand ignorance and scientific illiteracy, though supposedly in Javier’s case that is an excuse that shouldn’t apply. However it seems that regardless of the presentation of the facts and evidence from so many different lines of scientific inquiry there is this pronounced mental block when it comes time to connecting the dots and actually seeing the big picture that emerges.

          I guess in a way it is like most people not being able to see all 12 black dots in this image simultaneously. You have to teach yourself to see them a few at a time and then count them to confirm there are actually 12 dots. The climate deniers just refuse to parse all the dots…

          • Javier says:

            We have a very serious global issue on our hands and it seems that an inordinately large percentage of the population at large seems to suffer from this same sort of cognitive dissonance.

            That’s a good one. It is the other part that is suffering from a delusion and wrongly believe we are going to a climate warmapocalyse.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          While I lack the statistical and programming skills needed to evaluate the DETAILED evidence myself, I do have the basic chemistry and physics needed to understand the arguments.

          But in the last analysis, I have to rely on expert knowledge in deciding what I believe in the field of climate, just as I rely on expert knowledge on the part of my physician and my attorney.

          And I have never had time enough to get into climate science in any real detail, because there are SO many other things worthy of study.

          So I for one am learning quite a lot as the result of Javier posting contrarian comments and the rest of you guys pointing out where and how he is wrong, with it all in one nice convenient spot.

          Every once in a while, he posts something relating to my own field, and then I can point out the relevant facts he leaves out myself.

          Maybe there’s a possibility of having a third thread, one just for me to rant about politics, and a fourth one, for Javier to keep his climate soapbox, lol.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Fred, mid-50’s here in the hills up north. Going out again to enjoy the April weather in February. Supposed to hit 60F on Thursday, here. Come on up and enjoy the cool.

        No more spring melts, at least not very often. At least the Screech Owl is still calling every night.

      • Javier says:

        As far as that ‘Javier’ is concerned: I’ve discussed with him over at Paul Homewood’s blog.

        Except that I don’t remember ever writing a single word at Paul Homewood’s blog, and it is a blog that I don’t follow. So he is inventing all that. That’s the problem with alarmists, they invent most of what they say. It is all in a future predicted by models.

  11. HuntingtonBeach says:

    Holy Crap! Climate Change Is Real. Now What?

    Persuadability: the genuine willingness and ability to change your mind in the face of new evidence. Being persuadable requires rejecting absolute certainty, treating your beliefs as temporary, and acknowledging the possibility that no matter how confident you are about any particular opinion — you could be wrong. It involves actively seeking out criticism and counterarguments against even your most long-standing beliefs. Most important, persuadability entails evaluating those arguments as objectively as possible and updating your beliefs accordingly.

    • Marty says:

      The concerning thing is, if you submit to leftists by letting them ‘persuade’ you that man is responsible for climate change, they will next start working on ‘persuading’ you that communism is the perfect solution to all of humanity’s woes. Such is the utterly foolish war they are attempting to wage against us commoners of the world.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Marty, you are so right!
        Arlo Guthrie Pause for Mr. Clause

      • JN2 says:

        Marty, I worry more about the FFF (fossil fuel fascists). Much more dangerous to commoners.

        • Jason T. says:

          “But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding.

          In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.”

          Read more at:

          In other words our government waves some big government bucks in the scientists’ faces and the scientists will say whatever the government wants them to say. In what way is that not a danger to the ordinary citizens of a democracy?

          • Fred Magyar says:

            ROfLMAO!!! You are just too fucking stupid because you can’t even do conspiracy theories right. You do realize we are in February of 2017, and tRump is currently the child emperor in chief, yes?! That pile of BS you linked to, has gotten a little cold, it was posted by a HENRY PAYNE on February 25, 2015 4:00 AM

            Read more at:

            The BS you posted might have been hot off the presses back in 2015 and made sense as an attempt to show collusion between the Obama Administration and climate scientists but in an era of Trump’s hard line anti science and pro fossil fuel position, With the current administration being openly hostile to NASA, NOAA, the EPA, etc… and claiming they want to end funding for climate research your claim that the government is waving big bucks in front of climate scientists to make them lie is just too fucking funny! And YOU are a moron of the highest order!

            You anti science trolls are all a bunch of absolute imbeciles!

            • Jason T. says:

              How can you say that when Trump’s people haven’t even begun to clean house yet? The fact is, he’s only been president for one month! In reality most fed agencies are still being run by Obama’s pals who are trying anything to push whichever parts of his agenda they think they can still get away with.

              Just you wait until NASA’s climate division, NCDC, NSIDC, EPA, plus all the others are defunded and climate scientists are locked up for crimes against the economy.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Just you wait until NASA’s climate division, NCDC, NSIDC, EPA, plus all the others are defunded and climate scientists are locked up for crimes against the economy.

                No, we are not going to lock up scientists in this country!
                We are not going to allow morons like you to run the world!

                First Trump will be either be impeached or removed for being unfit to hold office. He is a danger to the security of the US, and to the entire planet.


                Trump and science
                Protesters gather in Boston to “stand up for science”

                Scientists pitch themselves as preservers of communities and nature in the Trump era

                “We want to protect the people and places and things you love,” said Beka Economopoulos, one of the organisers, who works for The Natural History Museum, an activist group which is not a museum at all. “Science is what makes sure that the fishing hole is still something you can enjoy when you’re old.”

                The tone of the rally was set the previous day, ten minutes west on foot, at a session of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science titled “Defending Science and Scientific Integrity in the Age of Trump”. Gretchen Goldman, Research Director at Union of Concerned Scientists, told a packed room that the Trump administration has already placed gag orders on government departments involved in scientific research, frozen hiring and removed information from websites. But the greatest threat was not that any one law be repealed, or even that any one government agency be dissolved. “They’re looking to dismantle the very process by which we use science to inform decision-making,” Ms Goldman said. “If we walk this process back it’s going to do irreparable damage.”


              • notanoilman says:

                Errrr, the previous administrations leaders were required to tender their resignations to coincide with the start of the new presidency, by law. The agencies were run, from the start of the presidency, by the new administration.


                Anyone more familiar with the USA system is welcome to, politely, update me on this.

              • Survivalist says:
            • islandboy says:

              Sorry Fred, He’s not stupid. It’s worse. He’s just brining us another “thought provoking” post with the kind support of the happy billionaires!

              Talk about following the money!



              Of course, one could always go on over to the web sites of the two organizations featured in the links above, view some of the “objective” analysis they promote and form ones own conclusions. Just look at how their articles fairly present all sides of the arguments (NOT) and how obvious it is that those funding them have no hidden agenda (NOT).

              These are just two of the web sites whose contents are frequently cited by deniers and I haven’t even mentioned stuff like Judith Curry’s blog! All I can say is, the Merchants of Doubt are in full swing!

            • Survivalist says:

              I’m kinda surprised that really stupid Trump supporters even read this blog. They can’t be coming here for the science. I wonder what the draw is.

          • Bob Nickson says:

            What is it that you think the government wants the research to say?

            Which government(s)?

            Why would any government desire evidence that human activity is driving climate change?

            • Stuart A. Copeland says:

              The federal gov was took over by tyrannical elitists in these last several years which means the thing’s they want to take from us most of all are our guns & money. They now realize though they won’t be able to get hold of them because as long as Trump is in the White House, it won’t happen. You should spend time listening to Alex Jones on Infowars … wow! That man is able to tell it just like it is plus you can pick up his broadcasts for free 24/7 now if you have a big cband communications satellite dish in your back yard like I do. I’m actually kindof surprised the elitists are letting him provide all his info like this, instead of trying to silence him & shut him down like they usually do to people that get to close to the truth.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” – John Stuart Mill


                Science has unequivocally shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening. A classic study in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological reaction to startling noises and graphic images compared to liberals. A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety.

                60 million irrational, xenophobic, nationalist, Trump supporters who believe that guns and walls will keep them safe and that their best hope lies in the hands of a bunch of corporatist billionaires… What could possibly go wrong?!

              • You should spend time listening to Alex Jones on Infowars … wow! That man is able to tell it just like it is plus you can pick up his broadcasts for free 24/7 now if you have a big cband communications satellite dish in your back yard like I do. I’m actually kindof surprised the elitists are letting him provide all his info like this, instead of trying to silence him & shut him down like they usually do to people that get to close to the truth.

                Liberals don’t want to shut Alex Jones down. They like him because he is a walking, talking billboard, advertising the fact that conservatives are mostly fucking idiots who will believe anything that any lying idiot like him says.

                Alex Jones: FBI SAYS NO ONE KILLED AT SANDY HOOK

                On December 14, 2012, the world watched in horror as the corporate media reported the deaths of 20 students and 6 staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown at the hands of a deranged 20-year-old.

                Internet sleuths immediately took to the web to stitch together clues indicating the shooting could be a carefully-scripted false flag event, similar to the 9/11 terror attacks, the central tenet being that the event would be used to galvanize future support for gun control legislation. Two years later, and scores of politicians and gun control groups have cited the Sandy Hook incident as a pretext to curtail Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  I’m starting to come around to the idea that calling these imbeciles, conservatives, just completely demeans and insults the common every day variety of stupid that most conservatives are known for. These people are industrial grade idiots of an unprecedented magnitude. We are in need of developing a completely new vocabulary to describe them.

                  • Doug Leighton says:

                    At least he’s wearing hearing protection or maybe listening to the radio? 🙂

                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                    Not to worry, Doug, they know what they’re doing and the saw will indeed stop just before it does any harm and/or has CRISPR spider-fibre exoskeletal biomimicry pants. Right? (Looks around the room for nodding/smiling approval…)
                    …Like a smooth transition, via ‘renewable’ energy, electric cars and assorted corporate and/or government-enforced (ok, ‘subsidized’ [sounds so benign]) tech, right? (Looks around the room for nodding/smiling approval…)
                    No-no, really, let’s handwave and declare that to be so and often enough that it becomes the truth and continued unreality…
                    Eat your heart out, Javier.
                    Besides, some people have a lot more children, so– you know– they can afford to lose a few, right? Or it’s just an ‘illegal immigrant’. Did they not see the walls?
                    It’s all good.
                    And maybe the image is fake too, just like so much of everything else.
                    But even if it isn’t, many lives are ‘economically-expendable’, so to speak, along the lines of the previously-mentioned tax-coerced mindfucked lemmings.

                    Trumps will come and presidents will go, until I guess there’s nothing/no one left to vote anyone or anything in.

                    Long live Fukishima Daichi Tepco.

                    ‘Move along, folks, there’s nothing to see here…’…


        • Charles Van Vleet says:

          Rush and Hannity on the radio are still convinced even with all the Republican wins this last fall there is clearly still a sinister liberal establishment having a say in all the goings-on of the United States. All-powerful, malicious, ubiquitous, wicked left-wing forces determined as ever to snuff out the very soul of our nation.

      • hightrekker23 says:

        Lets Make ‘Merika Smart Again.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Hi Marty,

        I’m about as big a redneck conservative as there is in this forum. If you don’t believe me, ask Huntington Beach, he’ll tell you so. 😉

        Nobody can sell me a bill of goods, neither liberal Democratic Party goods, nor conservative Trump Republican type goods. I think for myself, and I spent one hell of a lot of time studying the physical sciences, and the evidence is crystal clear.

        Forced climate change is real, and we humans are doing the forcing.

        • HuntingtonBeach says:

          OldMacDonald aka KGB bought the Republican HRC hate hook, line and sinker. He will now prove it to you 3…2…1


          I Was One of the Most Ardent Hillary Haters on the Planet…Until I Read Her Emails

          In those emails, I discovered a Hillary Clinton I didn’t even know existed.

          I found a woman who cared about employees who lost loved ones. I found a woman who, without exception, took time to write notes of condolence and notes of congratulations, no matter how busy she was. I found a woman who could be a tough negotiator and firm in her expectations, but still had a moment to write a friend with encouragement in tough times. She worried over people she didn’t know, and she worried over those she did.

          And everywhere she went, her concern for women and children was clearly the first and foremost thing on her mind.

          In those emails, I also found a woman who seemed to understand power and how to use it wisely. A woman of formidable intellect who actually understood the nuances of a thing, and how to strike a tough bargain.

          I read every single one of the emails released in August, and what I found was someone who actually gave a damn about the country, the Democratic party, and all of our futures.

          She watched along with all of us as the Affordable Care Act made its way through Congress, with the same anxiety and aggravation many of us felt, and she rejoiced when it finally passed. She knew the Democrats who voted against it in the House, and she knew the ones who put their political careers on the line in support of it.

          The Hillary caricature you see in the press is not the Hillary Clinton I came to know by reading those emails.

          Yes, she had powerful friends in powerful places — though I didn’t actually see any emails from Goldman Sachs. And yes, she approached those friends the very same way she approached people on her staff, or people she met in the course of being Secretary of State. She rejoiced in their joys and shared their sorrows. They weren’t just ticks on a political scoreboard. They were friends.

          You could tell there were some squabbles internally with other members of the Obama administration, but there was also unflagging, utmost respect for the man who occupied the White House – the office she fought so valiantly to attain.

          It’s a hard thing to swallow one’s pride and step to the side, but Hillary did it with class and with dignity. Not only that, she made the most of every minute of her tenure as Secretary of State. Not a day went by where she shirked the duty vested in her.

          In short, she proved herself beyond what any other candidate has done, and she did it professionally, assertively, and without drama.

          Here’s something else I learned about her through those emails: She’ll fight. And she’ll fight hard. She won’t shy away from a renegade Congress and she won’t always play nice. But she does play by the rules, which is more than I can say for a lot of the candidates on the other side.

          Complete confession –

          • Survivalist says:

            Reread, but this time replace emails with personal letters and Hillary with Hitler.

            • Exactly what the fuck are you talking about? Explain yourself.

              • Survivalist says:

                When we divorce war and the destruction of States from the human, we excuse it. It was out of our control, we say, and we blame evil, not people; although the Holocaust, the Ukrainian Famine of 1932/33, and the U.S. weapon shipments to Jihadists in Syria, were all policies conceived and carried out by humans. Hitler was human. Stalin was human. Hillary is human.
                To humanize Hillary is to show that the decisions she makes and the morality she chooses have consequences, although HBs link would rather we talk about her notes of condolences to friends than about her pen approving of weapon sales and military logistical support to The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia so as to collaborate in bombing 14 million people in Yemen to the brink of famine. Yemen’s Holodomor.
                We have mummified Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Gaddafi and Pol Pot as if to preserve them as agents of evil disemboweled of human nature. Hillary may one day face the same embalment for her role in supporting policies of war and State destruction. But embalming them as such removes human choice. It ignores the influence of politics, economics and the proddings of pride. Wars against Hitler, Stalin, Gaddafi, al-Assad, Saddam Hussein or terrorism are not biblical battles. They are struggles over human choices and human morality.
                “We came, we saw, he died” said Hillary of Gaddafi, with a laugh. And so did about 5,000 other people as well as about 20,000 injured. But they didn’t seem to get a mention in her emails. No notes of condolences for them.
                I find the morality of Hillary Clinton to be repugnant. A corporate Democrat and a politician of empire who campaigned on an act of war with Russia, who is in no way morally superior to any other politician of empire that has gone before her. Although HB might prefer that I remember her as a stunt double for Martha Stewart.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            You’re still a true believing partisan lap doggie, and will never face up to the truth that HRC was the worst candidate in the history of the D party in modern times in terms of her personal ethics, lack of judgement, lack of charisma, disgusting arrogance, I could go on all day.

            IF she had had the best interests of the country at heart, she would have stepped aside, and worked to get Sanders elected. WHY? Because all the major polls showed that he would do far better against Trump than she would.

            Sanders had sense enough to know that the campaign was more about the economy and less about identity politics.

            Sanders represented a choice between Trump, the very worst sort of Republican, and a REAL DEMOCRAT, rather than between Trump and a Republican Lite candidate with ethical issues similar to Trump’s own, although minor in scale by comparison.

            He’s a real he coon of an old time crook, the sort of coon that can deal with even the biggest and baddest of coon hounds, and enjoy it, and WIN.

            By comparison, HRC’s a rank amateur, but she’s still a crook.

            Remember I always said Trump would be worse.

            Trump couldn’t have attacked Sanders the way he could Clinton, because Sanders had no twenty year long dead fish stink trailing him, and he was not and NEVER WILL be in the vest pocket of Wall Street.

            SANDERS had sense enough to campaign among the people who are the heart of the D party, the working classes.

            Clinton was so insufferably ARROGANT that she gave the figurative straight finger to the heart of the party, hanging out with banksters, failing to put in even as much time with the people in the states that put Trump in the WH as she did making speeches to banksters at a quarter million per pop.

            Lately you have been posing as an ENVIRONMENTALIST, while a few weeks back you were trying to insult me by bragging about making a killing in the oil biz, because, you said, Republicans are so stupid they provide your fat profits. ( All the big D Democrats I know personally drive cars and eat food produced by farmers who produce it using oil, lol. )

            I have posed the challenge several times, I will pose it again. I ask ANY person, with a reputation to preserve as a mathematically literate person, to explain how Clinton could have put on skates the first time , and won Olympic Gold Metal only one year later, or why, if her homie buddy the general counsel of Tyson , was so good, and her broker was so good, nobody else they worked with ever came forth to tell us about how they made out the way Hillary did.

            If you like, we can discuss how many of her early business associates wound up in jail for extended periods of time. Would you like to go THERE? I have references handy, the sort of references you cannot dispute, such as the NYT, the Washington Post, etc.

            You see, little lap doggie, I’m not a DEMOCRAT, and I’m not a REPUBLICAN. I maintain my status as an independent WRITER of a book or two, if I live long enough to finish them, so as to be able to tell it like it IS, in respect to the FACTS.

            Partisans are like car salesmen, they either lie outright, or lie by omission. You sound like a preacher threatening a heretic, not for the sake of the heretic, but to keep his congregation in line.

            The problem you have HERE is that while the forum membership is decidedly liberal, and proud of it, the membership is also capable of and in the habit of THINKING.

            You do realize that in this forum, which is OBVIOUSLY dominated by an overwhelmingly liberal membership which also just happens to be STRONG on critical thinking, that you are almost alone in disputing my evaluation of the recent election cycle??

            The people here aren’t SHY. They may not be willing to say so, that’s understandable,because nobody wants to talk about being wrong, but they are NOT disputing my analysis.

            As a voter, I generally support the D party, although once in a while I vote for a third party or R candidate, depending on the individual, and the particular election.

            I would have pretty much forgotten about HRC by now, but you keep reminding me……..

  12. GoneFishing says:

    The rate of modern temperature change has been determined to be 170 times faster than from natural forces.

  13. GoneFishing says:

    It’s not just carbon dioxide. There are a number of other gases with strong greenhouse effects. The AGGI measures the long term ones. Beyond that are the short term gases or ones and ones that are not fully determined.
    Because we seek an index that is accurate, only direct forcing from these gases has been included. Model-dependent feedbacks, for example, due to water vapor and ozone depletion, are not included. Other spatially heterogeneous, short-lived, climate forcing agents, such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone, have uncertain global magnitudes and also are not included here to maintain accuracy.

    So there are large forcings from atmospheric gases that are not included in the published graphs. Wonder what else is missing. We know that natural forcings are not included or are devalued.
    So where does reality lie? Somewhere much higher than we have been told.

    • Doug Leighton says:

      Meanwhile, down south:


      “As parts of Australia set heatwave records and the government considered building NEW COAL-FIRED POWER STATIONS, the vast continent to the south last week quietly marked a milestone. The spread of sea ice around Antarctica melted to the lowest level recorded…More significantly, Australian and US scientists reported unprecedented ocean observations that showed Totten glacier, the continent’s largest, is more exposed to warmer ocean waters and less likely to be stable than previously thought.”

      • GoneFishing says:

        Antarctica is a tough one to analyze. The high altitude, large continental ice mass and ocean surround make it an extremely diverse system. The solar energy into it and into the surrounding oceans had been increasing for 11,000 years. Now increasing atmospheric forcings are also in play.
        So how resilient is Antarctica to heating and ice loss? I think we are in the process of finding out. The possibility of it affecting sea level rise in the near future is high, since the land ice volumes are so large. One to five meters within the next century. Observation and depth of observation must be increased in this inhospitable place, otherwise we could get blindsided.

        •The Amundsen Sea sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has most likely been destabilized and ice retreat is unstoppable for the current conditions.
        •No further acceleration in climate change is necessary to trigger the collapse of the rest of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet on decadal time scales.
        •Antarctica has the potential to contribute more than a metre of sea-level rise by 2100.
        •A large fraction of West Antarctic basin ice could be gone within two centuries, causing a 3–5 metre sea level rise.
        •Mechanisms similar to those causing deglaciation in West Antarctica are now also found in East Antarctica.
        •Partial deglaciation of the East Antarctic ice sheet is likely for the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, contributing to 10 metres of more of sea level rise in the longer run, and 5 metres in the first 200 years.

        Climate author Fred Pearce (in his 2007 book “With Speed and Violence”) quotes the leading cryosphere scientist Richard Alley as saying a decade ago that there is “a possibility that the West Antarctic ice sheet could collapse and raise sea levels by 6 yards [5.5 metres]” this century. Pearce also interviewed NASA glaciologist Eric Rignot who has studied the Pine Island glacier in West Antarctica for decades, and concluded that “the glacier is primed for runaway destruction”.

  14. GoneFishing says:

    Is it too late to stop climate change? Also how did Trump get elected? All in one interview.

  15. hightrekker23 says:

    I guess it has been warm in the Great Lakes region?

  16. GoneFishing says:

    I think this image tell the tale.

  17. Survivalist says:

    you can find phenological maps of first-leaf/bloom from 1981-2014 here

  18. alimbiquated says:

    Still responding to Javier? LOL

  19. Dennis Coyne says:

    Hi all,

    If we assume for a moment that most people here believe that fossil fuels will reach a peak and then decline due to depletion and that my medium scenarios for future fossil fuel URR are roughly correct (many believe they are too optimistic), then scenarios higher than RCP4.5 are not likely. Note that RCP4.5 has total carbon emissions similar to my high scenarios, the more likely scenario is between RCP2.6 an RCP4.5.

    From Chapter 12 of AR5 WG1, figure 12.5 on page 1054:

    Figure 12.5 | Time series of global annual mean surface air temperature anomalies (relative to 1986–2005) from CMIP5 concentration-driven experiments. Projections are shown for each RCP for the multi-model mean (solid lines) and the 5 to 95% range (±1.64 standard deviation) across the distribution of individual models (shading). Discontinuities at 2100 are due to different numbers of models performing the extension runs beyond the 21st century and have no physical meaning. Only one ensemble member is used from each model and numbers in the figure indicate the number of different models contributing to the different time periods. No ranges are given for the RCP6.0 projections beyond 2100 as only two models are available.

    Note also that using Marcott 2013 and Mann 2008 temperature data, the average Holocene temperature before 1750 CE was about 0.2 C above the 1961-1990 Global mean temperature. So the main stream models suggest about 2 C above the pre industrial Holocene temperature for the RCP4.5 scenario. It would be better if temperatures were lower than this and a 1000 Pg carbon emission scenario (which is possible with a rapid transition to non-fossil fuel energy) would result in roughly 1.7 C above pre-industrial Holocene temperatures. We can claim that the models are wrong and indeed the uncertainty is large, but we do not know if they are too low or too high (there are models above and below the ensemble mean).

    My view is that the uncertainty is reason to act sooner rather than later in limiting carbon emissons, we will need to do this in any case because fossil fuels are limited so two birds one stone.
    Figure below

    • Doug Leighton says:

      If it were only that simple Dennis: but it’s more than just climate change. It’s time we started including inequality (famine/civil wars), consumption (resource depletion), and population (population growth outpacing agricultural production) and species extinction — to name a few.

      • Doug Leighton says:


        Forest elephant populations in one of Central Africa’s largest sanctuaries have declined between 78% and 81% because of poaching, a new study finds. More than 25,000 elephants in Gabon’s Minkébé National Park may have been killed for their ivory between 2004 and 2014. With nearly half of Central Africa’s forest elephants thought to live in Gabon, the loss of elephants from the park is a considerable setback for the preservation of the species.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        And you forgot to mention the HUUUGE elephant, with the orange wig, in the middle of the room…

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Doug,

        Well I am including energy resources, I agree including more things would be good, I have also attempted to include economic growth, transition to non-fossil fuel energy and population in my analyses. Others have looked at education and population (I have not explicitly included this, but generally higher average education levels are attained with greater national income (GDP), though inequality is a political question which is tougher to analyze (from my perspective).

        There are not a lot of perfect models, but in general I agree those that we have could use much improvement. Reality is complex and models have a tough time with reality especially in social science. Experimentation is more difficult, and an understanding by humans of the social structure and its interactions often results in changes of individual behavior by those trying to “game” the system to gain an advantage.

        In other words an understanding of social reality tends to change that reality so the model quickly becomes obsolete. It is a thorny problem which is difficult to come to grips with imo. Worth trying though.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        ”(population growth outpacing agricultural production)”

        Doug is dead on in all respects, and especially this one in particular.
        We are getting in worse shape every year in terms of remaining essential resources needed to increase food production.

        Land, water, oil , phosphate rock, you name it, all being depleted at ever increasing rates……….. This cannot end well, barring a miraculous or depending on one’s perspective , catastrophic population crash.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Old Farmer Mac,

          Let’s say we manage to get to World TFR of 1.75 by 2070 and it gradually decreases from there to 1.5. See chart below with scenarios for different TFR with an assumed maximum expected average longevity (at World level) of 90 years. Would we make it under such a scenario in your view from an agricultural standpoint (assume agricultural goods are trade on a free market at the World level)? The population trajectory would be between the orange and purple lines on the chart in this optimistic scenario.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            Hi Dennis,

            The more you know about such things, the more you realize that you can never know enough to answer such questions except by using so many weasel words or caveats that any answer is no more than educated guesswork.

            My seat of the pants or gut feeling is that some parts of the world, barring disastrous climate problems, will have no real problems providing food enough for local people, and even substantial amounts of food for export. These places would include the USA and Canada, most of South America, Western Europe, and Russia. Even if the WORLD population continues to grow as projected, there will be enough decent farmland, or land that can be converted to farmland, for these areas to have ample food, assuming the overall economy holds up. Western Europe will not have farmland problems due to the population there growing only a little, or not at all, plus W E countries are rich and thus will be able to devote plenty of resources to their agricultural sectors. Money and man power can make things happen on farms just as well as in any other industry, lol.

            Countries that are already seriously overpopulated and possessed of little or nothing in the way of ESSENTIAL EXPORTABLE goods or services are going to be in one hell of a fix. Egypt is a prime example.

            All the so called miracles we have witnessed over the last century or so in agriculture are fundamentally no more than the logical result of OTHER advancing technologies being applied to farming, ranching, and forestry. Biologists enabled us to create new hybrids, engineers enabled us to switch to internal combustion engines, chemists and chemical engineers enabled us to use nitrates by the millions of tons, rail roads and refrigeration enabled us to ship food economically and quickly thousands of miles…….

            Without pesticides, fertilizers, tractors, and all the other inputs we use now, we wouldn’t really be producing a whole lot more per acre than farmers produced over a century ago.

            Will these things be available world wide? I hope so, but who knows?

            If we can afford the necessary inputs, we can probably produce enough food, on a world wide basis, to avoid major famines, as a technical matter. But the ability to do it TECHNICALLY is not at all the same thing as being able to pay for doing it. What will the countries that are already approaching collapse use to pay?

            Will we Yankees be willing to give up beef so people that look strange to us, people who dress differently ,and who speak different languages and hold to different values, can have bread and beans ?

            I should point out that I am NOT an academic, and have neither the time nor the resources to do any real professional research concerning how fast we are destroying good farmland, or how fast we are running out of fossil water being used for irrigation, or how fast we are using up the easily accessible phosphate ores, etc.

            So my opinions are based on reading , plus talking to people via email who are in positions to know more about certain issues, such as fossil water, or the actual amounts of prime farmland being lost to development, or how fast the Chinese are degrading that countries domestic farmland.

            I don’t really have a clue as to whether the countries of the world WILL work together so as to maintain viable fisheries, or even whether it’s already too late to do so, since I haven’t any training in oceanography.

            Maybe enough ocean acidification is already baked in that peak seafood is in the rear view mirror??

            They say history doesn’t repeat, but that it rhymes. I’m a firm believer in the old saw that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

            At any given time, all thru history, some people in some places have lived well, while others have lived hard and died hard. It seems likely that this observation will continue to hold true.

            If I were young and in a position to bet on the next half century, I would bet that there will be some really major famines in some parts of the world. Droughts happen. Within fifty years, there will probably be half a dozen or more that cover a large enough area and last long enough to result in starvation on the grand scale, unless countries with surplus food stocks are willing to donate the necessary food, or sell it on the never never, with realists knowing the debt will NOT be repaid in any meaningful way in any meaningful time frame.

            The flip side of industrial efficiency is lack of resilience and flexibility. So long as everything goes reasonably well, economically, we have a fair shot at turning the population corner, but if the pessimists are right, and the overall economy goes downhill, for any or all of the reasons mentioned here in this forum……….

            Every year, there’s less good land remaining, more people,….. If the rains fail…… If it gets just a couple of degrees hotter, on average, yields of staple crops will crash over large areas.

            So many variables will interact in so many ways……… your guess is probably as good as mine.

    • Hickory says:

      I agree Dennis. Some tactics are:
      -a medium level carbon tax with a revenue ‘lockbox’- the money only goes to energy efficiency/ renewable energy other than corn, and other measures proven to increase energy security of the country.
      -doing our best to encourage family planning/birth control, and legalizing euthanasia ( and suicide), and a more strict form of rationing of government sponsored medical funding, so as to reduce the population size

      I’ll take my criticism off the air, thank you.
      [note- You might ask ‘why the idea of reducing government medical support?’. Because the carbon footprint, and overall environmental destruction related to medical care for those with a very poor prognosis is overwhelming in this country because the culture is in the habit of trying to prolong life in an extreme manner, with very little benefit in quality of life. Probably something like 25% of medical sector expenditures purchase close to zero in terms of life quality, but it does purchase some time. And generally it is money that could be spent much more fruitfully on other segments of the populace (the working poor and children).

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Hickory,

        Mostly I agree, except the rationing of medical care, perhaps this would be best from a resource perspective, but I think it can be addressed through better training of doctors and nurses to aggressively push families to make the decision to use comfort measures when the prognosis is poor rather than aggressive life saving measures that are not likely to improve outcomes ( a week gained at the cost of great suffering by everyone concerned, both patient, family, and care givers).

        Euthanasia and/or assisted suicide seems to make sense to me, but I can understand arguments on both sides.

        I would focus more on better access to birth control, education, and women’s rights and rapid economic development in emerging economies that is likely to lead to lower total fertility levels.

        I agree on a carbon tax, but it would be an easier sell if the money was just returned to the people with a check each quarter. Total tax collected/ divided by population, then send each family a check based on the number of family members, up to 4 per family (assuming 2 parents), bigger families (more than 2 children) will take a hit, but I think it better not to encourage large families.

        • Hickory says:

          Hi Dennis,
          I’m going to avoid the medical can of worms, even though I opened it. Some other forum would be more appropriate for that discussion.

          Regarding the carbon tax revenues, wouldn’t it be self-defeating if the revenues were distributed to consumers who could then just turn around and purchase gasoline/coal with the money? I believe it would be better to use the funds to lay the groundwork for weaning the country off of imported fuel (1st priority, Canada and Mexico not included), and domestic fossil fuels as a secondary priority. A deliberate, non-partisan plan that didn’t favor one specific sector or region would be best. I know, I’m dreaming. But I’m not the only one…

          • GoneFishing says:

            The general taxing of the populace (and this would indeed be a heavy tax on the poor) is the heart of national policy in the US. So taxing carbon, would fit very nicely into the American way of thinking. Also it would fit right into the general way of not giving or providing alternatives.
            For example. A middle class family could purchase (through long term loans) an EV and it’s assorted charging accessories. Possibly they might even go for PV on the roof to provide the energy in some cases. Thus avoiding the carbon tax, getting government subsidies and putting themselves in debt.
            The poor and lower middle class who have an operating ICE and might at stiff loan rates be able to get another used one, somewhat newer, are stuck with the additional tax and thus become one step closer to economic disaster. Maybe they cut back on food or medication so dad or mom can get to work. They can’t afford to move closer to work, since that is oftentimes more expensive.
            The rich, they can afford it all so it effects them not at all.
            Since there are no real alternatives to fossil fuels yet, all public transport would become more expensive to operate.
            The reality in the US, use of fossil fuels would drop 10 to 20 percent in a short time. This would drop the price of fuel and cancel out some of the effectiveness of the program. The price of fuel could go into oscillation modes causing havoc in business and personal life.

            I think it would be better to institute a use limit at first, with taxes or fines kicking in above using a certain amount for a given purpose or vehicle after so many gallons or miles. More complicated but this would have less harmful effects and be more controllable in its application. It would also promote efficiency, alternatives and change life style habits.
            A general tax could be installed later, but should be in a step wise system where the biggest users become the biggest losers.

            In the long run, carbon taxing would achieve it’s end, deep reduction of fossil fuel burning. However, how does one implement such a tax in the current political state of the USA? Not going to happen.

            • Hickory says:

              Gone Fishing- I agree with the points you raise if the the carbon tax was high enough to cause those effects. If it was lower, the ramifications would be more mild, and I would advocate for finding a level that was not too high, as well as a gradual phase in.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Euthanasia, assisted suicide? Not going to reduce the population, nor is it going to change the economics much. Aside from the huge moral aspects and family members realizing they are murderers (causing long term psychological problems), the real problem is consumption of unneeded and unnecessary luxuries.
        People buy too much stuff, eat expensive foods, take hugely expensive vacations and just have bad habits that eat up their money. That may feed the economy (snake eating it’s own tail) but I bet much of the population could live on half of what they think they need.
        People in the US eat way too much food. It is killing them at high rate and certainly wasting lots of money, energy and materials. The money and energy to be saved there is huge. It would also prevent a significant amount of disease.
        Cut the damn property taxes. Those government vampires were raising values on houses while the property values were dropping, just to keep their tills filled. That will free up a lot of money for real needs. Having to pay for your house three times over or more in thirty years is insane. A reality check needs to be done. FBI investigations into fraud in tax assessments would uncover a huge problem. The government would be paying back money for the next century.

        So stop playing god and picking on the ill and helpless. Focus on the more significant problems, the ones that really use the energy, waste the money and resources, and waste our lives.

        • Hickory says:

          People should be allowed to pass on when they choose, without it being illegal or difficult. You’d be amazed how much pain and suffering is experienced by the population simply because we the government imposes strict rules on this whole process. We should be free to have some personal control over the end of life decisions, without it being such a struggle.
          You may also be amazed how much money (and energy) gets spent on life extending attempts, that are like pissing into a gale, in the last 3-6 months of life. And these resource expenditures generally purchase very little in the way of life quality.
          I’m speaking from experience here, since I work full time deep in the medical sector.
          Basically, I’m arguing that we should have the basic freedom to end our life when we see fit and without struggling to find a graceful means.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Hickory,

            I agree physician assisted suicide makes sense as long as it is well regulated so there is no abuse (check on mental competency of patient).
            For patients unable to make decisions the family should decide. My wife is a physician and I recently had to make decisions with my siblings and father on my Mom’s death. As long as families are well informed about the prognosis, they are unlikely to extend the suffering of their loved one.

            Communication between the health care providers and the family is key.
            In my case it was easier because my wife could translate what the doctors were saying and give it to me straight. Many health care professionals may do a poor job of communicating when comfort measures are the appropriate course of action, this leads to wasteful spending on health care and does more harm than good.

            As long as the carbon taxes are rebated to the consumer, poorer people may come out ahead as the total carbon content of goods consumed would be higher for wealthier individuals. If it was determined that poorer people were bearing more of a burden, the rebate checks could be distributed in a more progressive fashion, but just distributing the money equally would be a much simpler plan. Over time there will be used EVs and used PV that can be purchased by those with less income and a lot of electricity will be provided by Wind which will be more competitive.

            In the real World only a cap and trade or carbon feebate type of policy has a chance to become law, so it makes more sense to advocate for what is possible. In 50 years, we might be able to pass the kind of legislation you are advocating. I would rather get something passed sooner, drop subsidies for wind and solar in exchange for passing a carbon feebate plan. That is how things get done. Republicans are happy because we have stopped subsidizing wind and solar, Democrats are happy because we have passed a carbon tax. This is the way things used to be done in the US, there are few moderates left to accomplish such a plan, though the Senators from Maine might accomplish something if they worked together to gather like minded moderates to devise such a plan.

          • GoneFishing says:

            The government imposes rules to control the process and prevent abuse (murder). If they rules need changing, then the medical industry should start lobbying for change and educate the public. However they would be reducing their profits so I don’t know how much will be done.

            I think the magnitude of waste in the areas I mentioned above is far higher than what you are proposing. Also eating a minimal diet and a healthy one would reduce disease (undercutting the drug induced profits of the medical industry).
            Over-consumption is the first area to work on. It would also allow the society to adjust to a steady non-growth phase rather than throwing them into it as do deep recessions and depressions.

            “Isn’t there something you can do?”

  20. islandboy says:

    I posted a comment on the previous non-petroleum open thread, in which I related a discussion I had on another web site concerning projections on renewable energy and EV growth put out by BP. I also put up a graphic showing projections for solar and wind from the 2015 EIA Annual Energy Outlook. Looking forward to the release of a new edition of the EIA’s Electric Power Monthly with data for December 2016 and the final annual data for 2016, I decided to compare the 2015 EIA projections with actual performance. Bearing in mind that the actual data is for 2015 and 2016 the EIA projections are pretty good but, it’s fairly easy to get the short term projections right.

    Looking at Table 16. Renewable Energy Generating Capacity and Generation from the list of tables from the EIA’s 2017 Annual Energy Outlook and selecting out solar photovoltaic, I am very curious as to why after continuing at something similar to recent growth rates through 2017, the growth rate slows significantly through 2021 when there is one year with growth of more than 20% before returning to single digit growth rates until 2028.

    Starting with a growth rate of 42% and the 2015 production figure of 26,473 billion kWh for solar PV, if the growth rate declines by 10% per year, production from solar PV will have exceeded the EIA’s projection for 2028 by the end of 2019! If anybody thinks I’m being overly optimistic in suggesting that this is possible, 14,626 megawatts of PV capacity was added in 2016 for a 53.5% increase in the 27,320 megawatt capacity at the end of 2015. There is a good chance that the EIA projections for PV will turn out to have been very wrong, as usual.

    Depending on whether the Trump administration is successful in halting the snowballing PV adoption they could also be right. On that front, the efforts of the FF industry to fight renewables seem to have been a little misdirected. The major change in electricity generation, is that NG has displaced coal in the electricity generating mix. Renewables are only just beginning to make a noticeable impact. It is looking increasingly like coal will not have a good chance of a comeback. By the time NG prices rise to the point where coal looks better, wind, solar and batteries will be even more competitive.

    • Ulenspiegel says:

      In the past EIA projections for renewable energy were very poor and together with the work of the IEA considered a joke.

      The best projection so far came from Greenpeace, go figure.

  21. alimbiquated says:

    The Saudis seem to be taking renewables seriously for a change. I guess they don’t have an infinite amount of oil after all.

  22. Fred Magyar says:

    Yuval Noah Harari:
    Nationalism vs. globalism: the new political divide
    TED Dialogues · 1h 0m · Filmed Feb 2017

    How do we make sense of today’s political divisions? In a wide-ranging conversation full of insight, historian Yuval Harari places our current turmoil in a broader context, against the ongoing disruption of our technology, climate, media — even our notion of what humanity is for. This is the first of a series of TED Dialogues, seeking a thoughtful response to escalating political divisiveness. Make time (just over an hour) for this fascinating discussion between Harari and TED curator Chris Anderson.

  23. GoneFishing says:

    Just recently Trump wants NASA to reduce it’s climate agenda and push for more space projects. The attack on science and protection of the US and world continues at the EPA.

    On February 17, the U.S. Senate confirmed former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. Observers can now expect the Trump administration—with Congress providing the wind at Administrator Pruitt’s back—to charge ahead with an aggressive agenda to weaken or nullify a decade’s worth of progress on pollution reduction.

    President Donald Trump and Administrator Pruitt are likely to start off by announcing plans to dismantle the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which set the first-ever carbon pollution standards for power plants, and other components of President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan. They may also attack an Obama-era rule to protect the nation’s waterways from pollution.

    Congress also stands ready to legislate against scientific reality. Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) introduced legislation to override thousands of scientists and the Supreme Court and conclude that greenhouse gases are not pollutants—and therefore outside of the EPA’s authority to set pollution limits.

    • Fred Magyar says:

    • islandboy says:

      In the meantime, it looks like California is setting up to “go it alone”:

      100% by 2045 renewable energy bill introduced in California

      On the same day that the U.S. Senate in a mostly party-line vote approved Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt – who is by all accounts an enemy of environmental regulation – to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, the head of California’s state senate was busy leaving a very different kind of legacy. Last Friday, Speaker Pro Tempore Kevin de Léon introduced a bill (SB 584) to mandate that utilities procure 100% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2045.

      This would accelerate the 50% by 2030 mandate which is currently in place, and would put California tied with Hawaii (which also has a 100% by 2045 mandate) for the most aggressive renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in the United States. On the global scale there are only a few nations with more ambitious plans, among them Denmark, which seeks to obtain all energy – not just electricity – from renewables by 2050.

      The legislation would also increase the state’s interim goal for renewable energy to 50% by 2025. This should not be a problem for California’s three large investor owned utilities, which are already well ahead of RPS compliance goals. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Company were already meeting 24-35% of their electricity with renewables in 2015, and have enough resources contracted to meet 41-45% of demand by 2020…..[snip]

      The same day DeLéon introduced the 100% by 2045 bill, he also issued a statement on the approval of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator.

      “Mr. Pruitt is a clear and present danger to our economic prosperity and the health of our children. He was appointed for one reason: to systematically dismantle our environmental protections when it comes to our water, air and wildlife. He made a career of defending corporate polluters and blocking environmental protections by litigating against the agency he now leads.”

      “California will not follow Trump’s destructive path. We’ve proven that you can protect the environment and grow jobs. We’ve delinked economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions and helped turn clean energy into a pillar of our economy that now supports over half a million jobs in our state.”

  24. Ezrydermike says:

    “Climate change models should do more than just predict dire results from rising carbon dioxide levels. They must help guide political choices that could alter disastrous outcomes, or they do little more than help us calculate insurance rate hikes and make emergency plans.

    A paper by an international group of University of Maryland-led scientists, counting no less than 5 members of the National Academy of Sciences to their ranks, argues that current climate models will fail precisely because they focus too much on the science and not enough on sociology.”

    • Ezrydermike says:


      Over the last two centuries, the impact of the Human System has grown dramatically, becoming strongly dominant within the Earth System in many different ways. Consumption, inequality, and population have increased extremely fast, especially since about 1950, threatening to overwhelm the many critical functions and ecosystems of the Earth System. Changes in the Earth System, in turn, have important feedback effects on the Human System, with costly and potentially serious consequences. However, current models do not incorporate these critical feedbacks. We argue that in order to understand the dynamics of either system, Earth System Models must be coupled with Human System Models through bidirectional couplings representing the positive, negative, and delayed feedbacks that exist in the real systems. In particular, key Human System variables, such as demographics, inequality, economic growth, and migration, are not coupled with the Earth System but are instead driven by exogenous estimates, such as United Nations population projections. This makes current models likely to miss important feedbacks in the real Earth–Human system, especially those that may result in unexpected or counterintuitive outcomes, and thus requiring different policy interventions from current models. The importance and imminence of sustainability challenges, the dominant role of the Human System in the Earth System, and the essential roles the Earth System plays for the Human System, all call for collaboration of natural scientists, social scientists, and engineers in multidisciplinary research and modeling to develop coupled Earth–Human system models for devising effective science-based policies and measures to benefit current and future generations.

      The paper….

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi EzryderMike,

        The Human Systems models are not very good, for every two social scientists there are about 6 different models, the idea would be great if we had decent models, do you have a lot of faith that we have economic or sociological models that can predict outcomes?

        I do not.

        • GoneFishing says:

          It’s not that difficult Dennis. The 1972 predictions of Limits to Growth were very close to correct.

          So what makes you think we cannot do it now?

          • Doug Leighton says:

            “So what makes you think we cannot do it now?” Doesn’t fit his hard wired world-view. Simple.

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Doug,

              No I know some economics, the models are not very good. The economists look down on other social sciences the way physicists look at economics.

              If you believe the social science models are very good, I simply disagree.

              I am not very familiar with sociology, but my guess is there is not a well agreed on model, much as is the case in economics. There are many different schools of thought and no one model is without its problems. The mainstream neoclassical model is dominant in economics, I just don’t think it predicts the future very well. Perhaps in the future we will have better models, but as I said it is pretty well understood that in social science knowledge of the theory can result in changes in individual behavior which tends to invalidate the model.

              A very simple example is in neoclassical economics where consumer preferences are taken as a given which are not influenced by the actions of consumers and businesses in the marketplace. There is an army of people in the advertising industry whose aim is to shape consumer preferences. Either those advertising dollars are wasted or a fundamental premise of the Walrasian (neoclassical microeconomics) model is false.

              Another shortcoming of Walrasian theory is there is no model of how equilibrium market clearing prices are reached, the model proposes an “auctioneer” who finds the right set of prices so that supply matches demand. In the real world there is no auctioneer, firms just guess at the right price and adjust if they have too little or too many goods. The efficient allocation of resources (which can be mathematically proved given the underlying assumptions) depends on the prices being correct, but nobody has a good theory of why prices would necessarily be guessed correctly.

              There are many other problems such as wage and price stickiness (the tendency for wages and prices to not fall).

              As I said sociology I am less familiar with but it seems that social norms are not fixed so that understanding the social structure would be a moving target.

              As I believe I said the idea is a nice one, we can do the best we can with the models we have. The attempt to model global climate is a pretty daunting task, combining several different models together from many different disciplines in an overarching model of everything would be an interesting challenge and no doubt worth pursuing. My point was that this will be difficult and I am pessimistic that a consensus could be reached on the best model. I suppose we could have about 50 different models and just take the ensemble mean.

          • hightrekker23 says:

            Scarily right on.

        • Ezrydermike says:

          faith?, not necessarilly but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be studied. I mean look how far we’ve come with oi future’s, resources and future production. Or for that matter just about and economic model.

          But we have many models that can predict outcomes, but are they any good?

          I guess I need to go back to Conscilience.

          PS> Keep plugging away on yours!

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi EzryderMike,

        Read the paper.

        The ideas are excellent, creating the actual working model with bidirectional coupling of all of those different factors will be a challenge.

        Hi Gone Fishing,

        I think the model being proposed is a couple of orders of magnitude more complex than the LTG, doesn’t mean it cannot be done, but it will take quite a bit of work to implement and will be so complex there will be about 10 people in the World that understand the entire model. It would be cool to be one of those 10, but there are few people that have a complete understanding of geophysics, economics, demography, agriculture, sociology, material science, biology, ecology, and ….

        so I remain pessimistic, though Doug the optimist can’t understand that position. 🙂

        • GoneFishing says:

          Unlike 1970 we have more than an IBM 360 or PDP-10 to work with. Our computational ability is orders of magnitude greater as is our information gathering ability.

          I bet after a decade of study, model building and trials, the answers will be about the same as we have now. Stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere! Reduce consumption! Increase efficiency. Reduce population. Increase preserved natural areas. Stop being stupid.
          The result: ten more years gone.

          • hightrekker23 says:

            I must admit I worked with the IBM 360 (and 1620).
            It is amazing the results they achieved in Limits to Growth.

            But the feedbacks are immense, which I think is Dennis point.

            • GoneFishing says:

              That was always my line, has Dennis moved over to the dark side?

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Gone fishing,

                I believe that you are correct, that we know what to do and should do it. My problem with social science models is that they are not really ready for prime time, the principle of having bidirectional feedback between models is great, we have the computer power, no doubt, maybe we can use AI to develop the models because the task seems pretty daunting.

                No reason to wait for such a model, use what we have and try to think about the feedbacks. Interesting points about per capita carbon emissions for the top 1% or 10% of the World’s population in that paper, it makes carbon taxes seem like a no brainer, most of the tax would be paid by the wealthy. If we could get the biggest consumers to reduce their carbon emissions it would have the biggest impact, the top 10 % of consumers are responsible for about 90% of carbon emissions, if those people cut back, say they cut their carbon emissions in half, that would be a big chunk of the problem. There are of course many other problems, all can be potentially addressed with appropriate policies, the most important of which is better access to birth control, better educational opportunities for women, and equal rights for women. More non-fossil fuel energy, more rapid development of emerging economies and greater equality in income, better care for the environment, less pollution are some other areas for better policy.

                Better models would be nice as well.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Ummmm Dennis, the top 10 percent are not really bothered by a tax, they have large disposable incomes so would not need to change much.
                  Much of the energy use in the US is by commercial and industrial companies. They will fight any tax and will pass on the taxes to consumers. Also, those that can will leave or move portions of their operations to lower tax countries.
                  Much of the carbon problem goes away with use of PV, wind power, and electric transportation. So one of the ways to encourage real change is to give incentives to all that and simultaneously remove any tax breaks for fossil fuels. Also forcing vehicle manufacturers to reach even higher mpg standards will make them shift quickly to hybrids and plug-in EV’s.

                  The real problem with all this is the general political stance to increase and aid fossil fuel production, as well as reduce any environmental laws that inhibit the production and burning of fossil fuels. So I don’t see any major shift happening right now. Maybe in a few years, but even then the corporate hold on government is deep and strong.
                  Probably the biggest mistake made lately was giving corporations citizenship as far as political funding.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Gone Fishing,

                    The wealthy may decide they want to avoid paying taxes, they usually go to great lengths to pay as little as possible. The tax will indeed be passed on to consumers and the wealthy consume the most so they will pay the largest share, businesses that reduce their use of carbon will have lower costs, will be able to either charge lower prices to gain market share or will have greater profits to invest and expand (probably some of both). As far as businesses moving off shore, any goods manufactured in other countries (whether by US firms or not) will pay an import tax to account for the “embodied” carbon emissions of the imported good.

                    I agree also that subsidies to the fossil fuel industry should be eliminated (master limited partnerships and other tax breaks) and subsidies to wind and solar an nuclear should likewise be eliminated to create a level playing field (this may be the only way to get a carbon tax passed in the US).

                    It would also help if other nations charged carbon taxes on US products that they import (possibly this is already done) and maybe they could double the tax on those nations that don’t put a carbon tax on their own goods as a “nuisance tax” which might put pressure on bad actors like the US.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          It would be cool to be one of those 10, but there are few people that have a complete understanding of geophysics, economics, demography, agriculture, sociology, material science, biology, ecology, and ….

          Yeah, but humans are so last century! We now have enhanced humans with AI expert systems and AI deep learning neural nets and we can build systems such as these for each of those disciplines… Case in point:

          PGS, a leading marine geophysical company, is running machine learning algorithms on its Cray XC40™ supercomputer, nicknamed “Abel.” Machine learning technologies such as regularization and steering can be applied to a significant computational problem in seismic exploration – Full Waveform Inversion (FWI), which is a methodology that seeks to find a high-resolution, high-fidelity representation of the subsurface in the ultra-deep Gulf of Mexico.

          “This class of problems is notoriously hard,” said Dr. Sverre Brandsberg-Dahl, global chief geophysicist for Imaging and Engineering, at PGS. “It is a multidimensional ill-posed optimization problem that is far from automated and requires lots of skilled resources’ intervention – sometimes more art than science in many cases. Our Cray XC40 system was able to learn how to best steer refracted and diving waves for deep model updates and how best to reproduce the sharp salt boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico. Machine learning at scale on our Cray supercomputer showed dramatic improvement in the quality of the inversion process as compared to current state-of-the-art FWI.

          And that, is just the tip of the iceberg. Pun intended 😉

  25. islandboy says:

    Florida Power & Light races to a solar future

    It’s an about-face the solar industry can certainly get behind.

    After last year’s contentious battles over two solar amendments, including one backed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) that would have restricted solar growth in the state (the effort, Amendment 1, was soundly defeated by voters in November), the utility has opened the throttle on its own solar development, promising to add eight new solar plants by early next year.

    The utility made the announcement at an event celebrating FPL’s three latest solar plants – FPL Manatee Solar Energy Center, FPL Citrus Solar Energy Center and FPL Babcock Ranch Solar Energy Center – all of which were commissioned late last year.

    Building on the success of those plants, FPL is planning to build eight new plants by early 2018 – comprising more than 2.5 million solar panels. The utility claims that its ability to deliver solar on such a large scale makes its solar energy more affordable than distributed-generation solar arrays. It says the new plants will save FPL ratepayers millions of dollars over their functional life.

    Together, the plants will have 596 MW of capacity, which could power approximately 120,000 homes. Though specific locations have not been announced yet, they will be located near Gainesville in north-central Florida, as well as near Sarasota on the Gulf Coast.

    Bold mine. Interesting!

  26. islandboy says:

    Why Big Oil Is Unprepared For The Coming Energy War

    Recently, I gave a presentation on the future of energy to an audience of about 250 oil and gas professionals. Halfway through, I asked the carbon crowd to, “Raise your hand if you have driven an electric vehicle.”

    It took me less than five seconds to squint and visually sift out the elevated hands.

    Five adventuresome people, or about 2 percent of the audience acknowledged that they had taken a ride on a lithium horse.

    “Isn’t that a bit disconcerting?” I asked. “By now all of you in the room should be aware that new-age electric vehicles represent the first meaningful threat to your monopoly in powering the transportation market.”

    I went on to ask, “Don’t you think you should at least go to a Tesla, Nissan or BMW dealership and test drive the looming adversary?”


    I wasn’t surprised by the results of my straw poll. Hear-nothing, see-nothing attitudes are common within entrenched industries that have long forgotten how to fight for market share.

    Over 150 years ago, early oil companies sold “rock oil” for kerosene lanterns, duking it out in the market to light homes and factories. The incumbent competitors were coal-gas, whale oil and candle companies. It was a full-on market share battle between lighting systems. And by the 20th century, all of them were losing out to Edison’s incandescent bulb (powered by coal-fired electricity).

    By the numbers, lighting lanterns was a small market compared to what was emerging: Turning gears and wheels with internal combustion engines. That mega-market kick started in 1908 with Ford’s Model T; since then it’s been an invincible business for the oil industry.

    In trying to explain the low results of my audience poll, I wondered about the long-term effects of five or six generations of petroleum workers cycling into, and retiring from a century-long, monopolistic transportation paradigm. Had that evolution softened the industry’s competitive edge?

    Whatever the reasons, it’s hard to excuse such competitive apathy, but my dissertation wasn’t finished.

    Inside EVs has their own take:

    Tesla Will Lead Electric Cars To True Competition With Big Oil


    Tesla Motors continues to lead the electric vehicle revolution. The Tesla Model S was 2016’s best selling electric vehicle in the US. Between the Model S and X, Tesla owns nearly 30% market share of all electric vehicles sold in this country. And, it’s not just the US. It turns out that the Tesla Model S was the best-selling plug-in electric car worldwide. That said, could Elon Musk and Tesla Motors lead an electric vehicle revolution that could eventually pose a threat to Big Oil? And… does Big Oil see any threat coming?

    *This article comes to us courtesy of Evannex (which also makes aftermarket Tesla accessories). Authored by Matt Pressman.

    Investors sense that change is coming. The Financial Times reported that the threat of electric cars could create an ‘investor death spiral’ for oil companies. In the meantime, Tesla Motors stock has been steadily rising. Oil Price* just reported on the EV threat citing, “gains in battery technologies – energy density, power density and cost reduction – [which] are even more impressive” especially when you consider that projects like Tesla’s Gigafactory have just started producing battery cells.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Oil Price* just reported on the EV threat citing, “gains in battery technologies – energy density, power density and cost reduction – [which] are even more impressive” especially when you consider that projects like Tesla’s Gigafactory have just started producing battery cells.

      Tesla is considering building up to five Gigafactories, the company said in its fourth-quarter investor letter on Wednesday. Tesla is currently building Gigafactory 1 in Sparks, Nevada that is slated to operate in full capacity in 2018. The Gigafactory is Tesla’s massive battery cell production facility.

      The automaker said it is currently finalizing locations for two additional Gigafactories, potentially three. That means Tesla could have five Gigafactories in total, counting its solar plant in Buffalo, New York that it acquired when it bought SolarCity in a deal worth $2.1 billion.

      And Tesla, is by far from being the only game in town!
      10 Biggest Electric Car Battery Manufacturers Are…

      Which makes the Trump administration’s push for giving fossil fuel businesses more incentives through deregulation, tax exemption subsidies, making environmental regulations more lax, etc… etc… look like a very poor business decision at this time. It shows a very myopic vision and understanding of the all the disruptive technologies that are already well underway and picking up steam with each passing day!

      If I were a betting man, my money would not be on fossil fuels at this point!

  27. islandboy says:

    Australian solar market news for 2016

    Battery Installations in 2016 exceeded 6750, SunWiz research finds

    SunWiz today released the results of its extensive surveys, interviews, and research into the Australian market for energy storage.

    SunWiz’s research concludes that there were at 6750 battery installations in 2016, totalling 52MWh. To put this into context, there were 130,000 installations of solar power systems in 2016, meaning that effectively 5% of solar installations included batteries in the past year.

    Says Warwick Johnston, Managing Director of SunWiz “6750 installations in 2016 represents exceptional growth in the Australian battery market, coming off the back of 500 battery installations in 2015. What makes it all the more impressive is that most installations occurred in the latter part of the year, setting up 2017 to be another year of remarkable growth”. Johnston says “SunWiz expects the market to treble in 2017, suggesting 15% of new solar installations will include energy storage this year.”

    New South Wales was the #1 location for battery installations, followed closely by Queensland. South Australia has the most favourable market for battery installations, owing to large amounts of sunlight, high electricity prices, and subsidy programs from government, AGL, and SAPN – all of which contribute towards some solar-storage systems having 7-year paybacks before subsidy..

    Solar Highlights – a recordbreaking 2016

    At one point, 2016 looked like an abysmal year for Australian solar. But 2016 turned out to be record breaking year for solar, in many regards. You’ll get all the information you need here, but here are some of the highlights.

    Though the headline utility-scale figures indicate a come-down of mammoth proportions, it was always going to be impossible to fill the gap left by Nyngan, Broken Hill, and Moree – heavily-subsided projects over five years in the making. However, if we exclude systems exceeding 20MW (Baracaldine being the only project last year above this threshold), there was actually significant growth. There was a record volume of systems in the 5-20MW range: Mugga Lane, Williamsdale, and Dugrussa (Sandfire), as well as growth in every other size category above 100kW.

    Commercial systems in the 10-100kW range had a lacklustre start to the year, but finished strongly with a record 27MW of systems in the 10-100kW range installed in December alone – 32% of STC systems exceeded 10kW in the final month of the year. As a result the average system size climbed to a record high, finishing the year at 6.25kW/system (for sub-100kW systems). Greatest growth was seen in the 75-100kW range, and the image below shows a skyrocketing level of installations of 100kW systems in December 2016.

    Electricity price rises are the talk of the town in states like WA and Queensland, and are again driving interest in solar power. As a result, residential PV underwent a bit of a renaissance, at least in WA where it drove the market 33% higher than 2015’s values, in the process setting a new record for annual installation volume (all without a feed-in tariff or STC multiplier reduction) – as seen below.

  28. Doug Leighton says:

    More energy related news:


    “This is really challenging our current understanding of the ‘accretion’ process for high-luminosity stars. It is 1000 times more luminous than the maximum thought possible for an accreting neutron star, so something else is needed in our models in order to account for the enormous amount of energy released by the object.”

    This guy is 50 million light-years away!

    • Doug Leighton says:



      “NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope has revealed the first known system of seven Earth-size planets around a single star. Three of these planets are firmly located in the habitable zone, the area around the parent star where a rocky planet is most likely to have liquid water.”

      And, these guys are just 40 light-years from here.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Only 40 light years away and we have not picked up any transmissions from them. Probably a lot smarter than us then, they don’t watch TV or listen to the radio.

      • Synapsid says:


        Could be a dodgy neighborhood. Red dwarfs can be feisty and given to flares.

        About 84 times the mass of Jupiter and 2550K surface temperature, that little star. It barely makes it into star-hood. It would be interesting to visit but prospects for tourist development are not hopeful.

        It would be neat to look up from one of the planets and see other planets, though. That would look like a 1950s-era comic book illustration.

        No port in the house. (shambles away muttering)

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          How far away are they from each other and would they look more like stars?
          In any case, maybe there’s a bit of your counterpart on one of those planets suggesting something similar about how it would be to look up and ‘only’ see our moon. Maybe their comic book illustrations look like our system.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Fire up the warp drive Scotty! 🙂

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        Here’s the original article, apparently, and with a composite pic I put together from a couple from The Verge site.

        Of course if anarchists had their way, we might already be halfway there– or there– by now, and with a terraformed Mars and new moon pulled from the asteroid belt to replace Phobos and Diemos, and geosynchronous orbitting ‘liquid hydrocarbon’ tankers from Titan, docked near space elevators.

        Every Scientist Should Be An Anarchist

        @Synapsid: Are stars like those very stable and long-lived, even more so than our own, though?

        I Look Like I Am From Space
        Satellite Anthem Icarus

        • Synapsid says:


          The lower the mass the longer the lifetime of a star, and M-class stars, red dwarfs, are the lowest-mass of them all.

          Every M-class that ever formed since the Big Bang should still be around unless it had the misfortune to be in a binary with a much more massive star that went red giant and expanded to where the M star could steal enough mass from it to attain 1.4 solar masses total and go supernova.

    • JN2 says:

      Cool, thanks Doug. But this pulsar is less than 0.5% of the way to galaxy EGS-zs8-1?
      [13.1 billion light years away…]

      This place is big!

      • [13.1 billion light years away…]

        No, it was 13.1 billion light years away 13.1 billion years ago. It’s a whole lot further now.

        • Doug Leighton says:

          No, a light-year is a unit of length used by astronomers to express distances. Because it includes the word “year”, the term light-year is sometimes (often) misinterpreted as a unit of time. The unit usually used in professional astronomy is the parsec if you want to be picky (one light-year = about 0.3 parsec).

          • Doug, Doug, please think about what you are saying. You just couldn’t have thought about this for very long or else you would not have made such a silly error. Yes, a light year is a unit of distance. But it takes light one year to travel the distance of one light year. That’s why they call it a light year. 😉

            Doug, When you look at the sun, you are seeing it as it existed 8 minutes ago because it is 8 light minutes distance from earth. When you look at Sirius, you are seeing it as it existed 8 years ago because it is 8 light years from us. When you look at Betelgeuse, you are seeing it as it existed 640 years ago. (It could have went supernova 500 years ago and we wouldn’t even know it yet.) When you look at the galaxy EGS-zs8-1, you are seeing as it existed and where it existed 13.1 billion years ago.

            Using the term “parsec” is just silly. I don’t just hate that word, I hate it with a passion. Astronomical distances will be expressed a lot better, and much more clearly understood, when the word is dropped completely from use.

            Here is another person who hates the word “parsec” almost as much as I do. Old astronomy conventions and words

            Another one is how we measure astronomical distances. The parsec is useful when conveying distances calculated from parallactic angle measurements but I believe it is far too commonly used in place of the simpler to understand lightyear. It takes me only a minute or two to explain to someone what a lightyear means, but takes far longer to explain what a parsec is. When distance is quoted in lightyears, one immediately knows the light travel time from the object to the earth. The unit is even scalable to minutes or seconds when dealing with objects in our own solar system (ie. the sun is about 8 lightminutes away) I must admit that the majority (if not all) professional publications I have read use parsecs, while the lightyear is used for popular astronomy literature, videos, ect. but I still feel the lightyear is the better unit to use in measuring astronomical distances.

            The term “light year” is far better because it not only tells us how far the star or galaxy is, it also tells us how long ago it was in this stage we are witnessing and at this place we are seeing it. Of course the term “parsec” also does this if you happen to have a calculator in your hand.

            • Doug Leighton says:

              “If you are looking at a galaxy 13.1 billion years distant, then you are seeing it as it was, and where it was, 13.1 billion years ago.”

              Sorry Ron, not withstanding relativistic effects, you measure recession (represented by z) through displacement of spectral lines (red shift). Of course, decrease in wavelength (blue shift) is also possible and is generally seen when the light-emitting object moves toward an observer. So, I stand by my original comment that a light year refers strictly to distance; obviously if you’re looking at something 13 billion light years off you’re seeing it as at was a billion years ago. The neutron star is hosted by spiral galaxy NGC 5907 ((redshift = 0.002225; distance = 53.5 ± 8.1 Mly (million light years)). So the object in question has been determined to be about 50 million light years from Earth. You don’t just qualify every distance by saying “you are seeing it as it was, and where it was, XX billion years ago”. I expect the distance to NGC 5907, which was discovered in 1788 by Herschel and is notable for supernova 1940 A, has been especially well determined and that is what the astronomers will be quoting.

              • Of course, decrease in wavelength (blue shift) is also possible and is generally seen when the light-emitting object moves toward an observer.

                Every galaxy in the universe except Andromeda is moving away from us. (Of course I am excluding small dwarf galaxies in the neighborhood of the Milky Way.) And the further away they are from us, the faster they are moving. It is called the “Hubble Constant”.

                Surprise! The Universe Is Expanding Faster Than Scientists Thought
                The new, unprecedentedly precise value for the Hubble constant comes out to 45.5 miles (73.2 kilometers) per second per megaparsec. (One megaparsec is equivalent to 3.26 million light-years.) Therefore, the distance between cosmic objects should double 9.8 billion years from now, the researchers said.

                That comes out to be 14.09 miles per second per light year. That is the Hubble constant. That is how fast space is expanding. Nothing further away than the Andromeda has a blue shift. Everything is moving away from us at the rate of the Hubble constant.

                obviously if you’re looking at something 13 billion light years off you’re seeing it as at was a billion years ago.

                Oh my goodness. You can’t be serious! You are not seeing it as it was a billion years ago. You are seeing it as it was 13 billion years ago. How did you arrive at a billion years ago? How did you get 13 billion years down to 1 billion years? Is there something about the Hubble constant that I have not heard about?

                Yes, yes, a light year is a unit of distance. But it takes light exactly one year to travel one light year. If you are looking at a galaxy 13 billion light years distant, then it took that light 13 billion years to reach us.

                And that galaxy is obviously not there anymore. 13 billion years ago it was moving away from us at the rate of 183,157,000,000 miles per second. But it is obviously moving away from us much faster now as it rate of recession increases by 14.09 miles per second for every light year away from us that it travels.

                • Doug Leighton says:

                  “obviously if you’re looking at something 13 billion light years off you’re seeing it as at was a billion years ago.” A typo, obviously.

                  “…13 billion years ago it was moving away from us at the rate of 183,157,000,000 miles per second.” How could a galaxy be moving away from us at slightly under the speed of light? Besides the fact that our galaxy didn’t exist 13 billion years ago.

                  • Oh, you are now agreeing with me? Or not? Please tell me where you disagree. I am saying that that galaxy that was 13 billion light years distant was then moving away from us at the rate of the Hubble constant. It was moving away from us then!

                    Hubble finds universe may be expanding faster than expected

                    The improved Hubble constant value is 73.2 kilometers per second per megaparsec. (A megaparsec equals 3.26 million light-years.) The new value means the distance between cosmic objects will double in another 9.8 billion years.

                    That means that that galaxy that was 13 billion light years away 13 billion years ago is over twice as far away today.

                    Okay, just tell me where you disagree?

                  • OKAY, this should settle the argument once and for all. Bold Mine.

                    Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light

                    Some of the misunderstandings surrounding this topic might come from confusion over what is meant by the universe “expanding faster than the speed of light.” However, for the simplest interpretation of your question, the answer is that the universe does expand faster than the speed of light, and, perhaps more surprisingly, some of the galaxies we can see right now are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light! As a consequence of their great speeds, these galaxies will likely not be visible to us forever; some of them are right now emitting their last bit of light that will ever be able to make it all the way across space and reach us (billions of years from now). After that, we will observe them to freeze and fade, never to be seen again.

                    And our galaxy, very likely, did exist 13 billion years ago. A very young galaxy, of course, but most galaxies had already formed then. Don’t confuse the age of the galaxy with the age of the solar system, about 4.6 billion years.

                  • Doug Leighton says:

                    expanding faster than the speed of light = bullshit or physics (far) beyond the likes of you and I. And no I’m not agreeing with you because you’re resorting to using circular arguments but as a closing comment: I’m used to seeing the Hubble Constant expressed as km/s/Mpc or km/sec per million-light-years but realize Yanks still prefer feet and miles etc. Since it’s your Blog and US based at that I respect your choice of units. Have a nice day.

                  • expanding faster than the speed of light = bullshit or physics (far) beyond the likes of you and I

                    The web site I quoted was from Cornell University, an Ivy League U. It is not bullshit. And I am not using circular argument. All I am saying is that light travels exactly one light year in one year. That is not circular reasoning, that is just common sense.

                    Just google “can space expand at faster than the speed of light” and you will get hundreds of hits explaining how space can expand faster than the speed of light. Here is Wikipedia:
                    Metric expansion of space

                    While special relativity prohibits objects from moving faster than light with respect to a local reference frame where spacetime can be treated as flat and unchanging, it does not apply to situations where spacetime curvature or evolution in time become important. These situations are described by general relativity, which allows the separation between two distant objects to increase faster than the speed of light, although the definition of “distance” here is somewhat different to that used in an inertial frame. The definition of distance used here is the summation or integration of local comoving distances, all done at constant local proper time. For example, galaxies that are more than the Hubble radius, approximately 4.5 gigaparsecs or 14.7 billion light-years, away from us have a recession speed that is faster than the speed of light. Visibility of these objects depends on the exact expansion history of the universe. Light that is emitted today from galaxies beyond the cosmological event horizon, about 5 gigaparsecs or 16 billion light-years, will never reach us, although we can still see the light that these galaxies emitted in the past.

                    While nothing can move faster than the speed of light, the universe can expand faster than the speed of light.

                    Hey Doug, don’t take my word for it. Just google it and read one of the hundreds of web sites that explains it. It does not mean “travel” faster than the speed of light, it means that the universe is “expanding” faster than the speed of light. That is not the same thing.

                    And that is just not that hard to understand.

  29. GoneFishing says:

    Paul Beckwith talks about taking action, not despair.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Ok, but I’m not a big fan of deliberately releasing releasing massive amounts of sulfur particulates into the atmosphere to supposedly cool things down a bit and mitigate arctic sea ice loss. I don’t think we know enough about the environmental consequences to glibly state this is something we can safely do. To me that is just as unscientific as stating that all of humanity will be extinct in a decade. Seems to me that if nothing else, that might exacerbate problems like ocean acidification which in turn might set off unforeseen ecological chain reactions. Note, I am not saying we should do nothing. I’m highly aware that we are already in the midst of a long term geoengineering experiment due to our massive releases of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Based on how that experiment is proceeding at present, I would like to proceed with extreme caution before we start fiddling with a couple more control knobs that we really don’t know all that much about… Let’s Read The Fucking Manual, first!

      • GoneFishing says:

        From reading between the lines, I think Beckwith is very concerned about what is happening in the Arctic.
        Whether or not aerosol cloud forming would do much is unknown. The Arctic is a complex interaction of sunlight, warm ocean water from the south and warm air from the south. Also it has a lot of cloud cover already. Aerosols just might initiate more rain events and pull more water vapor and warm air north.
        I doubt if the world can afford a massive long term experiment like cloud forming. We will be too busy trying to transistion away from fossil fuels and feed the large population.
        In the meantime, over the next few decades, we will probably burn just as much fossil fuel as we burned previously.
        Climate engineering would involve a fairly global organization and consensus. It would not have immediate effects, so the bad things happening would undermine it’s continued use. Unless we have a world dictator I doubt if human societies will get that organized, Better to work at the local, state and national levels on options.
        Not sure our efforts will do much to deter climate change, but we have a lot of other problems to deal with right now too.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Better to work at the local, state and national levels on options.

          I don’t think that trying to solve global problems with a local or nationalistic outlook can work.

          I had previously posted a link to this TED talk:
          Yuval Noah Harari: Nationalism vs. globalism: the new political divide

          To be clear Yuval states that we have don’t currently have any models or any precedent to solving our current set of global problems with nationalistic thinking. I tend to agree with him when he says that attempting to solve global issues with a nationalist tool kit will fail because those solutions are not at the correct level.

          In a similar way I think we probably can’t continue to try to run our 21st century digital economy on a 13th century printing press operating system. I have posted links to Douglas Rushkoff’s book and Youtube videos of his talks titled ‘Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus’

          Both Rushkoff and Harari touch on very similar points with regards AI and robots eliminating traditional jobs with no substitutes available for the majority of the world’s populations anywhere on the long term horizon with enormous consequences for the global economy. I also think this is all intimately tied to the technological disruptions that Tony Seba talks about.

          It seems to be ever more apparent that the old order is quickly being turned on it’s head and solutions that used to work whether they be Nations, political systems, the growth based economy, social safety nets, etc, etc… are turning out to be woefully inadequate to deal with what is facing us in the relatively near term.

          Case in point when I read the discussion on this very site under the petroleum related posts. Quite frankly I more often than not just roll my eyes and ask myself, are these people really serious?!

          Anyways, I apologize for ranting. My goal tonight is to re-read E.O. Wilson’s Half Earth… or maybe take in a couple of lectures on genomics.
          Perhaps this one:

          The Genomic Landscape circa 2016 – Eric Green


  30. Oldfarmermac says:

    Self explanatory excerpt from this Gaurdian article based on top university research:

    Eating up to 800g of fruit and vegetables – equivalent to 10 portions and double the recommended amount in the UK – was associated with a 24% reduced risk of heart disease, a 33% reduced risk of stroke, a 28% reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, a 13% reduced risk of total cancer, and a 31% reduction in premature deaths.

    (It IS possible to buy a certain measure of good health when you go grocery shopping.

    Note that apples receive a VERY favorable mention. ;-))

    And not all fruit and veg are created equal. Apples and pears, citrus fruits, salads and green leafy vegetables such as spinach, lettuce and chicory, and cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower were found to be best at preventing heart disease and stroke.

    New GP leader calls for rethink of ‘expensive’ five-a-day goal

    Read more
    To reduce the risk of cancer, however, the menu should include green vegetables, such as green beans; yellow and orange vegetables such as peppers and carrots; and cruciferous vegetables.

    The researchers did not find any difference between the protective effects of cooked and raw fruit and vegetables.

    “Fruit and vegetables have been shown to reduce cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and to boost the health of our blood vessels and immune system,” said Aune. “This may be due to the complex network of nutrients they hold. For instance they contain many antioxidants, which may reduce DNA damage, and lead to a reduction in cancer risk.”

  31. Doug Leighton says:

    Je suis coupable :


    “They are shooting themselves in the foot, they are not taking into account that increased harvesting of trees will actually have an impact on the role that forests play as a carbon sink.”

    I’ve often wondered about the so-called “neutrality” of burning wood for heat which is almost done universally where I live. Burning wood pellets is fairly common as well; at least I’m not guilty of that.

    • GoneFishing says:

      People just cannot get the fact that a 60 to 100 year pulse of extra CO2 will continuously exist in the atmosphere due to biomass burning, even if regrowth starts to match burn. That is extra CO2 that adds to global warming.
      Just think of it as a continuously burning and advancing forest fire. Sure the forest behind it will eventually regrow, but the atmosphere now has that output from the fire. It takes decades for a young tree to capture what has been put in the atmosphere by burning one tree.
      Plus, we wreck the ecology of the forests. There is a lot going on in the soil as far as carbon goes and when you keep foresting the rest of the biome gets diminished or eradicated.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        Well said Fish. This is probably (perhaps) a seriously under-reported fact. How many self righteous hippies imagine themselves saving the planet with their fancy wood burning stoves and even more inefficient fireplaces — moi inclus?

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          It’s not just burning trees, and the long lived resulting CO2 bulge that’s so scary, from my perspective.

          The whole entire biofuel concept keeps me awake at night. If the technology could be properly controlled, from the environmental perspective, biofuels would be ok, but naked apes aren’t very good at restraining themselves, either as individuals or collectively.

          If we ever get HOOKED on bio fuels, there will be no turning back, because we won’t have the brains and the political will needed to reverse course. Down that road lies an ecological disaster as bad as any you are apt to imagine. A billion cars running on ethanol………. made from farm raised plants……….

          It’s absolutely, totally, indisputably necessary to transition to an economy based directly on renewable energy, skipping the BIO step.

          Given progress has been so breathtakingly fast over the last decade, I now believe we CAN make the transition,with a little luck, if we have the will power to stay on the job.

          But we need to focus more of the conversation on efficiency and conservation, in relative terms, especially when talking to folks who are not yet well informed about fossil fuel depletion, renewable energy, climate, etc.

  32. Doug Leighton says:


    In a new study published today in Nature, researchers from UCL (University College London), University of Cambridge and University of Louvain have combined existing ideas to solve the problem of which solar energy peaks in the last 2.6 million years led to the melting of the ice sheets and the start of a warm period. “The basic idea is that there is a threshold for the amount of energy reaching high northern latitudes in summer. Above that threshold, the ice retreats completely and we enter an interglacial.”

    • GoneFishing says:

      Too late Nathan, we just changed the rules. 🙂

    • Javier says:

      A very interesting article indeed.

      I just read it and essentially supports every point that I made in my article:

      In particular they introduce a new rule for defining interglacials and come up with the same interglacials that I identified in my article:

      “A period is an interglacial if its isotopic value is below a threshold. Two isotopic minima (for example, MIS 15e and 15a) are separate intergla- cials if there is a local maximum above a second threshold between them; otherwise, the second isotopic minimum forms a continued interglacial (for example, MIS 7a is a continuation of MIS 7c), without a glacial termination or interglacial onset (Extended Data Figs 1–3 and Supplementary Table 1). An important aspect of this definition is the occurrence of more than one interglacial within an isotope stage—a divergence from traditional assumptions about the temporal spacing of interglacials. As a result, interglacials of the past 800 kyr (Fig. 1) do not occur every 100 kyr and are not always preceded by one of the traditionally numbered glacial terminations defined over this interval.”

      The 100 kyr cycle is just another myth in climatology. It is nice to see my views on climate confirmed by the specialists.

      Their figure 2 is very, very similar to my figure 12, and they define the obliquity windows for interglacials in the same way I do:

      “The onset of every interglacial occurs during intervals of above-average obliquity (>23.3°; grey shading in Fig. 2)”

      An interesting conclusion of their work is that MIS 3, 50,000 years ago was very, very close to have become an interglacial, in which case we would be now in an interstadial within a glacial period. Human history would have been completely different. Either advanced civilization would have developed 40,000 years ago or would still be 30,000 years in the future.

      • tl;dr;

        Nobody cares about processes that occur over the span of thousands of years when we have rapid increases of CO2 over the span of decades.

        • Javier says:

          You don’t, but enough people care that they get their research published in Nature, while you don’t get yours published anywhere. Yet somehow you try to diminish their merit. Typical.

          • Javier,
            This is getting tiresome. Every time you complain that I have not been published, I will list a citation. First one:

            Molecular beam epitaxy of metastable, diamond structure Sn[x]Ge[1−x] alloys
            P. R. Pukite, Alex Harwit, and S. S. Iyer
            Appl. Phys. Lett. 54, 2142 (1989)

            This work described the first crystal grown of a column IV semiconductor with a direct band-gap. The idea was to lay the foundation for creating an infrared emitter such as a laser or LED on a silicon substrate.

            More where that came from.

            … your turn ?

            • Javier says:

              Irrelevant to climatology. Certainly a lot more irrelevant to climatology than a study about the causes of Interglacials (we live in one) within the present Quaternary Ice Age.

              You are always boasting about being better than Lindzen and Curry, understanding ENSO better than anybody else, and having a really good ENSO model. An article on materials applied physics doesn’t support any of that.

  33. Javier says:

    Another climate prediction that doesn’t come to pass. With global warming the climate is becoming less extreme. Not more extreme.

    Study shows China’s severe weather patterns changing drastically since 1960

    “In one of the most comprehensive studies on trends in local severe weather patterns to date, an international team of researchers found that the frequency of hail storms, thunderstorms and high wind events has decreased by nearly 50 percent on average throughout China since 1960.”

    Decreasing trend in severe weather occurrence over China during the past 50 years
    Qinghong Zhang, Xiang Ni & Fuqing Zhang
    Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 42310 (2017)doi:10.1038/srep42310

    This prediction never made any sense to me. Severe weather events are a side effect of a large equator-polar thermal gradient that causes winds to move at higher speeds. Global warming, by reducing the equator-polar thermal gradient, should produce a tamer weather. This is what we are observing.

    Global warming: saving lives since the Little Ice Age.

  34. HuntingtonBeach says:

    Donald Trump Promised To Build Infrastructure, Delays Bay Area Railway Project Instead

    Trump’s newly appointed transportation secretary, Elaine Chao ― who oversees the Federal Transit Administration ― has slammed the brakes on the project, which would change the diesel-powered trains to electric and cost about $2 billion, according to SF Gate.

    Last Friday, Chao halted the $647 million federal grant that helps cover the project until an audit can be completed. Caltrain has already selected contractors to get started on construction by March 1. If they aren’t able to get started by that date, the bidding process will begin all over again ― and likely at a much higher cost.

    But on Jan. 24, 14 Republican members of the California GOP sent a letter to Chao, saying the cost of the project was too high and would not attract private financing.

    “I never imagined that the electrification of a train would be subjected to such brutal, partisan politics,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) in a statement. “This is not a Democratic project nor is it a Republican project. It is about the modernization of an outdated commuter system that is the spine of the transportation system of the Peninsula and the Silicon Valley region.”

    Caltrain officials are asking Trump to intervene and direct the FTA to fund the electrification process of the existing Caltrain system. They say the project would create 9,600 jobs.

    Remember come 2018 which side of the isle stopped jobs and the leader of the climate change revolution. This was never about emails OldMacDonald. It’s about the Republican fossil fuel industry.

    There is a sucker born every minute

  35. Javier says:

    Something curious.

    The Guardian: Queensland solar homes are using more grid electricity than non-solar, says Energex boss

    “Solar-powered homes in south-east Queensland, which boasts the world’s highest concentration of rooftop panels, have begun consuming on average more electricity from the grid than those without solar, the network operator has found.

    Terry Effeney, the chief executive of state-owned power distributor Energex, said the trend – which belied the “green agenda” presumed to drive those customers – was among the challenges facing a region that nevertheless stood the best chance globally of making solar the cornerstone of its electricity network.”

    Is it perhaps a reflection that people with solar panels have a higher purchasing power? This should clearly be taken into account when designing subsidies policies. Otherwise the people that use less electricity will be subsidizing the people that use more.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Much more interesting. Look Ma! No grid required at all!

      Decentralized renewable energy has traditionally been under-estimated in emerging markets as only being capable of delivering electricity for home use, and then mostly for basic lighting. “Productive use”—creating goods and services either directly or indirectly for the production of income or value—has been more elusive.

      But the reality is that decentralized technologies such as microgrids have been powering businesses in remote areas of the United States, Australia and China for years, while micro-hydro is a mainstay of the Nepalese rural economy. Even the smallest solar lights are used to illuminate shops, help farmers tend their cattle and enable mobile phone charging businesses.
      With rapid market growth and increased investment in decentralized renewables, many companies are now accelerating their push into productive use solutions. This is resulting in the emergence of a “Micro-Enterprise Economy”.
      In Africa, Off-Grid Electric’s ‘business in a box’ is their latest innovation designed to catalyze micro-enterprises, and Mobisol is also extending it products to boost economic activity—a third of its customers already use their system for business purposes creating around $5 million per year in additional income. In Somalia, the Business Opportunities with Solar Systems (BOSS) initiative is focused on powering shops and restaurants with solar, and has moved from providing lighting, fans and blending to support for solar refrigeration, while in Mali, FRES has been using solar PV to develop rural trading hubs, supporting tailors, bakeries, radio stations, banks, game rooms, pharmacies, ICT services and commerce.

      • Ghung says:

        Give it up Fred. Gridweenies just don’t/won’t get it. When solar is what you have, you make it work, and I’ve made it do a lot. Ran a dog grooming business for years; now running a big greenhouse while my daughter runs her sewing/tailoring business part time. We never want for power and I haven’t paid a power bill in 20 years.
        Matters little, all things considered. The big meltdown is underway and none of their industrial age dreams will be viable. As Heinberg says, brace for impact. We’re politically, economically and ecologically fucked.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Hey Ghung, I know!

          One of the main things gridweenies can’t seem to fathom is that it is mostly the under served parts of the world where there never was a grid to begin with, that will simply leapfrog over that paradigm straight to distributed power generation. It just won’t make any economic sense for them to attempt to build out a grid.

          In a way there is a parallel to what happened with cell and smartphone communications networks. It was orders of magnitude cheaper to set those up as opposed to building out millions of miles of copper wire land lines.

          It wasn’t all that long ago that cellphones were considered toys for the rich…


  36. GoneFishing says:

    Energy efficiency program in the EU

    Towards reaching the 20% energy efficiency target for 2020, and beyond
    Europe has committed itself to increasing its energy efficiency by 20% by 2020. Reaching this target will require effort from all Member States. The EU has already significantly lowered its energy consumption, and has reduced its final energy consumption below the 2020 target:
    As regards final energy consumption (the use of energy by end users such as residential consumers, industry, services sector), Europe has already reached its 2020 target. In 2014 the EU consumed 1062 Mtoe, which is already 2.2% below the 2020 indicative energy consumption target of 1086 Mtoe. Final energy consumption dropped by 11% between 2005 and 2014.
    As regards primary energy consumption (including final energy consumption, the generation sectors as well as distribution losses), Europe has not yet reached its 2020 target (it used 1507 Mtoe in 2014: this is 1.6% above the target of 1483 Mtoe for 2020). Nonetheless, the EU is on the right path: primary energy consumption dropped by 12% between 2005 and 2014, even if primary energy consumption slightly increased from 2014 to 2015.

  37. GoneFishing says:

    After basking in the 30F above normal temps and considering putting away my winter clothing, I see that the same high is predicted for today again. No ice on the lake for a while now, no snow left anywhere. Spring a month ahead, makes for lots of dark waters and land to absorb heat and it is sunny. Above normal temps predicted for the week ahead.

    Still rising and no sign of stopping.

    Daily CO2
    February 20, 2017: 406.67 ppm
    February 20, 2016: 404.12 ppm

    • Javier says:

      Yet the Arctic is back to being very cold. Do you think it is somehow related? Are you simply transferring your alarmism from one place to another with weather temperatures?

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Yet the Arctic is back to being very cold.

        No it isn’t! These are not normal temperatures considering it is still winter in the Arctic.
        Arctic Weather Conditions
        Akranes 41°
        Akureyri 39°
        Attu -9°
        Breidhdalsvik 38°
        Fagurholsmyri 38°
        Gardhabaer 41°
        Hafnarfjordhur 41°
        Hof 38°
        Kangaamiut 8°
        Keflavik 39°
        Kopavogur 41°
        Nuuk 10°
        Paamiut 16°
        Reykjavik 41°
        Selfoss 41°
        Seydisfoerdur 37°
        Siorapaluk -19°
        Skeggjastadhir 36°
        Skinnastadhir 36°
        Tasiilaq 22°

      • chilyb says:

        Hi Javier,

        you have got to be kidding. Look at the graph.

        Something must be wrong with your brain! LOL

      • Javier says:

        According to DMI the average temperature North of 80°N is 245°K or -28°C which is in the average for this time of the year for 1958-2002.

        Not my fault if you have trouble with the graph or believe that some station data is to be trusted more than DMI data.

      • Javier says:

        ESRL NOAA agrees that the Arctic is quite cold today with most of it at temperatures between -20 and -35°C

        So what, we only believe the data when it is alarmist?

        • GoneFishing says:

          I see the villagers are wandering around drooling on themselves again.

  38. hightrekker23 says:

    I’m afraid any reasonably educated, rational, and unbiased adult (or younger) can understand what the climate science has been telling us now for two decades: the Earth is warming (so far by about 1 degree Celsius since 1800), slowly but surely, due to humans’ putting carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere, mainly through burning fossil fuels (gas, oil, and coal) and the byproducts of large-scale and animal-based agriculture. A good primer on this is Danny Chivers’ No-Nonsense Guide to Climate Change.

    Second – and it only takes a bit of sociological thinking here – we see that this is having massive negative effects on people’s well-being: floods, droughts, superstorms, rising sea-levels, loss of biodiversity, polluted cities, rivers, and oceans. This means homes lost, famine, early deaths, poor health, social disruptions, and conflicts (think wars, civil wars, overthrows of governments, and the like).

    Third, the governments and the economic elites of the world do not have this steadily worsening crisis under control. The Paris Agreement signed by 196 nations of the world in December 2015, offers no chance of containing global warming under the thresholds that science suggests must not be passed (above two degrees Celsius we can expect extremely dangerous disruption in all the living and social systems of the planet). We have already reached 1.4 degrees Celsius of inevitable warming (the extra .5 degree is guaranteed because there is a lag between the gases getting into the atmosphere and the warming that they cause). The Agreement is weak because it is not legally binding (each government made a “pledge” of what it would do in terms of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases, and there is no enforcement mechanism for failing to comply) and the pledges, even if all met, would still raise global temperatures in this century by around 3 degrees Celsius. A further devastating disappointment is the stinginess of the wealthy nations of the global North (historically responsible for most of the CO2 already in the atmosphere) in financing the renewable energy revolution that the under-resourced countries of the global South require (their emissions are growing, and China is the world leader now).

    Meanwhile, the fossil fuel corporations, some of which are the biggest in the history of the world, and one of whose former chairmen, Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil, is now U.S. secretary of state in the climate-denying Trump administration) have no plans to reduce their profits by keeping their assets in the ground. This spells catastrophe if they are not checked; what leading U.S. climate scientist James Hansen has called “Game over” for the planet. In 2012, U.S. climate activist Bill McKibben of the organization (350 parts per million being what scientists have established as the “safe” limit for controlling climate change – we are now at 405 and rising) calculated and others have since confirmed that the world’s carbon “budget” for staying under two degrees was about 565 gigatons of emissions, while the proven reserves of the fossil fuel companies and countries (some having nationalized their oil and gas as in the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela, among others) were around 2,795 gigatons at that time. In other words, these corporations have a business model that entails burning more than five times the amount of fossil fuels that the Earth handle. Since we currently emit over 30 gigatons per year (this is the number that must be reduced to zero before 2050) one can see that we have less than 20 years of “business-as-usual” before we pass into extremely dangerous climate territory. In fact, if one wants to hold to a more stringent, safer limit of 1.5 degrees, and wants to have a better than 80 percent chance of staying under that, we have more like nine years left till our climate’s tipping points loom large.

    So, given the inexorable and terrifying math of global warming, the incapacity of world governments to curtail it, and the determination of some of the richest economic entities on earth to bring it onto us, what are we to do?

    Any ideas?

Comments are closed.