Open Thread Non- Petroleum- Jan 26, 2017

Non-petroleum  (not related to oil or natural gas output) comments should be posted in this open thread.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

725 Responses to Open Thread Non- Petroleum- Jan 26, 2017

  1. Javier says:

    This issue is interesting, so I will repeat the post.

    During El Niño situations the amount of heat that radiates to space from the planet increases, while during La Niña situations is the opposite. And the way this is measured is by measuring Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) from satellites. And it is measured with AIRS and CERES instruments.

    Norman Loeb is CERES Principal Investigator at NASA Langley Research Center, and he is publishing the main articles on this issue.

    “Tropical variations in emitted outgoing longwave (LW) radiation are found to closely track changes in the El Niño- Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During positive ENSO phase (El Niño), outgoing LW radiation increases, and decreases during the negative ENSO phase (La Niña). The coldest year during the last decade occurred in 2008, during which strong La Niña conditions persisted throughout most of the year. Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) observations show that the lower temperatures extended throughout much of the troposphere for several months, resulting in a reduction in outgoing LW radiation and an increase in net incoming radiation.”

    Loeb, Norman G., et al. “Advances in understanding top-of-atmosphere radiation variability from satellite observations.” Surveys in geophysics 33.3-4 (2012): 359-385.

    The conclusion is very clear. El Niño means an increase in OLR i.e. heat lost to space.

    Both AIRS and CERES show very close agreement in their measures:

    “The extremely close agreement of OLR anomaly time series derived from observations by two different instruments implies high stability of both sets of results. Anomalies of global mean, and especially tropical mean, OLR are shown to be strongly correlated with an El Niño Index. These correlations explain that the recent global and tropical mean decreases in OLR over the time period studied are primarily the result of a transition from an El Niño condition at the beginning of the data record to La Niña conditions toward the end of the data period.”

    Susskind, Joel, et al. “Interannual variability of outgoing longwave radiation as observed by AIRS and CERES.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 117.D23 (2012).

    This are the best measurements on the issue that science can provide, and they agree that El Niño conditions produce an increase of radiation to space and therefore and increase of heat lost to space as I have said

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Much much more interesting than Xavier’s repetitive crap…

      Mosquito Mating Behaviour

      Mating is one aspect of behaviour that has been much ignored in mosquito biology. Yet, the success of a transgenic release strategy depends on normal, competitive mating between introduced and wild individuals. An overview is presented of current knowledge of mating behaviour in Culicidae, including timing of mating, means of sperm transfer, refractory behaviour and multiple mating. Most lacunae were found in mate finding: it is known that some species use swarming while other mate on or near the vertebrate host. At short range males locate females by acoustic signals, but there is no knowledge how the sexes locate each other from a distance. It is argued that mass rearing of mosquitoes for sterile-insect release or transgenic release should include steps to safeguard male fitness. A series of challenges for future studies are discussed, including cues that control swarming behaviour, mate-finding behaviour and identification of genes that control mating behaviour.

      Obligatory Disclaimer: The fact that happen to be the president and sole member of I.S.F.T.P.O.M. does not mean that I am in any way, biased either in favor of, or against, allowing the propagation of Dengue Fever, Malaria or Zika virus to any and all climate science skeptics. But if it did somehow happen, I would just call it an act of God and happily accept it… Har! 😉

      BTW: For those who might be unfamiliar with I.S.F.T.P.O.M. It is: ‘The International Society For The Protection Of Mosquitos’

      • GoneFishing says:

        Yes, humans are enemies to almost all animals on earth, even ourselves.

        Are they important?
        If mosquitoes went extinct: Mosquito larvae are very important in aquatic ecology. Many other insects and small fish feed on them and the loss of that food source would cause their numbers to decline as well. Anything that feeds on them, such as game fish, raptorial birds, etc. would in turn suffer too. Mosquitoes can be wiped out but the ecological damage that would be necessary (draining swamps/wetlands, applying pesticides over wide areas), along with strict regulatory enforcement, would make eradication not worth it unless there was a very serious public health emergency.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          G.F., Though my post was partly tongue in cheek it was intended as an antidote to the non stop hijacking of all our threads by the troll brigade. It seems if the topic deviates even slightly from what their canned responses are calibrated for, then they are less likely to be able to hijack the discussion. I have a hunch that most of our trolls won’t even try to participate if we steer the discussion towards topics that require a more sophisticated understanding of science and a greater dose of critical thinking skills.

          I do agree 100% with the main point of your post, mosquitos are an integral part of the ecosystem and many food webs.

          • GoneFishing says:

            I think there are more villagers here than most people realize. Some are more subtle than others, some flip sides in the debate or present results that appear to corroborate but upon close examination it is a water-down or erroneous result.

        • Duncan Idaho says:

          aedes aegypti are the mosquitoes responsible for Dengue, Zika, and several other major mosquito born diseases.
          They are not native to the Western Hemisphere.
          We can live without them here in North America.

          Anopheles transmit malaria, and are native to the Western Hemisphere.
          It is much more complicated than simple stories.

          • GoneFishing says:

            True it’s not simple, we are only one of billions of species that share this planet. Delusional thinking has made us think we are the most important thing on the planet. That has led to overpopulation, pollution, planet wide environmental destruction, climate change and the sixth extinction.
            We only think of ways to kill them, instead of ways to make them avoid us completely. No, not simple at all.

      • Javier says:

        I remember that Disney movie, Lilo and Stitch, was also about protecting mosquitoes on Earth and therefore their main host, humans.

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

      Is that clear, Bob?

    • wehappyfew says:

      According to the data published in Nature by Gordon Loeb, the EEI as measured by CERES shows that the Earth gained heat every single year from 2001 to 2015. Some of those years were El Nino, some were La Nina. Every. Single. Year.

      You claimed the Earth lost lots of heat in 2015 because it was a (mild) El Nino year. The data from CERES says otherwise. The data from ARGO says otherwise.

      Of course it is very interesting to look at the wild variations in OLR in the tropics during ENSO events. These variations don’t change the fact that the global data for the total energy imbalance (which includes the OLR balance plus the SW net flux), as measured by CERES and independently by ARGO, published by Loeb, show net heat gain from 2001 to 2015. Every. Single. Year.

      Did the Earth lose heat in 2016 due to the super El Nino? The data say YES, it did. The CERES data haven’t been published in the peer-reviewed literature yet, as far as I can tell, but the ARGO data clearly show a big drop in OHC in the first half of 2016.

      The loss for 2016 was smaller than the gain for 2015.

      Your insistence on looking at only part of the the data (OLR), ignoring the rest of the data measured by CERES that show the total net imbalance, is a great example of why I don’t think you should be banned from this site, Javier (not that my opinion should matter any).

      You demonstrate very clearly how the consilience of multiple data methods is ignored by the science-denial cranks, lobbyist and trolls – cherrypicking one part of the data to pretend it proves your point.

      You can prove me wrong on this last point by looking at the work published by Loeb and extract from it your estimate of the CERES measured heat gain or loss for the globe during 2015. How much heat did the Earth gain or lose for 2015? (Loeb published the data in units of W/m^2)… Tell us the number you think Loeb measured using CERES. Compare it the number Loeb found using ARGO.

      Show us that our troll is learning.

      • Javier says:


        You insist in talking about the energy imbalance which is a small magnitude of which we have little certainty that requires very complex calculations with data from thousands of instruments that needs large doses of adjustments.

        The thing is very simple. Whenever there is an El Niño, the magnitude of the Outward Long wave Radiation increases. This is very reliably measured by two different types of instruments duplicated over two satellites.

        And besides it is very logical. El Niño mobilizes a huge amount of energy from the ocean surface to the atmosphere by radiation and convection. That energy needs to be distributed sideways and upward. The part that goes upward gets out of the planet. Simple, logical, detected, and measured.

        You don’t believe it, it’s your problem.

        • wehappyfew says:

          You know (or pretend to know) so little about the CERES instruments it is quite comical (or sad, if intentional). If you want to talk about heat lost to space during El Nino, you can’t make any progress without knowing the net Absorbed Solar Radiation in addition to the OLR. Both change in response to ENSO. The difference is the Earth’s Energy Imbalance. Looking at only OLR is only half the equation.

          OLR is measured on the CERES satellite. ASR (Absorbed Solar Radiation) is also measured on the CERES satellite (with a different set of instruments), at the same time! Added together, they constitute the “complex calculation” for EEI.

          Apparently you know how to grab a picture from the published literature on CERES, but you never bothered to read any of the words, not even in the figure captions!

          Fig. 9. Net radiation from the TOA from CERES [Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Ed2.6r; The ASR (red) and OLR (blue) are given on the right axis and RT (ASR − OLR; black) is given on the left axis (W m−2; note the change in scale). For ASR, OLR, and RT, the ±1 standard deviation range is given in light red, blue, and gray. Also shown is the Niño-3.4 SST index (green; right axis, °C). The decadal low-pass filter is a 13-term filter used in Trenberth et al. (2007), making it similar to a 12-month running mean.”

          • GoneFishing says:

            Hmmm, ocean and air heats up regionally, more radiation to space. Ocean and air cools regionally, less radiation to space. Simple other than cloud factors.
            A small portion of heat that the ocean absorbed is released or cold water surfaces. Still can’t see the big deal. it’s just noise in the overall climate picture.

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              I suppose Javier might be right on this particular point. Maybe there is a net outflow of energy from the planet during certain phases of the El Nino La Nina cycle.

              Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, lol.

              But even if this is so, it’s not proof that this outflow is enough to actually lower the average temperature , even temporarily, in the face of forced warming.

              Javier habitually posts comments and graphs that might be literally true, or accurate representations of actual observed facts, and then claims that he has proof of this, that, or the other that won’t stand up to even the most cursory inspection.

              A few days back he published a graph indicating that staple grain production has been steadily rising , which is true enough, and claimed this is proof global warming is good for food production.

              Any body who has even the slightest day to day knowledge of the field knows that virtually all of the increase in production over the last half century or so has been due to a combination of expanding acreage,vastly expanded use of manufactured fertilizers, more pesticides, more productive cultivars, etc.

              It’s possible that a warming has resulted in a very minor increase in production over the last couple of generations, but I don’t think anybody can either prove or disprove this argument.

              There are too many variables, and too little data, and even if the necessary data had been collected and preserved, it would cost a fortune to crunch it in fine enough detail to come up with a reliable answer either way.

              A far better argument , based on observations of the effects of heat waves, which are very strongly correlated with periods of water stress, can be made that warming has actually forced production DOWN.

              For every ONE agricultural news story about unseasonably cold weather causing farmers problems, there are probably at least twenty stories about problems associated with heat , and the water stress that typically comes with the heat.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, lol.

                Not really! We live in a digital world now and a stopped digital chronometer has no display at all and is therefore completely useless all the time… as are all discussions with trolls!


                • Oldfarmermac says:

                  I count on my good cyber friend Fred Maygar to put a smile on my face almost every day, and he seldom lets me down. 😉

                  But some of us old farts still have twelve hour clocks. 😉

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    I know I have an old analog Timex wrist watch buried in one of my junk drawers, I’ll have to go find it… 😉

          • Javier says:

            OLR is measured on the CERES satellite.

            Wrong. There is no CERES satellite. CERES is a scientific program and its instruments. The instruments are on board the EOS Terra and Aqua satellites and the Suomi NPP satellite. You don’t even know there is no CERES satellite.

            ASR (Absorbed Solar Radiation) is also measured on the CERES satellite (with a different set of instruments)

            Wrong. No CERES satellite and no measurement of Absorbed Solar Radiation. ASR can’t be measured. You should know that. How are you going to measure a radiation that has been absorbed?

            CERES instruments measure Outgoing Long Wave flux Radiation, Incoming Top Of the Atmosphere Short Wave flux Radiation, and Outgoing Short Wave flux Radiation. ASR is calculated from the difference of the last two.

            So two wrong things on a phrase, not bad for such “expert”.

            Now, why do you insist so much on the energy budget. while badmouthing me? Because that includes the increase in Ocean Heat Content that has the lion’s share of the energy difference.

            But the increase in Ocean Heat Content is irrelevant for us. When translated to temperature difference it is ridiculously small and nobody knows any way that can affect us. The oceans of the Earth are much cooler than the atmosphere and surface on average.

            Neither GISS LOTI, nor, NOAA global surface temperature, HadCrut4, RSS, nor UAH measure oceanic temperatures. Just surface temperatures.

            And when El Niño increases planetary OLR the only effect that it can have on surface temperatures is to decrease them. Because that heat has been transferred from the sea surface to the atmosphere and then to the space, and what the OHC does is irrelevant to that. A surface cooling ensues due to the lost heat.

            You have been going around and around trying to say that this is not true, and the only thing that you have showed is either you really don’t know what you talk about, or you want to confound and mislead people into thinking that something that is true isn’t, or more probably both, as you talk all the time about energy budget measurements from space and you don’t even know that CERES is not a satellite.

            • wehappyfew says:

              It actually worked!!!

              I got you to actually read at least one of the papers on measuring the Earth’s Energy Budget.

              Mission accomplished.

              Now we wait… as the next batches of data come in from CERES and ARGO showing the ongoing energy imbalance, and as the temperature continues to follow the CO2 trend upwards, we can finally be rid of your trollery telling us about the great Paws.

              • Javier says:


                The next batches of data are likely to show a continuation of the hiatus. That ought to be a real problem for the CO2 hypothesis.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Javier

                  No it is only a problem if one assumes no natural variability. No main stream climate scientist assumes that.

                  • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                    Tune in daily for As The Climate Turns, a Peak Oil Barrel soap opera exclusive, featuring Javier as himself, whoever he is, as he pits himself, with his ghostly band of Snipers (or maybe there’s just one), against The Regulars, lead by the inDefatigable Dennis, in a never-ending battle for The Truth, maybe.

                  • wharf rat says:

                    Global warming hiatus claims prebunked in 1980s and 1990s

                    Posted on 1 February 2017 by Ari Jokimäki
                    Recent global warming hiatus has been a subject of intensive studies during the last ten years. But it seems that there already was some research on global warming hiatus during 1980s and 1990s (earliest studies on the issue were actually back in 1940s-1970s). This seems to have gone largely unnoticed in the scientific literature of current global warming hiatus, and it certainly seems to have gone unnoticed by climate mitigation opponents who have made claims on global warming hiatus since at least 2006 and still continue to do so.


            • Fred Magyar says:

              Wrong. There is no CERES satellite. CERES is a scientific program and its instruments. The instruments are on board the EOS Terra and Aqua satellites and the Suomi NPP satellite.

              Really now?!

              For the record, wehappyfew, initiated his comment thusly:

              You know (or pretend to know) so little about the CERES instruments it is quite comical (or sad, if intentional).

              Therefore, most native speakers of English would understand what he meant when saying CERES satellite as a reference to the CERES instruments on one or more satellites.

              CERES (CapacitÉ de Renseignement Électromagnétique Spatiale) satellite system.

              BTW your friends over at wattsupwiththat talk about CERES satellite data all the time why don’t you go over there and tell them they are WRONG and there are no CERES satellites?!


              CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity
              Anthony Watts / January 16, 2014

              Next thing you will try to convince us there is no LHC because the detectors are called ATLAS, CMS, ALICE, etc…

              • Doug Leighton says:

                “Next thing you will try to convince us there is no LHC because the detectors are called ATLAS, CMS, ALICE, etc…”

                That’s funny Fred. Unfortunately, it’s probably true.

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  Not to worry. There are plenty of people working on obtaining ‘ALTERNATIVE DATA’! We can no longer just depend on ordinary data.

                  So if you don’t like the universe as it is. No problem! You can create infinite versions of alternative universes… Then like Goldilocks, you can pick the one that is just right for you.

                  “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

                  Douglas Adams The Salmon of Doubt

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    That whole quote sounded quasi-religious. Puddle fades away into ethereal new state of being. I don’t see the surprise part, one would notice the shrinkage.
                    Now the mastodons and mammoths were surprised when entering a watering hole the sides were too slippery to get out, trapping and killing them. Makes for good museum displays though.
                    Had two of those in my locale.
                    An obvious attractive benefit covering a death trap. Sound familiar?

                  • Oldfarmermac says:

                    I LOVE Douglas Adams.

                    He is the worthy successor to Twain,who wrote the some of the best and earliest Sci Fi and Sci Fantasy ever, but it’s little known and hard to find.

                    I read Adams as channeling Twain, as being INSPIRED by Twain.

                    One of my favorite Twain short pieces is about a bug that lit atop the pinnacle of the Eiffel Tower and in his little buggy mind assumed that the tower, and the world, was THERE for HIM, that it EXISTED, FOR him.

                    I didn’t find it in a fast search, but here are some quotes that indicate just HOW FAR Twain was ahead of his time as a writer.

                    I believe our Heavenly Father invented man because he was disappointed in the monkey.
                    – Mark Twain in Eruption

                    It now seems plain to me that that theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one…the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals.
                    – “The Lowest Animal”

                    Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world’s age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man’s share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno.
                    – “Was the World Made for Man?”

                    Evolution is a blind giant who rolls a snowball down a hill. The ball is made of flakes–circumstances. They contribute to the mass without knowing it. They adhere without intention, and without foreseeing what is to result. When they see the result they marvel at the monster ball and wonder how the contriving of it came to be originally thought out and planned. Whereas there was no such planning, there was only a law: the ball once started, all the circumstances that happened to lie in its path would help to build it, in spite of themselves.
                    – “The Secret History of Eddypus”


                    Adam is fading out. It is on account of Darwin and that crowd. I can see that he is not going to last much longer. There’s a plenty of signs. He is getting belittled to a germ — a little bit of a speck that you can’t see without a microscope powerful enough to raise a gnat to the size of a church. They take that speck and breed from it: first a flea; then a fly, then a bug, then cross these and get a fish, then a raft of fishes, all kinds, then cross the whole lot and get a reptile, then work up the reptiles till you’ve got a supply of lizards and spiders and toads and alligators and Congressmen and so on, then cross the entire lot again and get a plant of amphibiums, which are half-breeds and do business both wet and dry, such as turtles and frogs and ornithorhyncuses and so on, and cross-up again and get a mongrel bird, sired by a snake and dam’d by a bat, resulting in a pterodactyl, then they develop him, and water his stock till they’ve got the air filled with a million things that wear feathers, then they cross-up all the accumulated animal life to date and fetch out a mammal, and start-in diluting again till there’s cows and tigers and rats and elephants and monkeys and everything you want down to the Missing Link, and out of him and a mermaid they propagate Man, and there you are! Everything ship-shape and finished-up, and nothing to do but lay low and wait and see if it was worth the time and expense.

                    Well, then, was it? To my mind, it don’t stand to reason. They say it took a hundred million years. Suppose you ordered a Man at the start, and had a chance to look over the plans and specifications — which would you take, Adam or the germ? Naturally you would say Adam is business, the germ ain’t; one is immediate and sure, the other is speculative and uncertain. Well, I have thought these things all over, and my sympathies are with Adam. Adam was like us, and so he seems near to us, and dear. He is kin, blood kin, and my heart goes out to him in affection. But I don’t feel that way about that germ. The germ is too far away — and not only that, but such a wilderness of reptiles between. You can’t skip the reptiles and set your love on the germ; no, if they are ancestors, it is your duty to include them and love them. Well, you can’t do that. You would come up against the dinosaur and your affections would cool off. You couldn’t love a dinosaur the way you would another relative. There would always be a gap. Nothing could ever bridge it. Why, it gives a person the dry gripes just to look at him!

                    Very well, then, where do we arrive? Where do we arrive with our respect, our homage, our filial affection? At Adam! At Adam, every time. We can’t build a monument to a germ, but we can build one to Adam, who is in the way to turn myth in in fifty years and be entirely forgotten in two hundred. We can build a monument and save his name to the world forever, and we’ll do it!
                    – “The Refuge of the Derelicts” published in Fables of Man

                    Adams is not in the same class, except as a comedian. He’s equal to anybody as a comedian skewering his fellow modern day man.

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Javier,

              It is not really very complicated. We measure the net energy at the top of the atmosphere, it shows that about 0.8 W/m^2 were input on average from 2000 to 2012. This energy heats the atmosphere and the ocean as well as causes phase changes, the cycle of water to vapor and back is energy conserving (the amount that evaporates is about the same as the amount that condenses), the more important phase change is the net ice melt which will absorb some of the heat.
              Over a 12 year period at 0.8 J/s/m^2 and with a surface area of 5.1E14 m^2 and 3.784E8 seconds in 12 years, that would be about 15.4E22 Joules of energy added to the Earth system from 2000 to 2012. About 9E22 Joules of heat were added to the top 2000 meters of World Oceans from 2000-2012. The rest of the heat would have melted ice sheets and sea ice, warmed the atmosphere, and perhaps some heat warmed the deeper ocean (average depth is 3700 meters) though we don’t have good data below 2000 meters in the ocean. Conservation of mass and energy goes a long way in explaining the Earth system’s energy balance.

  2. Boomer II says:

    I posted this early today in the petroleum post so it wouldn’t be buried in the last non-petroleum post.

    Since this is a new post and hasn’t been inundated with climate and political comments yet, I’ll put it here, too.

    Elon Musk Has Trump’s Ear, and Wall Street Takes Note – The New York Times

      • R2D2 says:

        Leader of the stupid Nazi red Republican divided States of America.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          It might be best to avoid actually calling the political opposition nazis in so many words.

          I have repeatedly tried to get it across to the leftish liberalish leaning faction that such language directed at social and cultural conservatives tends to reinforce their very natural tendency to shut out environmentally, culturally and politically liberal arguments without even HEARING them, never mind giving them the thought they deserve.

          Anybody who thinks middle of the road and committed R voters don’t hear about and take hot under the collar offense at this sort of remark is, to put it as mildly as possible, naive in the extreme. Their homie media, the conservatively oriented web sites, tv hosts, and papers are quick to repeat such remarks, and repeat them often.

          It’s fine to feed this sort of red meat to a homie audience, behind closed doors, but otherwise it COSTS the D party more votes that it gains for the D’s , because the only people who WANT to hear it are D voters ANYWAY.

          This sort of remark MOTIVATES middle of the road and R type voters to vote R, and to get out and vote when they otherwise might not have been sufficiently motivated to get to the polling place.

          Having said this much, the criticism is valid, and Trump is doing some things, a LOT of things, that are scary as hell.

          What I am saying is to point out the similarities between Trump and historical fascist dictators using words selected to get the message across, without offending potential D voters, to the extent possible.

          • Nathanael says:

            Bannon is an actual honest-to-god neo-Nazi.

            Thankfully he’s also got absolutely no sense of PR.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        When it is FAUX News, that is holding your feet to the fire for your lack of integrity and honesty, then you seriously have to start wondering if there hasn’t been a major rift in the space time continuum… These are some very interesting times we live in.

        ‘Fox News Sunday’ Just Turned Against Donald Trump & It Was Spectacular

        BTW, just for the record, the next time one of our resident trolls shows up to tell us that the banning of the use of DDT was a left wing plot to destroy free market capitalism, I will no longer hold back on the use of expletives! If as a consequence of that I should be banned from this site, so be it, and it will have been nice knowing all the good people here.

        I have been very clear to all my family, friends and acquaintances as to what I consider to be fascism and where I stand on it! I will not be silent any longer and won’t tolerate any manifestations of it.

        First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Socialist.

        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
        Because I was not a Jew.

        Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

        Martin Niemöller

        I also strongly recommend watching this TED talk!

        As the child of an Afghan mother and Pakistani father raised in Norway, Deeyah Khan knows what it’s like to be a young person stuck between your community and your country. In this powerful, emotional talk, the filmmaker unearths the rejection and isolation felt by many Muslim kids growing up in the West — and the deadly consequences of not embracing our youth before extremist groups do.

        • Survivalist says:

          Pushing your buttons to get you banned is their objective:

          “As they know they will only be defeated – their only joy or reward comes from trolling their liberal opponents.
          Every liberal offended or irritated is a victory for the conservative cause. The specific viewpoint is irrelevant as all conservative views are eventually consigned to the dustbin of history – the only thing that matters is *how many liberals did that view piss off?* – the more the merrier.”

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            Ron and Dennis are in charge in THIS forum, and while I can’t speak for them and don’t pretend to, I can say with complete confidence that their long term policy has been to tolerate almost anything except obvious and blatant racist remarks, or something down that alley.

            So far they have never done anything to give us reason to believe they might change their mind about this particular policy.

            Both Ron and Dennis have been the target of some shall we say “less than politely expressed ” comments , without banning the maker.

        • Rick's says:

          Fred, US politics is so divisive nowadays that my strict rule is to keep it out of conversations with acquaintances and new friends alike. However, in doing so, I’ve noticed in many situations the resident liberals/progressives always seem to like testing the water by bringing up something political, often in a kind of way they find humorous. Still, I’m always going to try leaving the bait on the hook… The only exception would be if some lefty who basically knows nothing next to me, who in nearly all cases never served in uniform (they all got a deferment, 4F, or happened to be in “divinity school” or Canada during Nam while I was in the USAF) really gets all up in my face, to which case I will respond by doing all I can to point out their sheer ignorance. Now don’t even ask me what I thought of my friends or associates who voted twice for Obama as well as for Hillary because they bought into the well-spoken lines of BS spilling out of their mouths. They are the true destructive forces within America these days if you ask me. Ultimately though I think a great many of us get to an age and point in our lives where we decide we’re not going to coddle any idiots no more. I’ve reached that point.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            The problem Rick is that you are still framing the issues as an us vs. them thing. You assume that everything is starkly black or white and that everyone fits into a well defined box of liberal vs conservative. Which by the way, from your post, comes across as liberal and progressive being bad and conservative being good. I can’t speak for anyone else but personally I am well beyond this kind of simplistic dichotomy.

            If you really want to understand why our current system no longer works for anyone other than the tiny minority of super wealthy, which I assume you are not a part of, then you need to at the very least understand where the operating system we are currently stuck with originated and why it will eventually fail even the ones who benefit most from it at present.

            Douglas Rushkof wrote a book: ‘Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus’ he is a media theorist and frames things from the perspective of the digital economy. Which may seem to be light years away from things like coal mining and rural living. The point is, everywhere you look, ‘The Operating System’ he talks about is the one that everything is still running on. In the excerpt below just ignore the word ‘Digital’ and just pay attention to ‘Economy’!

            The digital economy has gone wrong. Everybody knows it, but no one knows quite how to fix it, or even how to explain the problem. Workers lose to automation, investors lose to algorithms, musicians lose to power law dynamics, drivers lose to Uber, neighborhoods lose to Airbnb, and even tech developers lose their visions to the demands of the startup economy.

            Douglas Rushkoff argues that it doesn’t have to be this way. This isn’t the fault of digital technology at all, but the way we are deploying it: instead of building the distributed digital economy these new networks could foster, we are doubling down on the industrial age mandate for growth above all. As Rushkoff shows, this is more the legacy of early corporatism and central currency than a feature of digital technology. In his words, “we are running a 21st century digital economy on a 13th Century printing-press era operating system.”

            In Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus, Rushkoff shows how we went wrong, why we did it, and how we can reprogram the digital economy and our businesses from the inside out to promote sustainable prosperity for pretty much everyone. Rushkoff calls on business to:

            • Accept that era of extractive growth is over. Rather, businesses must – like eBay and Kickstarter – give people the ability to exchange value and invest in one another.

            So unless you want to expand the discussion past us vs. them framed as liberals vs. conservatives don’t waste my time because I’m not interested in that discussion at all. I’m interested in a post industrial and post capitalist economy that understands that it can no longer be growth based. If you want to be part of the discussion on how best to get there from here, then I’m interested in your ideas.

            • Duncan Idaho says:

              The accumulation of debt has kept the boat afloat till now. So looking back we see the crises of ever harder to get more costly resources is actually behind us. Much of what we presently are living on is legacy infrastructure built during an age of low cost resources. These things represent energy that’s imbedded in them. Do to entropy every hour of every day that energy is being depleted. The system has simply outgrown its sustainable levels even without resource depletion. So if financial manipulation has got us to this point, in essence masking the collapse, there is only a resource wall in our future.

            • Paulo says:

              Terrific comment, Fred. I am surprised it has not garnered a response from someone calling you a pinko luddite. 🙂

              I am not referring to anyone in particular, just a general observation as the argument always seems to have two corners.

              It seems most on this forum absolutely accept that perpetual growth is impossible. It is amusing to compare this concept to MSM cpi numbers, or GDP forecasts. We are so screwed, collectively. I am starting to look at each day individually, and not much beyond. This entails being grateful for the day and for those I love, making some short term plans (like drying wood for a new dining room table), filling the woodshed for a few years down the road, and not much more beyond that…… Of course, being 60 might have something to do with that as well, and I am not talking about wisdom. The highlight of the day will be taking my dog for a walk. Next week we are going prawning. Take care.

            • Doug Leighton says:

              Hi Fred

              “..musicians lose to power law dynamics…” OK, as usual I agree with (almost) everything you say BUT how do musicians lose to power law dynamics. Not saying you’re wrong but………..

              • “..musicians lose to power law dynamics…”

                I think I know what he means. Every piece of recorded music is now mixed high enough so that it will stand out in all the Spotify playlists.

                What this mixing does is reduce the dynamic range of the music. So the power-law spread of loud and quiet passages is compacted.

                Or it also could mean that musical popularity is concentrated in the few multi-million sellers and everything else is pushed to the side, so the power-law distribution is very skewed.

                • Doug Leighton says:

                  True, compression kills, hence the epidemic contributing to the disappearance of decent-sounding music.

                  Maybe this is one of the reasons there’s been a resurgence of vinyl?

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  WHT, Doug,

                  Or it also could mean that musical popularity is concentrated in the few multi-million sellers and everything else is pushed to the side, so the power-law distribution is very skewed.

                  Given that it is Rushkoff, talking about the digital ‘Economy’, He is Professor of Media Theory and Digital Economics at CUNY/Queens. I’m betting that this is what he was referring to. However, now that you raised the point, I’m curious and it is possible given his rather eclectic background, that at the very least he is aware of that fact that mixing does reduce the dynamic range of the music.

                  Regardless, it is THE ECONOMY OS, STUPID! 😉


        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Well said, Sir Fred!

          IIRC, Jesse Jackson is famous for saying, paraphrased,

          We didn’t all come over in the same boat, but we’re all in the same boat NOW.

          I won’t make any friends in this forum for saying that immigrants from places where even a handful of sleeper terrorists might slip in along with the decent people ought to be vetted as closely as possible, but it’s nevertheless true that we SHOULD vet them to the extent possible.

          Just one or two new incidents involving terrorist sleepers ( actual or newly minted after their arrival ) among such immigrants might be enough to put the next R prez candidate across the finish line the winner, or elect a Trumpster type senator or representative in any close race.

          • Lloyd says:

            As Glenn Greenwald notes in today’s Intercept (and Trevor Noah pointed out on Thursday) the countries that have the bans placed on them produced no terrorists. Other Muslim countries that produce terrorists get a free pass. From the article:
            The countries which have produced and supported the greatest number of anti-U.S. terrorists – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE – are excluded from the ban list because the tyrannical regimes that run those countries are close U.S. allies.

            From the NYT,
            Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years. In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.Emphasis mine.

            You’re more likely to be killed by those dangerous, heavily armed, religiously indoctrinated, anti-democratic crazy people from places with funny names like Idaho and Albuquerque than any of the places covered by the Muslim ban.

            As for the argument that any getting through would help a Republican candidate: it shows that you miss the point. This is part of the isolationist /authoritarian playbook that Trump is running: everyone else is the enemy. If you can’t find a real enemy that we want to attack (because we don’t want to attack right-wing wingnuts at home (they voted for him!), or authoritarian allies (or blackmailers!) elsewhere) well, we’ll just make the press and weak foreign countries the enemy.

            It’s also important to remember that when you take resources to do the wrong thing, you have fewer resources to do the right thing.

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              Hi Lloyd,

              Maybe you don’t understand MY point.

              YOUR interpretation of what I have said indicates that maybe you think of me as a Trumpster nincompoop, or that you are offended at least, and are therefore lashing out.

              That’s ok, it’s what people do, I’m USED to it. HB hasn’t checked in today, but my money says he will by tomorrow, lol.

              I have frequently been called a pink pantie wearing commie queer, or worse, in some right wing forums where I occasionally stir up hornet’s nests by pointing out some of the countless faults of the R oriented establishment. ( In that sort of forum, I use a different name.)

              There is a good bit of truth in your argument, but perhaps you allowed your liberalish mind set to close your mind to WHAT I SAID.

              Of course neither so called liberals or so called conservatives are ever guilty of prejudice, if you ask either sort. It’s ALWAYS the case that they believe in morally and intellectually justifiable values, and it’s ALWAYS the OTHER guy who is prejudiced.

              It’s NORMALLY the case that a member of either camp takes offense when a member of the opposition camp has anything to say that can be interpreted as criticism of his camp’s values, positions, or policies.

              What I SAID is that it takes only a couple of new terrorist incidents that can be attributed to immigrants to motivate middle of the road and R voters to VOTE R, and that it therefore is GOOD POLICY to vet immigrants from the countries that are known exporters of terrorists as closely as possible.

              Your reply as I said once already includes some serious truths, and it’s worth listening to, but it’s worth NOTHING in terms of disproving my argument.

              Perhaps I ought to add more explanatory detail. Right wing terrorists, domestically bred and raised, are of various mixed sorts, from the lone wolf nut case that burns down an abortion clinic or church up to the Timothy Mc Veigh types.

              HEY DUDE, you may not have NOTICED, but THOSE TERRORISTS are here already!

              They don’t have to slip into the country, and a substantial portion of the R wing vote is actually sympathetic to their cause, when for example one of them burns an abortion clinic. And a substantial portion of the R wing vote is even more passionate about drawing and quartering T Mc types than a sizeable portion of the D wing is about doing away with the Second Amendment.

              You can motivate some people to vote D by talking about home grown terrorists. Depending on the forum, and the audience, you can likely motivate more people to vote D than you will motivate to vote R , and come out a winner.

              But you cannot win when you argue against vetting immigrants as closely as possible, especially if they are from known terrorist hot bed countries. That argument might go over well with a few hard core D’s, but they are ON BOARD ANYWAY.

              The votes you NEED TO WORRY ABOUT are the votes of independents and R leaning voters.

              Can ya get yer head around it?

              The votes you NEED TO WORRY ABOUT are the votes of independents and R leaning voters.

              Elections are generally won, or LOST, in the middle in this country.

              Now about home grown terrorism:
              I have never personally met anybody in favor of burning down a church because it’s a black folks’ church, although I remember hearing older people , now deceased,making favorable remarks about about such crimes.


              I have recently heard honest, decent, law abiding big D Democrats make similar remarks about somebody assassinating Trump, but not publicly. They have make no secret of the fact they would UNDERSTAND the assassin’s motivations.

              Burning a church is a horrible thing to do, and deserves condemnation right across the board…….


              I have met some fairly hard core environmentalists who got positively GIDDY when discussing such news as hearing about a sawmill burning down, or somebody driving spikes into trees. A spike in a log can very easily result in a mill worker getting killed if he is hit by shrapnel from a shattered saw blade.

              Hey, I know the difference is a matter of DEGREE, and that on any sort of cosmic scale, burning the church is WORSE, by orders of magnitude.

              But do YOU understand that there is no REAL DIFFERENCE as a matter of PRINCIPLE?

              Three times I have gone into my own pocket, and helped a woman who wanted an abortion get one by loaning or giving her some money.(None of three ever slept with me. ) I don’t LIKE anything about the whole abortion question. Nevertheless I understand the issue from both sides.

              It blows me away that the liberal establishment which seldom if ever lets up on the tolerance drumbeat NEVER acknowledges that tens of millions of people in this country DO LITERALLY BELIEVE that abortion is MURDER.

              It blows my mind to an even GREATER extent that SUPPOSEDLY INTELLIGENT (sarc light BLAZING!) people who call these typically decent, hard working, self supporting, and law abiding people various less than complimentary names, accuse them of having despicable values,accuse them of being ignorant, backward, stupid,superstitious, etc……… and THEN wonder why they mostly vote for TRUMP type politicians .

              Well, here’s a clue, mostly they DIDN’T vote FOR Trump.

              They MOSTLY voted against the culture war the liberal establishment has been forcibly shoving down their throat for the last couple of generations.

              I’m not here to win a popularity contest, and I don’t care what any particular forum member thinks of me, personally. I’m here to practice my skills as a writer and debater and pundit, and to provoke as many comments as possible both pro and con, especially CON.

              I’m working and playing and having a good time. I’m a Scots Irish old time mountain bred hillbilly, and I couldn’t POSSIBLY be happy unless I am playing the underdog role, or rooting for the underdog. I’m a gadfly, and stir up a fuss wherever I go, hoping that after the fuss settles down, things will have changed for the better.

              You get better faster when you have people pointing out your errors and shortcomings and blind spots, and when I publish a book, eventually, with my name on the cover, I want to be as sure as I possibly can I have all my ducks in a nice neat row.

              Con comments are priceless. Pro comments are often helpful, and good for my morale, but far less important.

              My goals other than developing my skills as writer are simple, and easily comprehended, by anybody who is willing to take my word for what they are.

              First off, I am absolutely convinced that the environmental issue, in and of itself, is more important than all other issues combined, and that it follows that we need, MUST HAVE, politicians in power who will do right for the environment to the extent they can.

              It follows from THERE that we need D’s rather than R’s in charge, because everybody but the nincompoop faction KNOWS the D’s are light years ahead of the R’s on environmental issues.

              So- I have been trying to get anybody willing to listen to THINK about the things I have been saying about what D oriented voters and leaders are doing wrong, in terms of winning MORE working class votes, and MORE middle of the road/ independent votes, and SOME votes that would ordinarily continue to be cast for R candidates.

              Now actually winning over an R voter, and making a D voter out of him or her is a tricky and delicate job, but it CAN be done, if the job is approached properly.

              On the other hand, it’s not hard at all to quit PUBLICLY making nasty remarks that MOTIVATE R inclined people to actually register and vote, or vote rather than staying home on election day.

              The D inclined voter is IN THE BAG, next time around, for the D party-unless the D party makes the same mistake AGAIN that it made the last time around, running ANOTHER candidate that motivates ENOUGH (usually ) RELIABLE D voters to vote R.

              I am not asking any body to agree with my arguments, but rather that they simply THINK about them.

              Winning elections has a LOT in common with winning the love of a woman or man, or landing a big new customer, or getting what you want from the clerk at the DMV office, rather than the ” let me see if I can arrange for this to take THREE visits because I just decided I don’t like you ” runaround.

              People who CAN think, and are willing to do so, will in my opinion give some serious consideration to what I have been saying, and therefore change their tactics and strategies in ways I have suggested, in hopes of winning more votes and more elections.

              People who can’t or WON’T think will continue making the same old mistakes over and over.

              • Lloyd says:

                Hi Mac.

                You can look at people extra-carefully without banning the entire population.

                The fact that the US has had so few incidents in the past decade suggests that Immigration is doing its job on this file. This is a propaganda move.

                Your point about Representatives being in trouble if even a few terrorists from those countries get through? It wouldn’t be a problem if the ban was not in place. The ban’s purpose is to put politicians into this position: to make them have to choose between supporting an insane, ineffective measure that will harm you in those countries, or risk being seen (unjustly) as soft on terror.

                My point about the home grown terrorists is that the profile can be made to look a lot like a Jihadi: armed fundamentalists with a grievance. I was not calling all rural Americans terrorists and extremists…only the terrorists and extremists.

                As for the Liberal Elites being responsible for the plight of middle America, and my not understanding how dumb the Democrats are, that’s outside the scope of my comment.


                • Oldfarmermac says:

                  You get it, mostly, but you are STILL missing my point.

                  In this paragraph, you are entirely out in the sticks, not even in left field.

                  “Your point about Representatives being in trouble if even a few terrorists from those countries get through? It wouldn’t be a problem if the ban was not in place. The ban’s purpose is to put politicians into this position: to make them have to choose between supporting an insane, ineffective measure that will harm you in those countries, or risk being seen (unjustly) as soft on terror.”

                  Bullshit, and you have to know it, unless you are simply playing the” OFM’s a deluded Trumpster but I ‘m an enlightened D ” game.

                  I am talking the nitty gritty down in the fucking DIRT about what happens when we have a terrorist incident, in respect to people who are middle of the roaders, and R leaning or confirmed R voters. THEY VOTE R, in far far greater numbers any time a person from a foreign country comes here and kills somebody. It’s as fucking simple as that, whether you understand it, or DON’T.

                  I am TRYING to COACH D’s as to what the day to day actual REALITY is when it comes to the effects of a terrorist incident on voters.

                  If you get out on the street, and actually MINGLE with people, it ‘s as obvious as the sun at high noon that a shooting similar to the one at the social service agency in California a while back motivates the HELL out of R voters, but mostly just DISTRESSES D voters.


                  A church fire or an abortion clinic bombing, etc, DISTRESSES virtually all R voters, but it does NOTHING to change their opinion about terrorists who slip into the country.

                  NOTHING. NADA. ZIP. ZERO, when it comes to casting their vote.

                  It can be hard , and I MEAN HARD, for anybody who has lived and lives in only one or the other culture, the modern more liberal culture, or the other older more conservative culture, to UNDERSTAND the other side’s reasoning, values, ethics, morals, etc.

                  I am in my opinion the ONLY person in this forum who has REALLY LIVED in both, and really understands both.

                  Now here’s another FACT that I will repeat in no uncertain terms. The liberalish leaning faction is making one of the WORST POSSIBLE mistakes in talking DOWN to the older more conservative faction.

                  Most of the people in the community I live in NOW, and grew up in , long ago, lack a good formal education, but that does not mean they are STUPID, when it comes to understanding that the liberalish leftish faction isn’t talking pure and simple unadulterated HYPOCRISY when they talk tolerance all day, and preach discrimination against THEIR cultural values, all night. I have engaged many a person in this debate, and never yet has one been able to explain to me just what it is that is superior to let us say genital mutilation and holding women as chattel in some societies, which conservatives are tongue lashed for even mentioning, because we are all supposed to be TOLERANT, you see. And they get another tongue lashing for believing marriage is for men and women, etc

                  IF YOU GET IT, whether they are right, or YOU are right, about these value judgements , does NOT MATTER, in terms of what I am trying to get across.

                  I am trying to get YOU to understand that when D’s use more carefully selected words when criticizing the the typical R or independent voter, the D’s are more likely to win elections.

                  The voters that want to hear conservative people talked about like trash are ALREADY IN THE D BAG.

                  If you WANT TO WIN, you NEED MOST of the center, and SOME of the R voters.

                  Can I possibly make it any PLAINER????

                  Now I PERSONALLY have gay and lesbian friends. I used to be a card carrying long haired dope smoking hippie sort of guy, and I don’t actually care much one way or the other, so long as everybody can sort of sort themselves out into like minded communities, and get along without violence.

                  • Lloyd says:

                    I am talking the nitty gritty down in the fucking DIRT about what happens when we have a terrorist incident,
                    No you’re not.

                    What happened after 9/11?

                    Bush saying I will get those bastards, an illegal war against the wrong guys, and re-election for Bush.

                    Trump is trying to goad the middle east into a fight, because wars are good TV. In the case of war or a terrorist attack, he will use the American knee-jerk my country right or wrong reaction to drive his re-election, and to make the mid-terms about terrorism rather than inequality and racism.

                    I said it before, and I’ll say it again: I don’t give a crap about your and HB’s battle over why the Democrats should or should not be more like the Republicans, and I never said that all republicans or non-urbanites are stupid.

                    My opinion is that your system is permanently broken: the electoral college is a joke, the current president is a joke, and the Supreme Court pick will be an illegitimate joke because of an abuse of process by the Republicans.

                    You need a Parliamentary system, and you need it 40 years ago.

              • alimbiquated says:

                Trumpistanians are much more likely to be killed by a toddler with a gun than a terrorist.

                Maybe Trumpistan should ban toddlers.

                • Lloyd says:

                  Maybe Trumpistan should ban toddlers.

                  Dude, you seem to forget they really, really hate Planned Parenthood.

                  And logic.


            • Javier says:

              You’re more likely to be killed by those dangerous, heavily armed, religiously indoctrinated, anti-democratic crazy people from places with funny names like Idaho and Albuquerque than any of the places covered by the Muslim ban.

              That works both ways. The great majority of victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims.

              But it is in human nature to become irrational about the reality of our fears.

  3. Doug Leighton says:

    Kind of off topic but potentially important (energy wise) IMO.


    • GoneFishing says:

      Exciting news. A decade from now we may have a whole new energy system.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Metallic hydrogen could turn out to be one of the most valuable inventions in history, because having it might eventually be possible to make it in commercial quantities.

        Every piece of the puzzle of reality found and put in place means we’re that much closer to a useful “theory of everything”.

        Such an advance in any given field can also lead to fundamental discoveries in other fields. Consider the discovery of the secrets of optics, and the invention of the microscope.

    • Javier says:

      “One prediction that’s very important is metallic hydrogen is predicted to be meta-stable,”

      Shouldn’t they already know if they have made it?

      And do they think they can make it safe enough for a superconductor? I mean a spark can have catastrophic consequences with something so energetic. Remember the Hindenburg, and that was just the gas.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        Key word here is metastable. Diamond is a metastable form of carbon (at standard temperature and pressure) since it is kinetically stable, not thermodynamically stable. So, if hydrogen liquid is in a metastable state it might be relatively stable. Metastable simply means it is long lived.

        • Javier says:

          I know nothing of that, but I would think that even if metallic hydrogen is meta-stable at room temperature (and they should know that since they already made some), it could still go ka-boom with a spark. After all they say it stores part of the huge amount of energy required to make it, and constitutes a good candidate for rocket fuel. I rather take a Samsung battery that some metallic hydrogen inside my cell phone.

          And I am not pooh-poohing their achievement. I think it is great they found a way of making it and sure they will find some uses for it. I just thing many times they just over-sell the importance that the discovery is likely to have when talking to the press.

          • HVACman says:

            Javier said,

            “I know nothing of that, but I would think that even if metallic hydrogen is meta-stable at room temperature (and they should know that since they already made some), it could still go ka-boom with a spark.”

            And therein lies the problem – knowing nothing of ….(fill in the blank), but willing to opine about what “‘they’ should know” anyway. (The “they” being the ones who actually DO know something of….)

    • alimbiquated says:

      The report is premature. They aren’t even sure if they have a solid yet.

    • Doug Leighton says:

      Of course, I’d presume you realize separation of church and science is “unconstitutional” as well. Welcome to the new (Trump) world.

    • GoneFishing says:

      And I thought the executive branch was supposed to support the Constitution and execute the laws. Nothing about making laws or changing the Constitution.
      The Crusades continue, what heathens will we attack next in the name of God?

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        “what heathens will we attack next in the name of God?”


        You actually mean to say there are still some around that we HAVEN’T yet attacked?

        I can’t think of any, right off the bat, except maybe a few so poor the loot wouldn’t cover the cost of the robbery. 🙁

        Now maybe there ARE some that have sufficiently recovered from PREVIOUS attacks and accumulated assets enough to make it worth while to hit them again. 😉

        My sarcasm light is blazing bright for the benefit of HB.

  4. Doug Leighton says:

    Gone Fishing,

    You might find the following interesting:


    • GoneFishing says:

      Thank, I gave it a cursory read so far, will examine it in detail later. Their premise seems to depend upon the fact that the sea ice area in the Arctic is limited versus the sea ice area in the Antarctic. Nowhere did I see a mention of snow cover, which is a large area factor in the northern hemisphere and also has high albedo like sea ice. So I am dubious about their claims, so far.

      Right now we are at a critical point in the orbital scheme. The Arctic has been cooling for 10,000 years while the Antarctic has been warming. At this point that turns around but at lower amplitudinal oscillations with shorter time periods ( a more neutral time shifted toward Arctic warming). This leaves the planet subject to other forcings.

      I defy anyone to say that much of the methane and CO2 in the permafrost of the Northern Hemisphere will not be released in the future after watching this video.
      Also see how the heat moves right down into the US breadbasket region.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        “Nowhere did I see a mention of snow cover, which is a large area factor in the northern hemisphere and also has high albedo like sea ice.”

        Excellent point Fish and one worth pursuing.

      • Javier says:


        Right now we are at a critical point in the orbital scheme. The Arctic has been cooling for 10,000 years while the Antarctic has been warming.

        You got it wrong. Antarctica has not been warming for the past 10,000 years despite insolation changes.

        Masson, Valérie, et al. “Holocene climate variability in Antarctica based on 11 ice-core isotopic records.” Quaternary Research 54.3 (2000): 348-358.
        link to pdf

        • GoneFishing says:

          Nice variability study.

          Actually it has, you did not take into account the global temperature descent over that period of time. Antarctica temperature has risen against global temperature (which descended) and lately has been warming quickly. The Antarctic temperature anomaly is positive.

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            Tune in daily for As The Climate Turns, a Peak Oil Barrel soap opera exclusive, featuringJavier as himself, whoever he is, as he pits himself, with his ghostly band of Snipers, against The Regulars, lead by the inDefatigable Dennis, in a never-ending battle for The Truth.

  5. GoneFishing says:

    Now that utility scale PV is down to 1 dollar a watt installed, the only thing that can stop it would be laws and taxes on it (purposeful sabotage of the industry by government). It was $1.92 per watt at the end of 2012/beginning 2013. That is a large cost drop in just 4 years. In my area the payback would be about six years. In high sun areas it would be more like 4 years.

    • wehappyfew says:

      Here’s an example of a residential PV system installed by a very knowledgeable and capable Elec Engineer. Lot’s of good information:

      One thing that I want to point out is how much government regulations can help or hinder PV adoption. This guy was dealing with arbitrary and frustrating local regs, even though the local official was probably on the favorable side of the spectrum. Imagine how difficult this is when local government is against it… and every locality is different… no way to implement efficiencies of scale and reduce costs when every installation is completely unique and requires custom equipment and engineering work depending on the whims of local regs and officials.

      Germany seems to have an advantage here that the US is conceding. National streamlined uniform standards, zoning, building regs, etc mean that the cost for BOS in Germany is much less than the US.

      • GoneFishing says:

        In some ways we have quasi-medieval little kingdoms run by hired bureaucrats instead of towns. The politicians let the details be run by hired hands.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          There’s a lot to be said for having a uniform national system of laws, at least in respect to such matters as building codes that can reasonably be standardized.

          But even building codes actually NEED some flexibility because conditions and circumstances really do vary substantially from place to place.

          For example, I live very close to the state line between Virginia and North Carolina, and there’s a federal rule that prevents me, or anybody else, from bringing a MUCH BETTER CONSTRUCTED ( in terms of flooring trim cabinets plumbing fixtures, etc ) mobile home from North Carolina into Virginia that some that are legally for sale in Virginia. It has to do with the insulation package, which is, so far as I can see after examining examples of both, indistinguishable. Same materials, same spacing on wooden members, same thickness, same everything. The one in Virginia has a plain old electric furnace, the one in NC has a seer 14 heat pump.

          The beautiful thing about a federal and state system with the feds mostly in charge of things that are critical or important NATIONALLY , and the states free to do the remaining things the way local people want to do them is that after a while, the winners and losers are obvious enough, and the losers adopt the ways of the winners.

          When there is less flexibility, there is less experimentation and innovation as well.

          If Trumpster government lasts a while, we will see federal control expanded, and state control diminished, in many respects. It won’t surprise regulars here if the Trumpsters gut laws that require automobiles to get better fuel economy, and it won’t suprise regulars here if the Trumpsters employ various dirty tricks to make it HARDER for states to control businesses that mistreat employees, or pollute the commons, or if the Trumpsters actually pass laws subsidizing the installation of new coal burning furnaces. ( Well this last one might be SOMEWHAT of an exaggeration. 😉

          • Nathanael says:

            I’m actually pretty sure we’ll see less federal control. Having studied history, periods when the federal government is deeply unpopular lead to less federal control *whether or not the federal government tries to exert more control*.

            Look at marijuana laws for a really straightforward example. The feds are trying to implement exceptionally unpopular policy and… they can’t. They lack the manpower. The states have always done most of the drug arrests. If they refuse to cooperate, the feds are unable to do much of anything.

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              Hi Nathaniel,

              Power mad leaders of the Trumpster sort will at first cut back on the regulations and laws that limit what businessmen can legally do. So in the short term, you’re most likely right.

              Later on , they are prone to using the power of government to further the interests of their own friends and allies at the expense of their enemies and competitors.

              Whether I’m right or not will depend mostly on how fast the Trumpsters move, and how long they last. They’ve moved a LOT faster than I thought they would, and hopefully they will be gone faster than I expect too.

      • Longtimber says:

        For GT ( Grid Tie ) this is all we are doing these days.
        The 2014 NEC has been retroactively updated to 2017 version on Rapid Shutdown for Dwelling roofs. A whole new level of complexity now. Mucho Gracias
        NEC/FM/NFPA/UL Insurance co rackets. Got RadioNuclides?
        Check out the Bi-Direction Power Topology. Auto tech will drive energy resiliency

        • islandboy says:

          Hey Longtimber, I left a reply to one a post of yours in the last thread, linking to a story:

          Battery storage startup secures $6M for lead-acid development

          Did you see it? I’m really curious as to what you think as IIRC, you are the guy who had a Tesla Model S battery on your test bench.

          • Longtimber says:

            Pb acid batteries are nasty. There are no safe levels of Neurotoxins like Pb. IIRC The last lead smelter in the US was shut dow. Difficult to recycle Lead back into a quality storage battery. A starting battery is a poor storage battery. The best long life / high cycle life Pb batteries are the massive 2v Forktuck thick plate type. Costly to even move.

            • islandboy says:

              I agree that Pb is dangerous stuff. I subscribe to the idea that even at low concentrations it can lead to serious, wide spread behavioral problems (crime) in areas where it gets into human bodies so, I am not a fan of Pb acid by any description.

              I am keenly following the fortunes of salt water batteries (Aquion) and Zinc Bromine flow batteries (Redflow) with the hope that batteries suitable for repetitive (daily), deep cycle operation will become much more affordable really soon.

              I have an inverter/charger (VFX3024J) and charge controller (FM60) but, have not bought batteries yet because I am convinced that the day after I pony up the cash for a nice set of new storage batteries, will be the day a newer, better, much less expensive battery will become available!

              In the meantime, a buddy of mine has some 2V 200Ah AGM Pb acid cells that were pulled from cell phone cell tower sites when the company was bought out, shut down and their network dismantled a couple years ago. They are basically all dead (high internal resistance) but, I have been doing some research that suggests that de-sulfation might be able to resuscitate some of them. Is there any truth to this? I was able to get one cell out of three that I tried, to start conducting again (30 A) with a brief charging session (~1 hr) at about 7V. It’s got me really curious about these cells now.

              Funny that you mention forklift batteries. In my search for better, less expensive batteries, I stumbled upon the following web page just this past Sunday (Jan 22):

              The best kept secret in renewable energy

              Bought new, they are not cheap by any means but, like use electric car batteries, used forklift batteries could possibly do useful work in stationary applications. I could do with between 2 and 4 kWh useful capacity.

              • Longtimber says:

                The isse with Pb is that the cells are in self desctuctive chaos mode if the cell is not @ 2.1x volts.. Lithium batteries Life is NOT dependent on exact cell voltage
                or state of charge. In other words a Pb bank must have been in float EVERY afternoon for viable economics.

                BTW. Storage is optional. You can feed 100-400v PV source into 1- many. mean well HLG 320 or 600 and feed you inverter @ 25 or 50 V. Oversize the PV. I use PV this way for battery less chest freezers, pumps, etc MeanWell Type A HLG are excellent Lithium chargers. Just have to be certain current tapers to zero when V max is reached or you will have a Thermal Cascade event. Best to keep all lithium banks outside of a dwelling. The exception is perhaps LFE / LiFePo4 types.

  6. Survivalist says:

    The deadly game of chicken between the Trump Admin and the GOP

  7. Duncan Idaho says:

    More news from Mangostan:

    New wave of anti-evolution bills hit states

    • GoneFishing says:

      No big deal, evolution will go on it’s merry little way no matter what the kids are taught. The bright ones will figure it out. The rest can believe in fairies and goblins for all I care.
      Evolution is too slow for most mortals to grasp or be interested in anyway. First couple of billion years of life were really boring. Then the Cambrian explosion, then the Cambrian extinction, then ….

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Evolution is too slow for most mortals to grasp or be interested in anyway. First couple of billion years of life were really boring. Then the Cambrian explosion, then the Cambrian extinction, then

        True enough, but…

        Then humans invented gene drives and things started getting really interesting again!


        To Fight Malaria, Scientists Try Genetic Engineering To Wipe Out Mosquitoes

        Scientists have altered mosquitoes’ genes before. But these insects aren’t just any genetically engineered mosquitoes.

        What makes these insects unusual is the way Hammond and his colleagues are modifying them. They’re using a particularly potent type of genetic engineering called a “gene drive.” These are sequences of DNA produced in the laboratory that defy the usual rules of genetics.

        “These gene drives, they’re able to copy themselves. So instead of half of the offspring inheriting the gene drive, almost all of them do,” Hammond says. In other words, these DNA sequences drive a desired genetic change through subsequent generations.

        “So what happens is that it spreads and it spreads and it spreads. And this is the fantastic thing,” says Hammond. “Because it allows that gene to be selfish in a population. And in a very short amount of time you can actually transform an entire wild population into a modified population. It’s powerful.”

        It’s why gene drives are raising both high hopes and deep concern.

        Powerful ‘Gene Drive’ Can Quickly Change An Entire Species

        Until now, scientists have generally tried to keep genetically engineered creatures from spreading their DNA — to prevent them from inadvertently damaging the natural world.

        But a gene drive is designed to spread — and to spread quickly.

        • GoneFishing says:

          At least with Frankenstein’s monster they yelled “He’s Alive, he’s alive!”
          Now it will be “They are dead, all dead!!!”.
          How lovely. Who the real monster?

          • Fred Magyar says:

            Depends on how gene drives will be used…

            • GoneFishing says:

              So much like an army of droids, we could breed an army of clowns, I mean trolls.
              No real need, since society is already producing more noise than valuable signal and the noise is increasing.

  8. Duncan Idaho says:

    Post Orwellian:
    This is not then the Orwellian manipulation of language; it is simply dishonesty, lies and bullshit that is a wider foundational attack on the very nature of Truth itself. Truth matters in an Orwellian view of the world, which is why the powers that be work, through linguistic contortions to limit the ability of that truth to be spoken. Here, truth does not matter at all. The administration is questioning the basis and necessity of Truth in and of itself. Under this view, it does not matter that you are wrong or lying because the alternative (accuracy and honesty) don’t matter anyways. The worldview of this administration is one of a swirling maelstrom of views, some truthful, other untruthful, but where ontological proof is derived from power rather than from the accuracy of claims. Orwell would be horrified, for here is a new formulation of politics where the contents of language no longer matter along with the political content. We stumble blindly forwards into a world that is loutish, thuggish, post-rhetorical, post-truthful and thus post-Orwellian.

  9. Boomer II says:

    I have thought that Trump might support renewable energy projects, even if he talks about fossil fuels and tries to muzzle climate change talk. If he says one thing, but does another (in favor of renewables), I don’t really mind.

    Trump team's infrastructure short list is long on renewables | Article | Recharge

  10. Boomer II says:

    This article explains why Tesla stock is doing well right now.

    Analysts cite 'Trump Effect' for Tesla stock rally – Autoblog

    Although I want Tesla and Musk to do well, I wouldn’t put money into the stock. Too risky.

    But if I were looking for a long-term bet, I might focus on water. Of course if water gets scarce enough, people would just steal it, so I don’t think “owing” water would help much.

    How to Invest in Water Like Dr. Michael Burry from the Big Short – Vintage Value Investing

    • Longtimber says:

      Who be smarter – Buffett or Musk ? Warren Buffett is making money, BYD sells more cars and has superior (more stable-simpler) Battery Tech.

    • Boomer II says:

      I meant to say “owning” water.

    • Boomer II says:

      Tesla Motors, Inc. CEO Joins President Trump's Manufacturing Council | Market and Stocks Data | “On Friday, the White House announced that Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) CEO Elon Musk, along with some other executives from major U.S. companies like Ford, General Electric, and Lockheed Martin, will join President Trump’s new council to meet regularly for advising the president on manufacturing policy, reports CNBC.”

    • Boomer II says:

      Things Are Going Insanely Well For Elon Musk Since Trump Got Elected | Gizmodo Australia: “‘Tillerson obviously did a competent job running Exxon, one of the largest companies in the world,’ Musk told Gizmodo yesterday. ‘In the [Secretary of State] role, he is obligated to advance the cause of the US and I suspect he probably will. Also, he has publicly acknowledged for years that a carbon tax could make sense.’

      Musk and Tillerson apparently agree on plenty of other things as well, according to a recent Recode report. Both support US participation in the Paris climate accord and a national carbon tax, for example. Musk is said to have floated the idea of a carbon tax to Trump this week.”

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      The ownership of water or water rights is probably about as safe an investment as any when it comes to theft, and safer that most.

      Governments can take your property if you refuse to sell, and occasionally force the sale of property to private interests for supposedly public purposes.

      This brings up an interesting question.

      If somebody could by some means use an oil rig to drill a long lateral water line a few thousand feet down, without being caught in the act, how hard would it be to detect the presence of the line from the surface? It’s already possible to do laterals up to two or three miles to the best of my knowledge.

      It might be hard to prove that water obtained this way, on other people’s property, is stolen.

      A Virginia city for instance could drill a line terminating under the Potomac River……. The lawyers representing Maryland and Virginia could get rich just off the discovery portion of an actual trial. 😉

      • scrub puller says:

        Yair . . .

        One of the drillers on here reckoned he could drain a swimming pool from a thousand yards or so . . . I reckon the possibilities are considerable. (grins)

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Yeah, OK, but that’s relatively easy. The real question is can he drain the entire DC swamp…

  11. islandboy says:

    The EIA’s Electric Power Monthly was updated yesterday with data for November. As usual I have updated the graphs but this month I am posting both of them together as a collage. NG continues to generate a greater share of electricity than coal.

    For the solar chart, as we head towards getting the data for the final month of the year and the winter solstice, it looks like the minimum for this winter solstice may well end up being more than double the figure for two years before. We’ll know for certain next month.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Solar doubling in less than 3 years, pretty good.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Metallic hydrogen could turn out to be one of the most valuable inventions in history, because it really and truly might eventually be possible to make it in commercial quantities.

        Every piece of the puzzle of reality found and put in place means we’re that much closer to a useful “theory of everything”.

        Such an advance in any given field can also lead to fundamental discoveries in other fields. Consider the discovery of the secrets of optics, and the invention of the microscope.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        What’s the consensus estimate – if there is a consensus estimate- on how long it will take to double the current five to six percent of our domestic electricity production from wind and solar ?

        Given our Trumpster political problems, it might be better to ask how fast production as a percent of total electrical production is doubling in other countries with good wind and solar resources.

        • JN2 says:

          Latest EIA numbers show solar and wind at 6.8%. Last year’s growth rates, 42% solar, 21% wind.

          At these rates, solar + wind will double by the end of 2020.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            I’m always looking for any numbers and figures computed by professional economists that deal with the loss of market share of coal and gas here in the USA because of the rising contribution of wind and solar power.

            I’m hoping to find estimates of the TOTAL loss of revenue going to the oil and gas industry due to wind and solar power, and somebody has surely gathered this info up, but I’m a computer klutz, and probably just using the wrong key words in my searches.

            Then there’s a broader effect on the whole economy that obviously offsets part or all of the money we have spent subsidizing the wind and solar industries.

            Cheaper coal and cheaper gas mean lower costs for a very wide range of industries and consumers, from steel manufacturers to fertilizer manufacturers to home owners who heat with gas and buy their nekkid ape chow cheaper because farmers sell it cheaper because fertilizer is cheaper……… the ripples extend all the way out of sight.

            My guess is that ON AVERAGE our living costs here in the USA are actually ENOUGH LOWER , ALREADY, that we are realizing a NET PROFIT, society wide, by subsidizing wind and solar power.

            But I can’t find good numbers to either prove or disprove this speculation.

            • Nathanael says:

              I’ve never found a proper estimate either, and I’ve wanted that number in order to project the bankruptcy dates for the oil companies. 🙂

              If you want to analyze it in detail, the fact is that solar and wind initially and directly displace coal, and then they displace natgas. They only displace oil on islands like Hawaii or weird places like Saudi Arabia, because almost nobody uses oil for electricity generation any more.

              Electric cars then displace oil, because oil is mainly used for transportation.

              Natgas is largely used for heating. It gets displaced by heat pumps.

              So there are a lot of moving pieces here…

          • Nathanael says:

            What JN2 said, but if you do the math right, you get to 12.48% by the end of 2019, actually. (Though you won’t find out about it until 2020 — Latest EIA yearly numbers as of February 2017 are still the data from 2015.)

            The EIA percentage numbers are low due to not including “behind the meter” solar, though they did start estimating it in 2014. It tends to run at about 50%-60% of utility-scale solar. This doesn’t make much difference to the calculations.

            That’s US. It’s actually going faster in other countries which have less of an installed base of fossil fuel plants.

        • islandboy says:

          “Given our Trumpster political problems”

          As is being discussed elsewhere in this thread, given the access that people like Musk are getting to the president, I would be very surprised to see him supporting anything that really gets in the way of either renewables or EVs in a serious way. As a matter of fact, I suspect he might veto any bills that pose a threat to new industries.

          Saw this last night:

          Trump Meets with Major Business Leaders – Elon Musk, Ford, Lockheed Martin, etc. Promises “No Tax”

          Having listened to him babble for nine and a half minutes, I would imagine that if he were confronted with the facts surrounding the case of 1366 Technologies, I can just imagine him saying, “There is no way we can let this technology get established outside the US. Let’s do whatever is necessary to get this thing going ASAP. There’s no way we’re gonna let anybody set up a plant using this technology in China or South Korea before us!” If confronted by stalling tactics from Team Koch (Mitch McConnell et al), I can imagine him saying, “Are you guys nuts? We have to push ahead with this!”

          Maybe I’m just dreaming, maybe not.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        My eye sees a doubling in about 2 years on that chart, which is less than 3 years, but sounds more impressive to me.

        • Nathanael says:

          Rule of thumb is that solar doubles every 2 years, wind every 3 years. Wind had a head start.

          We may see a slowdown of wind and acceleration of solar because solar just became cheaper than wind on average. (This is just the last couple of months.)

  12. islandboy says:

    Below is the updated graph for capacity additions for 2016 from the latest updated Electric Power Monthly.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      If anyone is interested…

      According to new figures from the Department of Energy.
      In 2016, the solar workforce in the U.S. increased by 25% to 374,000 employees, compared to 187,117 electrical generation jobs in the coal, gas and oil industries… [N]et power generation from coal sources declined by 53% between 2006 and September 2016; electricity generation from natural gas increased by 33%; and solar grew by over 5,000% — from 508,000 megawatt hours (MWh) to just over 28 million MWh.

      Solar industry created jobs at a rate 20 times faster than the national average, according to the Energy Department, while 102,000 more workers also joined the wind turbine industry last year, a 32% increase. In fact, 93% of the new power in America is now coming from solar, natural gas, and wind — but it’s building out new solar-generating capacity that’s causing much of the workforce increases, according to the Energy Department.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Yep, they are paying 15 to 20 dollars an hour to install PV. Not nearly as much as oil drillers.

  13. Survivalist says:

    It appears that the vanity project of a foreign policy undertaken by KSA in Yemen isn’t turning out so well. The country responsible for about 15% of daily oil production is being raided by Yemeni forces back by the Houthi militia. Not a word about it in the news though. This is a good site if you want real news from the ME.

    • islandboy says:

      Elon Musk will Destroy the Oil Mafia? (Youtube)

      You don’t need to watch more than two minutes past the point at which this link starts the video to understand that this man is a hardcore believer in Peak Oil, Global Warming and Ocean Acidification. Being a part of Trump’s Manufacturing Council, has put him firmly in the belly of the beast. Hopefully he will infect the president with some of his sanity.

      • Boomer II says:

        I am no fan of Trump. But I think the Trump/Musk friendship will be the subversion that moves the US further into renewable energy territory. If Trump tells the public one thing and does another, I’m fine with that strategy if it advances renewables. If he wants to take down all the climate change info from websites, and if he wants to tell coal miners he will get their jobs back, but his actions say he supports low carbon solutions, then I’m okay with that.

        While I would prefer a more liberal president, perhaps the only way to fully swing the country to renewables is to tell part of the public what they want to hear and then ignore them.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          What Trump might actually do is anybody’s guess, but like just about every body else, he probably does do some things that surprise even his closest associates.

          If he is planning on staying in power, and expanding his and his homies control of the government and the economy, he is going to have to recruit more allies than he has now, and he will have to do some things that mollify his enemies to some extent.

          So. Nixon was in a position to go to China, and Trump is in a position to tell his BAU buddies that renewable energy, etc, will stay on the table, and maybe even get a little favorable treatment.

          But I wouldn’t place a bet on this possibility unless I got odds in my favor.

          At the rate he is going so far, it seems likely he will piss off more voters than he pleases, by a substantial margin, UNLESS the economy does well during his term.

          I’m afraid the American people are FAR more interested, R, L or middle, in full bellies, cheap gasoline, and thoughts of new cars, new houses, and new toys than they are in matters having to do with principles and the lives of their grandchildren.

          And while the economy WILL basically do whatever it is going to do, barring really major happenings such as a large scale war, there ARE things the prez can do to make it get up and trot a little while at least, if he has congress on his side, and Trump has congress in his pocket.

          You can pump a little speed and some high energy feed into an old horse just about dead on it’s feet, and it will perk up and work hard, at least for a little while.

          Both parties have been doing basically the same thing in terms of the economy for well over a century now.

          Nobody should be too surprised if luck favors Trump and his buddies, and the economy perks up a little, with them being partly responsible by way of providing some stimulus. They will take credit for the entire improvement, which is sop, and the people may well vote him a second term, if the economy does ok.

          I AM NOT making any predictions. I’m pointing out various possibilities.

          • Nathanael says:

            “I’m afraid the American people are FAR more interested, R, L or middle, in full bellies, cheap gasoline, and thoughts of new cars, new houses, and new toys than they are in matters having to do with principles and the lives of their grandchildren.”

            Musk very cleverly is offering new cars, new roofs for houses, and new batteries (toys). Brilliant move, I think. I suspect he has read Asimov’s _The Gods Themselves_.

  14. islandboy says:

    More Than 350,000 Plug-In Electric Cars Sold In China For 2016

    China once again outclassed the rest of the world, at least in terms of plug-in car sales in 2016.

    EV Sales Blog reports that 2016 ended with nearly 351,900 sales, including a whopping 44,874 in December (up 27% year-over-year)!

    That’s around 46% of the total EV sales made around the world, and if growth continues (relative to its peers), in 2017 more than 50% of all sales will originate in China.[snip]

    We would like to note also that an estimated 115,700 all-electric buses (of all kinds) sold in 2016. Yutong bus company delivered more than 21,400, while BYD sold just under 15,000

    This compares to 159 thousand or so in the US. I wonder what the president will think when he hears this bit of news? Will he think, “We’re not winning anymore. We need to star winning again!”?

    As I have said before, IMO China is “ground zero” for EVs. If you want an electric bus, China has more than two companies making thousands of them. AFAIK the US has only one company making hundreds!

    Proterra raises $140 million to turbocharge electric bus production

    Electric bus maker Proterra has raised $140 million in equity funding from existing investors including Tao Capital Partners, Kleiner Perkins, and GM Ventures, with a number of new investors joining the fray too.

    Founded in 2004, Burlingame, California-based Proterra manufactures transit buses that use fast-charging electric batteries that can be replenished in around 10 minutes. And back in September, the company unveiled a more efficient battery system with its new Catalyst E2 series, promising around 350 miles per charge.

    The company says that it has so far sold more than 300 vehicles to 35 municipal, university, and commercial transport organizations across the U.S.

    Bold mine. That’s “more than 300 vehicles”, since being founded in 2004!

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      I personally would love to believe it’s so , but I don’t believe anybody has yet built any batteries good enough to run a transit bus three hundred miles stop and go mode on one charge, or to be fully charged in ten minutes.

      As a matter of fact, I very seriously doubt very many city buses run as many as three hundred miles in any given twenty four hour period. They seldom get up to open highway speeds, and they spend as much or more time sitting at bus stops as they do actually going down the road, or else sitting during off peak hours, not being needed.

      Hopefully I’m wrong about such batteries being for real, NOW, rather than some years down the road, MAYBE.

      • Nathanael says:

        Stop-and-go traffic is MUCH easier for electric vehicles than for gas vehicles, thanks to regenerative braking — you don’t use energy “idling” and you recover energy when you slow down. In addition, lower speeds are much easier on the battery than higher speeds — you get humungous ranges if you drive a Tesla at 30 mph cross-country!

        I’m quite sure they have buses which can do 350 miles stop-and-go, city speed, on one charge. 350 miles highway — no, probably not.

  15. Oldfarmermac says:

    So far I have not really been able to get my head around just what Trump’s actual long term plan might be.

    It never pays to just blindly assume you know what an enemy general’s REAL goal is .

    Consider for instance that TRUMP cannot possibly be stupid ( ? ) enough that he does not understand that by pissing of the vast majority of Hispanic voters in this country that he doesn’t realize he may be risking his own reelection, and the election or reelection of some R Senators and Representatives, not to mention R candidates at the state and local level.

    Maybe his REAL plan is to rape rob and pillage to the extent he and his homies can, for the next four years, and get away with the loot, without even WORRYING about the R PARTY, four years from now.

    Or maybe he thinks ( correctly ?) that the country as a whole will follow him and stick with him.

    Personally I don’t know a soul past fifty to fifty five who will vote for him again, if he seriously fucks with social security or medicare, etc, with the exception of a VERY few acquaintances with PLENTY of money.

    People near or past retirement age with a LOTS of money are probably outnumbered in the voting population by at least ten to one, maybe twenty to one. And even the ones with money may think twice, because they might feel obligated to support less fortunate family members.

    I’m throwing this remark out as pure speculation intended to get any reader of it to enlarge his intellectual box when it comes to the political scene.

    • GoneFishing says:

      So far DT is mostly doing what he said he would and mostly acting the way he did before if a little less contentious. He seems to be interested in promoting business in country. He does seem willing to learn and change his mind on some subjects, which is good.
      My political view is if we are not taking care of the big problems, it doesn’t much matter what else we do.
      DT and cronies seem to not be taking care of the big problems and continuing BAU. I still have heard nothing on taking care of all that depleted uranium storage. The Doomsday clock is set closer to midnight.
      He seems to be interested in trade deficits but is aiming at Mexico, while we have larger deficits with China, Japan, and Germany. But it is still early, so much is yet to come. Stay tuned.
      What is this interaction with Russia? Any ideas?

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      “So far I have not really been able to get my head around just what Trump’s actual long term plan might be.”

      That’s because you haven’t gotten over your 25 years of Republican propaganda hate for HRC. Who used her own email server and blaming her for 4 deaths in Benghazi. Now, yourself and those who think like you are responsible for this American nightmare.

      4, 3, 2, 1, now show us some more hate

      • Duncan Idaho says:

        Voted for:
        Iraq War
        Patriot Act
        Keystone Pipeline
        To cover the bad bets of some of her larges donors to the tune of 12 trillion dollars
        Called the TPP the “Gold Standard” of Trade Deals
        On the Board of Wall Mart
        Initiated a coup in Honduras, which now has the highest murder rate in the world

        Then, there is her role in her husbands administration, in which impoverished millions of children and poor women, locked of many men of color, and turned the economy into a casino game

        We could get into foreign policy, but I think this is enough.
        She would of been a death march (Cheeto Boy is a death sprint)
        Anyone see the problem?

        • HuntingtonBeach says:

          George W Bush started the Iraq War, no one else.

          Patriot Act, can you name the two senators at the time who didn’t vote for the Act ?

          Yes, she was for the pipeline when there was a world wide shortage. Which is not the case today.

          TPP is the gold standard. Trade is what makes the Divided States of America the richest country in the world. Soon you will be paying and working more for less.

          Your just jealous you don’t have the skills to be a board member of any corporation.

          Foreign policy- initiated the sanctions on Iran that lead to eliminating nuclear weapons that includes inspections.

          Anyone see the problem? Your dishonesty of the facts and your display of alternative facts.

          • Duncan Idaho says:

            Alternative facts?
            Please, she is a BAU corporate lap dog.

            On a micro level, big difference on women’s issues, workplace rights, gender and sexual identity, and environment (as long as it didn’t interfere with donor profits).
            It is too late for reformist solutions.

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              And Trump is a bull in a china shop with blinders on.

              Alternative facts -“(as long as it didn’t interfere with donor profits).

              • Duncan Idaho says:


              • Duncan Idaho says:

                So, 12 trillion in covering donor bad bets is alternative facts?

                The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.
                Clinton is uniquely unsuited to the epic task of confronting the fossil-fuel companies that profit from climate change.


                (From one of the most respected sources of information)


                Then there’s all the cash that fossil-fuel companies have directly pumped into the Clinton Foundation. In recent years, Exxon, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron have all contributed to the foundation. An investigation in the International Business Times just revealed that at least two of these oil companies were part of an effort to lobby Clinton’s State Department about the Alberta tar sands, a massive deposit of extra-dirty oil. Leading climate scientists like James Hansen have explained that if we don’t keep the vast majority of that carbon in the ground, we will unleash catastrophic levels of warming.

                During this period, the investigation found, Clinton’s State Department approved the Alberta Clipper, a controversial pipeline carrying large amounts of tar-sands bitumen from Alberta to Wisconsin. “According to federal lobbying records reviewed by the IBT,” write David Sirota and Ned Resnikoff, “Chevron and ConocoPhillips both lobbied the State Department specifically on the issue of ‘oil sands’ in the immediate months prior to the department’s approval, as did a trade association funded by ExxonMobil.”

                Did the donations to the Clinton Foundation have anything to do with the State Department’s pipeline decision? Did they make Hillary Clinton more disposed to seeing tar-sands pipelines as environmentally benign, as early State Department reviews of Keystone XL seemed to conclude, despite the many scientific warnings?

                • HuntingtonBeach says:

                  Alright Duncon,

                  Where were you on the pipeline back in 2009 ? Because I thought at the time it was pretty much a no brainier to build. Today I think the tar sands should never be dug up. Under the Democrats for 8 years it never got built. That ended up being the right thing to do. The world can reduce it’s dependence and have a better quality of life.

                  Back in November you had one of two choices. It was black or white. A denier or realist.

                  If you didn’t like those options. You need to take personal responsibility in your grass roots lack of effort prior.

                  So who’s your person for 2020 ?

                  • Duncan Idaho says:

                    Surely you jest!
                    That is like asking a Austrian in 1913 who the next Hapsburg Ruler is going to be.

                    I had the choice in 2016 between a Corporate Whore and a Narcissistic Madman.
                    Reformist politics is not going to solve anything at this point.

                  • Lloyd says:

                    I had the choice in 2016 between a Corporate Whore and a Narcissistic Madman.
                    No, you had a choice between:
                    1) A Corporate whore
                    2)A Corporate whore who is a Narcissistic Madman.

                    One is obviously worse than the other. The idea that Trump wouldn’t have voted for your shopping list is ludicrous.

                  • Oldfarmermac says:

                    “Where were you on the pipeline back in 2009 ? Because I thought at the time it was pretty much a no brainier to build. Today I think the tar sands should never be dug up. Under the Democrats for 8 years it never got built. That ended up being the right thing to do. The world can reduce it’s dependence and have a better quality of life.”

                    So sez a stupid hypocrite who has been bragging in this forum about how much money he makes in the oil business .

                    I don’t mean it’s stupid to make money, but rather that it’s stupid to brag about it while also badmouthing other people as dishonest, unethical, predatory, etc, because they do such things, or the SAME thing, to make money.

                    HB, you never cease to impress me. Every time I’m convinced you have made the biggest possible fool out of yourself , you soon top your previous best effort.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Hi HB,

        Go off in a corner and play by yourself

        You either didn’t read my comment at all, or else you are too stupid to comprehend that I just said

        “It never pays to just blindly assume you know what an enemy general’s REAL goal is .”

        Anybody who has ever played chess, or watched a football game, or a debate, or used his head for anything except a hat rack knows what means.

        I went on to say

        “Consider for instance that TRUMP cannot possibly be stupid ( ? ) enough that he does not understand that by pissing of the vast majority of Hispanic voters in this country that he doesn’t realize he may be risking his own reelection, and the election or reelection of some R Senators and Representatives, not to mention R candidates at the state and local level.”

        In plain language, I just said Trump may be so stupid he doesn’t know what he is doing in terms of risking his own relection.

        And then I said

        “Maybe his REAL plan is to rape rob and pillage to the extent he and his homies can, for the next four years, and get away with the loot, without even WORRYING about the R PARTY, four years from now.”

        I described him as maybe being WORSE than a Viking or nazi, because the Vikings and nazis mostly preyed on other people, rather than their own.

        You must be even more of a mental midget than I thought.

        Let me see if I can get MY head around THIS:

        I say his REAL plan may be to rape rob and pillage to the extent possible and get away with the loot, without worrying about the R party next election, and you say I ‘m blinded by hatred for HRC, paraphrased.

        It’s hard to accept it, but I believe I’ve got my head around it, and the only conclusion I can logically reach is that I have been guilty of overestimating your intelligence until now.

        Words don’t even EXIST to describe your stupidity.

        Please keep it up.You are doing a great job encouraging HRC fans who read your remarks to think about who they would rather listen to, you or somebody such as Bernie Sanders or James Carville.

        Or even me. 😉

        • HuntingtonBeach says:

          “You either didn’t read my comment at all, or else you are too stupid to comprehend that I just said”

          Get back to me when you learn how to write without rambling on and on and on with stupidity .

          For 6 months there was a simple choice between two candidates. You couldn’t stop trashing the only civil choice.

          Your just going to have to live with me for 4 more years. Get uses to it or change your screen name and learn how to write.

          “Go off in a corner and play by yourself”

          From the guy who buys special lube by the quart. Figures

          • Survivalist says:

            Hilary was not a civil choice. She’s a fear mongering warmonger just like Trump. Only different targets than Trump. To refer to Hillary as a choice is fine. A civil choice? No way. She’s a nut. You also referred to her as a realist. Anyone who thinks Hillary is a realist is nuts.

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              “She’s a fear mongering warmonger just like Trump. Only different targets than Trump”

              Yes, she told you to fear Trump, not Mexicans or Muslims.

              • Survivalist says:

                She campaigned on an act of war with Russia. Anybody who campaigns on an act of war with Russia is nuts. She’s a neo con in drag. Her assertion that a no fly zone over Syria is a good idea confirmed her madness.

                • HuntingtonBeach says:

                  We are at war with Russia. Who do you think could have stopped her from a no fly zone ?

                  • Survivalist says:

                    It appears to me the Trump winning the election has stopped her from a no fly zone in Syria. I’m not certain what would have stopped her if she had won the election. If you think escalating conflict with Russia is a fine idea you’re nuts. Go sign up if you’re so gung-ho. As it is though I suspect you’ll just cheer for more war from the sidelines. When a warmongering Wall Street shill is the best the D’s can field for a presidential race it’s time to just admit who you really are. D is the new R.

              • Oldfarmermac says:

                Tens of millions of people are finally coming around to the realization that the choice we have had in recent years has been between the R party and a D party best described as an R LITE party .

                Hopefully there will be enough of them that next time around, the D’s will run a real DEMOCRAT, rather than a R in D clothing.

                The D’s can win that way. If they continue to operate as the R LITE party, it won’t really matter much in the long term anyway, even if the D’s do win.

                Our only real hope is that the D party will return to it’s historical roots.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            I’ll loan you some, but be advised that it contains ingredients known to the state of California to be carcinogenic. Says so right on the can.

  16. GoneFishing says:

    I found a barely used 2015 Nissan Leafs (3000 miles or less) for about $13,000. Anyone know if that is a good deal? Figure it would be a good local runabout car.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      My hunch is you almost can’t go wrong! BTW, is the price negotiable?
      Another idea is to boost the range with an add on battery pack. There are a few companies that are building them and if you are a half way decent DYIer you might get a really good deal on the extra batteries as well and save a bunch doing your own install.
      Keep us posted!

      • GoneFishing says:

        Comes with 100,000 mile warranty and other services so not too sure how much I can get the price down.

        Maybe someone will come up with an add on solar PV booster for the roof. Using those high end 40% efficiency panels would bring the range to over 100 miles on sunny days. The rate I drive, might hardly ever need to charge the thing.
        I am not giving up my old ICE, good for hauling, throwing on the kayaks and long trips. Better for winter runs. So not too concerned about range. Only do long trips once in a while.
        Now if the parks and forests would put in 220V chargers, it only takes 4 hours to recharge. Easily done while I hike or kayak. Or I could drive slow and double my range. 🙂

        • Nathanael says:

          It’s a decent deal if you found it LOCALLY. I found a 2014 Leaf selling for only about $10000, but the catch was, it was further away from me than the range of the car! Since there were no charging stations along the route, there was a problem….

          I will say that some people are finding older used Leafs for as little as *$6000*, but again, you have to transport them to your location.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            If I wanted to buy a Leaf too far from home, I would get somebody to drop me off where the car is located with my pickup truck, and my ICE powered trailer mounted welding machine , and some tools.

            It wouldn’t be more than a couple of hours before I had a tow hitch on the back of that sucker, hand made if necessary, , and the welder hooked to it, and the heavy duty extension cord with thirty amps at 240v sixty cycles plugged up to the car, and headed down the road.

            My welder actually has TWO thirty amp 240 V auxiliary outlets. I might be able to figure out a way to use them both, lol. That would charge her up pretty fast, lol.

            But I’m not sure the charging system would allow the battery to be charged while underway, but if not, well, I would just stop here and there and find some way to enjoy myself while charging her up.

            You could use a much smaller generator, one that would actually fit inside the car like luggage but one that will fit inside won’t put out more than 20 amps at 240 V. And you would have to leave the windows wide open to prevent the exhaust from overheating the interior, not to mention CO poisoning, etc.

            My real point is that even if the grid is down, you can still get some use out of a pure electric car if you have an ice powered generator of the sort many homeowners have on hand. Having your own solar panels would be even better, if the sun is up and out, lol.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      That’s a great deal if you can stand driving around in the ugliest car on the road

      • GoneFishing says:

        What do think is a pretty car?

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Something with a relatively low drag coefficient would make it pretty in my book.

          The dramatically designed headlights aren’t just for styling effect. The LED cluster is shaped to direct airflow away from the door mirrors, reducing aerodynamic drag. The prominent rear lights and the rear spoiler help separate airflow around the rear of the car to reduce the drag coefficient.

          The resulting drag coefficient is 0.29, a respectable but not outstanding figure.

          It has a ways to go before equaling a Boxfish at o.o6…


        • HuntingtonBeach says:

          The Bolt

          I always thought the leaf looked like a wood plane

          • GoneFishing says:

            Just looked at the Bolt, looks like a Leaf with a fat nose. Bolt has a higher coefficient of drag than the Leaf and is heavier.

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              The Bolt has twice the size battery. Travels more than twice the distance without a charge. It’s about the lines. Also don’t like long nosed vehicles. To each his own.

              • GoneFishing says:

                “Travels more than twice the distance without a charge.”

                What, is that rolling downhill? Soap box racing huh? I didn’t think either one went far without a charge. 🙂

                I got a Rolls Canardlie for you if you want it.

                • HuntingtonBeach says:

                  Oh come on Fish, you know what I meant. From a full charge the Bolt will travel twice the distance of the Leaf

        • HuntingtonBeach says:

          Nissan Wood Plane

          All kidding and personal opinions a side. If the Leaf can fit your life style I hope and think you should get it. I think you will enjoy the electrical experience. I would look forward in reading about your travels.

          Go for it!

        • alimbiquated says:

          Whatever TV tells him is pretty. People have been so brainwashed by advertising they don’t see what zombies it makes them.

          • HuntingtonBeach says:

            You will get no argument from me. That TV and advertising is a brainwashing process. I just don’t remember seeing the memo. That the chrome less, frog eyed, wood plane ass end leaf is ugly. God forbid I have my own opinion. Your kidding yourself if you don’t think ones vehicle isn’t tied to the owners self esteem for most.

            Men Spend $1 Billion Yearly Fighting Baldness


    • Techsan says:

      I have had a Leaf for 5+ years, and I like it.

      At that price, it’s almost a free car, because you will save enough on gas to pay for it.

      The Leaf drives like a sports car: low center of gravity, fast acceleration. A Leaf (stock except for tires) was entered in the Pikes Peak Hill Climb; it not only won its class, but beat some of the gasoline cars. My wife considers the Leaf to be a luxury car.

      Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some say “you are what you drive”, but I say “If you are what you drive, you ain’t much.”

  17. Oldfarmermac says:

    If it suits your needs, it sounds like a steal, in terms of what you will get in low cost day to day operating costs, and relatively limited depreciation, compared to a new car with similar features. If I were commuting to work round trip less than fifty miles or so, I would buy it myself, except for the fact that I’m an old gear head and work on my own cars.

    So I never spend over maybe a couple of thousand for a car, and put the difference in purchase price, taxes, and insurance in a long term project such as for instance the sun room I’m sitting in right this minute. A good backyard mechanic can drive a two thousand dollar car a hundred thousand miles without spending much at all on it if he selects the make and model and individual car competently.

    I’m not a real expert, I’m a lot better than just a good back yarder. 😉

    Here’s some wisdom, when it comes to living well, and being self reliant, and choosing jobs and careers.

    They say ten percent of the fishermen catch ninety percent of the fish.

    This might be true.

    Flip side:

    They also say that ninety percent of a mechanics total investment in expertise and tools are only needed for the last ten percent of the jobs he does. This is probably an exaggeration, but not nearly as great an exaggeration as you might think at first glance.

    A rolling stone guy with good reading and math skills can learn a trade such as residential electrician well enough to do virtually anything ever needed in a house in a year. The second trade, such as plumbing, well he can learn that one in less than six months. You can learn to paint quite well, but maybe not very fast, in a matter of a few weeks.

    You might not get a job doing these things except as a helper, but you can do them more than well enough to do nearly or all your own work. After forty years working as a habitual rolling stone, I could work in a dozen trades without supervision, and another dozen with a good man handy to keep an eye on me and help me in case of need.

    Anybody in need of temporary work and forced to work for low pay would do well to get a job where he learns something that will help him save a ton of money down the road.

    A couple of years ago I took down four large and dangerous trees hanging over a house I own (just purchased ) over the course of a week with tools I already owned, and a farm hand helper that cost me three hundred bucks mostly to just stand around and fetch my tools and chains from place to place. The cheapest bid I got from a tree guy to put them on the ground was three thousand bucks.

    That put me up there with a hell of a lot of lawyers, engineers, accountants, etc, for THAT week at least.

    Most years I have at least eight or ten weeks as good or better, and since the money is in the form of sweat equity………. no tax is due until I eventually sell at the capital gains rate.

    A lot of people who have never worked a day on a construction job have built a house for themselves, and while the results aren’t always impressive in terms of workmanship, the house is virtually always a livable house. I have seen some that were BETTER looking jobs than average.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      “I never spend over maybe a couple of thousand for a car”

      “That put me up there with a hell of a lot of lawyers, engineers, accountants, etc, for THAT week at least”

      In your dreams

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Sometime back you said you never read my comments, they’re too long.

        It amazes me that a person of your intellectual stature has an attention span ADEQUATE to read them, but otoh, spiders can sit motionless all day waiting for their web to twitch, and react instantly, so……… Maybe you’re some sort of insect or arthropod or other “lower” life form?

        It gives me great pleasure to know I’m getting thru even to you. A steady drip of water wears away stone, given time.

        • HuntingtonBeach says:

          Most of the time I start falling asleep trying to read your posts because there so boring. Now I just spot the first stupidity and comment. Your posts are like a 90 year old with dementia. That can’t focus and gets distracted talking about themselves from the subject at hand.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            But you still read them, that’s obvious enough to anybody.

            A long time back, I asked Ron about what I could post, and he said I could post pretty much anything I please. So far, I haven’t heard otherwise from either him or Dennis.;-)

            This is an open topic thread, get used to it.

            Some people are interested in knowing about the things I post, because they have brains enough to understand that maybe someday knowledge of these things might be VERY important to them personally.

            About buying and driving cheap cars:

            I have owned some rather expensive cars, but I bought them as investments, rather than as tools needed to deal with the day to day problem called mobility.

            Over the years, I have had an extra three hundred thousand bucks ( a rough estimate depending on how many new cars I MIGHT have bought, BUT DIDN’T) available to invest, and you might be SURPRISED at just how much property I own, as the result of investing that money, some of it going back fifty years or farther.

            Furthermore, variety is known to a lot of people as the spice of life, and the days I spend in the shop are as much recreation for me as they are WORK. I probably average three hundred bucks a day in tax free savings for each day I spend in the shop, compared to somebody who drives a newer car and takes it to a dealer or garage for service and repairs.

            And about the trees:

            Well , the sweetest part of THAT little job was that I negotiated the purchase price down FIVE thousand dollars based on the previous owners expectations concerning the cost of getting them down and gone. I didn’t have any significant expense in terms of disposing of them, because I simply gave them away to local guy who sells firewood in exchange for taking all except the small limbs. I used my tractor to push the debris into a pile and burnt it, which took only a couple of hours of actual work.

            Start to finish, I worked on that old house about fifteen to twenty hours a week for six months, and had a GOOD TIME doing it. I have been offered sixty thousand more than I have in it, but I have no need to sell, and it’s so located that so long as the economy holds up, it will appreciate right along. Superb view, privacy, dead end street, hardly any traffic, no water or sewer bill, garden spot, nice trees, etc etc, and people fleeing the congestion, winter weather, and high cost of living up north are selling out in ever increasing numbers and moving HERE as retirees.

            Five minutes to a National Park, only an hour or a little longer to a couple of first class universities with medical schools, an easy day trip to Charlotte , close enough to the beach for easy two and three day minivacations…..

            Did I mention that RENTS are going up too?

            Making six figures plus annually from actually WORKING would not be ANY problem at all for me, IF I wanted to WORK on a regular basis. But making it would cut into my free time.

            Something that most people fail to understand about modern farming is that if you are a good manager, and in the right sort of farming, you can take off weeks and months at a time, except during a few critical periods that mostly occur during the spring and fall.

            I have generally taken more time OFF, over the years, than most people spend working.

  18. Ezrydermike says:

    Arctic Summer Ice Has Decreased by 72 Percent Since 1980 [Graphic]
    This volumetric look at the scope of the melt is just as staggering as surface area comparisons
    By Ryan F. Mandelbaum | Scientific American February 2017 Issue

  19. Duncan Idaho says:

    Access denied. Your IP address [] is blacklisted. If you feel this is in error please contact your hosting providers abuse department.

    This site doesn’t like Tor—

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Duncan,

      Yes TOR will not work well. Why do you need to use it to look at Peak Oil Barrel?

      • Duncan Idaho says:

        It works most of the time.
        Being a former IT person, I don’t willingly give information out.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Duncan,

          Maybe TOR works fine, I stand corrected. Not sure the problem in that case.

  20. Boomer II says:

    We have talked in the past about whether everyone will get hit equally when times get tough, or whether the very rich can collect resources and survive even if much of humanity does not.

    This very recent article seems to be part of the discussion.

    Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich – The New Yorker: “Some of the wealthiest people in America—in Silicon Valley, New York, and beyond—are getting ready for the crackup of civilization.”

    • Fred Magyar says:

      -getting ready for the crackup of civilization.

      Funny you should mention that…

      On this rainy Sunday morning in South Florida, I had two side by side browser windows open on my laptop…

      On one I was reading George Mobus’ writings on the other I was scrolling Yahoo News.
      To be honest I’m not sure how much longer I can take what is going on in the world right now and I’m even less sure how to channel my growing anger.

      First, from George Mobus’ blog:

      October 13, 2016

      A New Human Society – Part 4

      Higher Levels of Consciousness

      Defining Consciousness

      Let’s start with a relatively simple definition of consciousness. Let us say that consciousness is the property of a system that allows it to be aware of its environment. Moreover, consciousness allows a system to encode what it perceives into memories that constitute mental models, which it uses to interpret what it perceives and use the information to make intelligent decisions. It follows that higher orders of consciousness are then capacities to be aware of larger and “temporally longer” scales of the environment and make smarter decisions. I wrote a series on consciousness to attend my series on sapience. I’m afraid the simple definition gets complicated rather quickly. Even so, the fundamental idea is still simple. We human beings are capable of attending to elements in a complex environment only to a certain capacity. Our environment in the modern era has grown incredibly complex and extended. The average human being is seemingly incapable of dealing with (think about) issues that cover the globe or extend in time to a future century. If they were, they would grasp the significance of climate change for their grandchildren and the degree to which the refugee crisis in MENA will impact the rest of the world. Instead the typical response is xenophobia.

      In contrast, reading from the comments section of an article on Yahoo News, about a Judge blocking part of Trump immigration order

      A New York federal court issues an emergency stay that affects people from Muslim-majority countries who have been detained at U.S. airports.
      ‘Hope Trump enjoys losing’ »</I?

      13.4k replies

      As an aside, I also have to wonder how many people even know what 'Yahoo' means…

      YAHOO (a most appropriate name, IMHO) NEWS

      Yahoo (Gulliver’s Travels)
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      For other uses, see Yahoo (disambiguation).

      The Servants Drive a Herd of Yahoos into the Field by Louis John Rhead, Metropolitan Museum of Art
      Yahoos are legendary beings in the novel Gulliver’s Travels (1726) by Jonathan Swift. Swift describes them as being filthy and with unpleasant habits, resembling human beings far too closely for the liking of protagonist Lemuel Gulliver, who finds the calm and rational society of intelligent horses, the Houyhnhnms, greatly preferable. The Yahoos are primitive creatures obsessed with “pretty stones” they find by digging in mud, thus representing the distasteful materialism and ignorant elitism Swift encountered in Britain. Hence the term “yahoo” has come to mean “a crude, brutish or obscenely coarse person”.

      Without further ado: Here are a few typical comments from some GREAT God fearing Americans

      LittleFlame 10 hours ago
      Why don’t these muslims go seek asylum in muslim countries?? Why coming here if we’re the infidels? GO TRUMP!! AMERICA FIRST!!!
      Show replies (115) Reply 1608

      sokeijarhead 10 hours ago
      What the hell is wrong with the democrat party? They now care more for illegal aliens, radical muslims, refugees with possible radical muslims mixed in with them than American citizens! Seems liberals are saying “The American people have to learn to live with terrorist so that we can keep and increase our voter base by importing new voters”!
      Show replies (37) Reply 503

      A 10 hours ago
      Constitutional rights are rights given only to American citizens. These people have not yet been granted citizenship , I’m willing to bet this again will be over turned.
      Show replies (75) Reply 1035

      To be clear we are not talking about illegal immigrants! We are talking about banning people from entering the US who are LEGAL RESIDENTS, have green cards and have jobs, homes and families in the US. And many who have already been granted valid visas by the US state department and are now being stopped from boarding planes at international airports around the world. We are talking about innocent victims of the lowest form of discrimination. If this isn’t fascism I don’t know what is?!

      I don’t see this ending well.

      • Strummer says:

        It was always possible to turn away ANYONE, including people with valid visa at the US border, basically at the whim of the immigration officer. And it did happen quite a lot.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Right! And when did it become acceptable to turn away people who are already LEGAL residents with jobs, homes and families in the US. What The Fuck does LEGAL mean to you?!

          • Strummer says:

            Chill, I don’t care that much about US politics, I live in a backwater eastern european country. As far as I know (working for a US company), having a job or residence or anything similar does not entitle anyone to anything, only citizenship actually does.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Not so! While permanent legal residents do not have the same rights as US citizens they do have the right to live and work in the US and to come and go as they please, meaning they can travel internationally.

              lawful permanent resident (LPR) A lawful permanent resident is a non-citizen who has been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis. As proof of that status, a person is granted a permanent resident card, commonly called a “green card.”

      • Strummer says:

        Oh, and I hope you are aware that this ‘fascist’ policy is mostly just an extension of a policy enacted by the Obama administration more than a year ago? The ‘Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015’, which by the way contained the list of affected countries (so the claim that Trump selected them based on ethnicity or religion or business interests is as fake as fake news gets).

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Oh, and I hope you are aware that this ‘fascist’ policy is mostly just an extension of a policy enacted by the Obama administration more than a year ago?

          Oh Yeah, exactly the same, NOT!

          On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, which includes the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act). … These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States

          If you for a moment think that what Trump did is even remotely similar to that then you are what is called fractally wrong! Obama may have been center right but he was no fascist. Trump is banning the return of legal permanent residents into the US based on their place of birth and their religious beliefs.

          Now, That is Fascist with a capital F!

          • Duncan Idaho says:

            The Mango Monster will probably use this:

            That, and Obama’s deportation history.

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              Trump is a fear monger playing to the racists, Nazis, white nationalist and cowards.

              Grow a pair for civil rights and freedom for all

          • clueless says:

            Fred, you would not know what a fascist is if he/she lived with you. 325,000 passengers from foreign countries landed in day one and only 119 were detained for further review, most of whom were cleared within 24 hours.

            If you want to see a fascist, look at Franklin Roosevelt, the revered icon of liberals, who put 100,00 individuals of Japanese heritage who were resident CITIZENS OF THE US into concentration camps and confiscated their businesses, houses, money etc.

            Jimmy Carter banned entry into the US by anybody from Iran. He was a fascist also.

            Eisenhower rounded up and deported 10 million Mexicans that were living in the US under a wet back law. He was a fascist if there ever was one. He led the World Armies to fight other fascists, but obviously that was just to disguise what he was.

            I have to go – my wife wants me to help her with the dishes. Another fascist.

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
              Because I was not a Socialist.

              Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
              Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

              Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
              Because I was not a Jew.

              Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

              Don’t be clueless

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Fred, you would not know what a fascist is if he/she lived with you.

              I know my own family history quite well and I can assure without any shadow of a doubt that I know exactly what fascism is and what it is like.

              I know what like is like today in Hungary under Victor Orban and his neo-nazi Jobbik party friends!

              I also know what it is like to grow up under a military dictatorship, so don’t try and tell me what I know or don’t know.

              If all you know is based on your knowledge of life in the US and American history, then it is you who hasn’t a fucking clue!

              • clueless says:

                In 2011, Obama suspended immigration from Iran for 6 months. What a fucking fascist!!

              • clueless says:

                In 1945 Truman nuked 200,000 innocent civilians. What a fucking fascist!!

                • clueless says:

                  In the early 1960’s, John F Kennedy started a war in Vietnam. What a fucking fascist!!

                  • HuntingtonBeach says:

                    Clueless, if you can’t see the fascism. Your part of the problem

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  And what?! Does that suddenly make Trump a champion of human rights? I guess you think Steve Bannon is a humanist…

                  • Oldfarmermac says:

                    Hi Fred,

                    I strongly agree with you that Trump is as much or more a fascist than any other modern day American politician.

                    But in the interests of furthering an actual USEFUL discussion of who’s who and what ‘s what involving and about fascism, I wish to point out that if you ask five or six different people what fascism actually IS, you will get five or six vague and at least partially conflicting answers.

                    Here’s the best single REASONABLY short discussion of what facsism actually IS, in terms of a DEFINITION of the word, that I have run across personally. But it’s a tortured and clunky , clumsy definition, even so.

                    I think you will enjoy reading it, and also that most of the people here involved in this discussion NEED to read it.


                    Now here is the best single essay EVER, in my opinion, on what fascism is and is NOT, by one of the greatest writers and thinker of the last century or so.



                    What is Fascism?
                    TRIBUNE 1944
                    Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’
                    One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian régimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology.
                    It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is even harder with some of the small states which are describable as Fascist. It is usually assumed, for instance, that Fascism is inherently warlike, that it thrives in an atmosphere of war hysteria and can only solve its economic problems by means of war preparation or foreign conquests. But clearly this is not true of, say, Portugal or the various South American dictatorships. Or again, antisemitism is supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of Fascism; but some Fascist movements are not antisemitic. Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism. But still, when we apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or Japan or Mussolini’s Italy, we know broadly what we mean. It is in internal politics that this word has lost the last vestige of meaning. For if you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years. Here I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term ‘Fascist’. I am speaking of what I have seen in print. I have seen the words ‘Fascist in sympathy’, or ‘of Fascist tendency’, or just plain ‘Fascist’, applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:
                    Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or ‘Fascist-minded’. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: ‘The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism’.
                    Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist organizations.
                    Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes, and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a ‘Fascist country’. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.
                    Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky’s own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.
                    Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively;
                    War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.
                    Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term ‘Fascist’ to anyone who wishes for a military victory. The supporters of the People’s Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism with Fascism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as ‘Fascist-minded’ or ‘natural Fascists’. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered conducive to Fascism. Before the war, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist phenomena.
                    Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.
                    * * *
                    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
                    Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
                    But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.
                    THE END
                    George Orwell: ‘What is Fascism?’

                    Here’s a quote from elsewhere in Orwell’s essays:

                    “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”…In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.”

                • Oldfarmermac says:

                  Truman had ample justification for dropping the bomb, twice.

                  It was necessary to bring the war to a conclusion, one way or another, and this way arguably saved more lives and more heartache among the survivors than any other way available.

                  The Japanese government would NOT have surrendered , otherwise. Many times as many people, including a lot of American troops, would have died if the war had lasted another year.

                  I have read a shelf full of books, over the years, about WWII, and the consensus opinion of Japanese people in a position to know is that using the bomb shortened the war by up to a year.

                  • Nathanael says:

                    The Japanese government at the time of WWII was exceptionally insane and exceptionally militaristic, *even for a military junta*. It’s actually mind-blowingly bizarre. They were much crazier than Hitler, and that’s saying something.

                    The turning point was when the military invaded Manchuria *without* government authorization; the prime minister demanded that the Emperor punish the treasonous military officials and withdraw; the Emperor gave them no more than a slap on the wrist; the prime minister resigned. From then on the Japanese government spiraled into insanity, finally invading Indonesia and triggering a US oil embargo.

                    At the moment the Japanese government triggered the US oil embargo, they’d lost; their militaristic expansion plans were over, they had no chance. But they insisted on murdering millions of people trying to pretend that they hadn’t.

            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              I just watched a documentary called, ‘Zero Days‘ that’s about Iran, Israel and USA and ‘cyber terrorism/sabotage’.

              What’s also relevant here is the connection of the film’s topics with energy infrastructure.

          • Survivalist says:

            Trump is just appealing to his base (and his base is mostly stupid angry white people). Trump and the GOP core are in a game of chicken to see who calls the shots. GOP and Trump don’t trust each other. McCain is an old boy GOP club member and he’s gunning for Trumps impeachment hard. This craziness is just Trump flexing to show GOP who’s got the base and who got who elected. Trump wants congress and senate republicans to think that it was him who got them elected. It’s his strategy to avoid impeachment. This show boating and bravado will go on for about four years. All Americans should get prepared to be thrown under the bus for the benefit of your elected representatives and their internal power struggles. Congratulations. You got the government you deserve.

            • Boomer II says:

              From what I read, the GOP would love to get rid of Trump and have Pence.

              But Trump’s supporters are so rabid that the GOP can’t just dump Trump until either the voters turn on him (which is possible as he keeps insulting more people) or they have something on him that is so undeniably illegal that few citizens will take issue with the impeachment.

              The military or White House insiders might also contribute to tarnishing Trump enough to get rid of him.

              The Democrats will definitely go for impeachment, but they don’t have a majority, so they need some GOP allies.

              As for McCain, his legacy might be “the man who brought down Trump.”

              • Oldfarmermac says:

                “From what I read, the GOP would love to get rid of Trump and have Pence.”

                This is unquestionably true.

                The R establishment would get totally drunk for an entire week celebrating if Trump were to have a fatal heart attack.

                But being R’s , they are kissing his ass, and going along with his agenda, to some extent, in order to get along by going along.

                The extent to which the R party will go along is not yet clear, but unfortunately the answer to that question seems to be that the R party will go a hell of a lot farther than it ought to.

                I doubt the R party has the ethical backbone and political grit to impeach him, considering how embarrassing that would be.

                Furthermore, the R party has to keep it in mind that if the R party DOES impeach Trump, it will piss off tens of millions of R voters.

                It won’t hurt my feelings at all to admit I was wrong on this point if the R’s DO impeach him.

                One thing’s for sure , the D’s will be GLAD to help. 😉

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              “Trump is just appealing to his base (and his base is mostly stupid angry white people)”

              His base is White Supremacist, religious indoctrinated, the poorly educated, the wealthy one percent and OFM.

              Two hours tonight to travel the last mile into LAX. Airlines going to lose millions of dollars, cities going to spend millions in additional security and tens of thousands pissed off missing fights. White men screeming at women and children protesters. Divided States now headed to be third world country. All in the first week of the Trump Administration.

              On the bright side, no Clinton lost emails or private server in Trump world. You should all feel safe now with your guns under the beds, doors locked and your women submissive.

              Trump supporters should be proud, even Chris Christie looks like a nice guy now.

              • Oldfarmermac says:

                HB is about the biggest goddamned fool I have run across in a long time, but even idiots get something right once in a while.

                There aren’t very many white supremacists left these days, but the ones who remain HAVE thrown in their lot with Trump.

                I seldom point it out, but the single easily identified and most solid and reliable block of D voters , in terms of class, culture, ethnicity, and above all religion happens to be BLACK people.

                I have never YET heard a sniffy nose in the air holier than thou D partisan refer to black people as religiously indoctrinated, and damned seldom will one ever use the term poorly educated in public in reference to black people.

                Now as far as “indoctrination ” of any sort is involved, there is no such think as an objective right or wrong in human affairs. Nature deals in actions and reactions and in what WORKS, or does NOT work, in terms of reproductive fitness, and thereby the eventual but always TEMPORARY domination of any particular ecological niche.

                It’s no more, and no less, a matter of individual belief, as to what proper morals and values are.

                It takes a fucking nincompoop to keep on repeating such remarks, because there are literally tens of thousands of religious people on the look out for them,and they make GODDAMNED SURE along abot election time that religious people remember who calls them names, and tries by way of the courts, rather than by way of elections, to ram things down their throat that make them want to puke.

                Keep it up , HB, and you are PERSONALLY doing more to elect R ‘s like Trump than you could do by PERSONALLY donating a thousand dollars to the R party.

                Is there ANYBODY in this forum, excepting HB, too stupid to understand this SIMPLE truth?

                And the more you refer to me as a Trumpster, the better job you do of making MY case FOR ME.

                Now just maybe I will succeed in my effort to get thru to ADULTS in facing up to the FACT that you can’t do much to control the political opposition, but that you CAN do a LOT in terms of making sure YOUR party runs a LIKABLE candidate with a record of saying mostly the same thing as that candidate actually DOES, one with a human touch, one without a mile long baggage train and the STINK of old dead fish trailing him or her.

                It DOES NOT EVEN MATTER if the baggage train and stench are real, or the product of the opposition party propaganda machine. WHAT DOES MATTER is what the voters actually BELIEVE.

                The D party ran the worst candidate in party history by any sort of objective and disinterested measure, as candidacies are measured.

                Clinton actually managed to LOSE to the only major party candidate in modern history who was ( and is) held in lower repute than she was, which is quite an ACCOMPLISHMENT.

                But in her ARROGANCE, she managed it. She alienated tens of millions of the best and brightest and youngest Democrats, the FUTURE of the party.

                She managed to alienate millions of generally reliable D voters who work for a living.

                She managed to LOSE the generally sold D vote in the three big Rust Belt states that put Trump over the White House, because she was so insufferably arrogant and cocky she couldn’t even bother to pay a visit to those states, while courting rather SMALL blocks of voters who are important, but not NUMEROUS enough to REALLY matter, in terms of WINNING.

                If you want to know WHY she lost, the NITTY GRITTY answer is that she fucked up royally in those three states, but in more general terms, she ‘s an elitist who hangs out with banksters and women in Prada and men in English suit and Italian shoes, and the working people of this country KNOW THIS IN THEIR HEARTS.

                It’s true that a lot of working class people believe in Trump, because they are DESPERATE to believe in SOMEBODY. Clinton and the D’s gave them the figurative middle finger, as does HB, and a few others here, and they UNDERSTAND the middle finger message quite well.

                Trump is the president today because he was lucky enough to run against the WORST possible D the D’s could have run, and smart enough to take full advantage of that FACT.

                I remain a proud Sanders supporter, and HB is still a yappy little lap dog that believes the Clinton camp message just as blindly as any Baptist believes in the Seven Days of Creation.

                As I have said before, I’m not here to win a popularity contest. I ‘m working on my skills as a writer, political pundit, and down in the trenches political operative.

                I don’t even care if my arguments convince any particular person. So long as somebody is reading them, the memes on which they are based are spreading. D’s will be thinking about who they nominate in the future to a greater extent than previously. THAT’s my political goal, to stimulate thinking in that respect.

                • HuntingtonBeach says:

                  Sanders is an Independent. You, MacHate voted for an Independent. You Trolled and Trashed the Democrat Candidate for 6 months prior to the election. Playing into the hands of the Republican Trump. You admit your a conservative.

                  Your a conservative aka KGB Trump Republican Troll

                  Case Closed

                  • Oldfarmermac says:

                    I suppose you think the man who with a little bite earlier start , and a level playing field, would have kicked Clinton’s ass in the primaries would still be an INDEPENDENT if he had won the presidency on the D ticket.

                    There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being a conservative, which is not at all the same thing as being a big R republican, and my brand of conservatism is entirely consistent with environmental protections, small government when small is big enough, which means less likelihood of war, etc.

                    A real conservative wants the government OUT of people’s personal lives to the extent possible without allowing the majority to trample on minorities. I don’t believe in the government sticking it’s nose into my bedroom, or anybody else’s , or telling me what I can drink but what I cannot smoke , etc.

                    Now your’re still just a stupid little Clinton lap doggie, and you will never ever admit your mommy lost the election because she was for all intents and purposes a REPUBLICAN LITE candidate at a time when a REAL D candidate was called for, rather than one who spent more time making fucking speeches to banksters, at a quarter of a million a pop, than she did campaigning among the people who have alway been the heart and soul of the D party, the working people.

                    If she handn’t presented her middle finger in her arrogance to the working people of the three states that put Trump over the top, refusing to campaign there AT ALL, taking them entirely for granted, while collecting millions from banksters, etc, well she would be president today.

                    Incidentally you might have noticed that the very top dog D in DC these days, I forget his name at the moment, sorry, is with Sanders on who should be the next leader of the D party.

                    I suppose you think the millions and millions of idealistic , well educated young people who went for Sanders are all ignoramus Trumpsters too.

                    I would ignore you, except allowing people to tell lies about you without responding allows the lie to stick, sooner or later.

                    My goal is to get D people to think hard about WHO they vote for and support in the primaries, NEXT time.

                    Clinton had some points in her favor, that’s undeniably true, and she has done a lot of good things over the years. But she also did a lot of stupid things, and she was utterly lacking in terms of the common touch. She has about as much charisma as a circus clown. Virtually the only people in the country who actually trusted her were and remain Clinton true believers. Half the Democrats in the country questioned her ethics.

                    And as always, I am ready to discuss any particular scandal involving HRC, real or imagined, anytime you want to debate any one of them. I suggest we start with Cattle Gate, simply because it’s the first one that attracted wide attention nationally, IIRC.

                    She was such a rotten and inept candidate that she managed to lose to TRUMP.

                    NOW that took some doing, but she managed it.

                    Keep reminding me, and I will keep reminding the D ‘s that while they cannot control the R party, they collectively DO have control of the D party, and that blaming lost elections on other people is childish. Adults take responsibility for their own mistakes.

                    Clinton was a mistake. Any other D with a little name recognition and without the baggage train would have mopped the floor with Trump.

            • Survivalist says:

              As well it’s worth noting that Trump wanted to change the topic from all the news chatter about his stupid statements regarding the size of the crowd at his inauguration. Trump is going to say a lot of stupid stuff. And when he’s suffering the ramifications of that he will change the focus of media attention by doing some batshit crazy things that appeal to his base of stupid angry white people. Trump will likely hasten America’s progress towards civil war and economic collapse. He seeks conflict. He likely has borderline personality disorder.

              • HuntingtonBeach says:

                “He likely has borderline personality disorder.”

                Your way to nice

                • Oldfarmermac says:

                  You two , Survivalist and HB aren’t doing anything AT ALL to help the D’s win back congress and the WH, but I will do you a favor anyway, and set you straight about what TRUMP actually IS, most likely.

                  What he IS , most likely, is a psychopath, although that term is falling out of favor.

                  Now I tell it like it is, or at least the way I see it, with my eyes open.

                  You two can see only what your prejudices ALLOW you to see.


                  “Though the term psychopath is often thrown around in criminal justice settings and hypothesizing media, psychopathy is not a recognized psychiatric or psychological disorder. Psychopathy as a term has been inconsistently used in the medical community for years, but is now recognized as either a subcategory or extension of antisocial personality disorder. Critics have argued both for and against the idea that antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy are synonymous, but there has yet to be a concrete decision on the issue. The hallmarks of what’s typically seen as a psychopath include a lack of empathy and feeling for others, selfishness, lack of guilt, and a superficial charm that manifests exclusively to manipulate others.”

                  It’s worth reading the whole link.

                  Everybody please remember I’m a Trumpster, HB has said so. 😉

                  • Survivalist says:

                    Trump is most certainly a sociopath, perhaps to BPD and NPD.
                    With regard to me not helping the D’s win back the WH. I cannot detect much of a difference between D’s and R’s. It’s Coke vs Pepsi. I see no point in investing my energy in that contest. The D vs R paradigm is a stage set for idiots to argue upon about how they should best be enslaved. A D who wants war with Russia vs an R that wants war with China. USA is a one party state. The one party has two factions of meaningless distinction to me.

          • ArkTech says:

            Now this was just TRUMP’s first week in office so you’ve got to cut him some slack but if you picked on me to answer I’d say he is definitely going on the right track forward. After all he was handed a historical task of coming in & backtracking about 30 years of a intense forward march of immoral liberal ways of thinking into the culture, government, courts, schools, institutions, demography, etc. of our country. So his mission is overcoming years & decades of deliberate UNLAWFULNESS on part of the fed’s as led by the democratic party. Which in turn was made possible by a massive, institutionalized, systemic vote fraud to the tune of million’s- when you count up the double voter registrations, dead people still on the registry, illegals being allowed to vote, etc. The voting fraud has became so big its looking more like a declaration of domestic war will be needed by this administration in addressing it.

            Meanwhile while this has been going on The Left has tried decades now to take away more of our Rights, Freedom’s, Money & they have mostly been getting a way with most of it thanks to spineless RINO Republicans like McCain, McConnell, Lyin Paul Ryan, etc. who allow the criminal agendas to proceed by the way none of them stand up to any of the methods in protest, but instead whimper or scramble like a mouse being chased by a cat.

            Now TRUMP has come along as a very different kind of politician to reach the Highest Office of this blessed nation. Clearly he is embodiment of a strong historical leader that comes along only once in every lifetime or even every other lifetime to face world crises headstrong – leading us all out of the morass & wilderness we sunk into. Going forward obviously he’s going to need our full support & commitment to fight off all the demons & filth ravagers that are ever present within our world.

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              “backtracking about 30 years of a intense forward march of immoral liberal ways of thinking into the culture, government, courts, schools, institutions, demography”

              Please tell me someone didn’t drop a farm tractor on your head

              • ArkTech says:

                And just what is a mindless insult like that suppose to mean?

                • “Please tell me someone didn’t drop a farm tractor on your head”

                  That’s a good one. His response also shows how unaware these people are that actions have consequences.

                  • HuntingtonBeach says:

                    21st Century Green Acres

                    Episode 1 – Hootersville elects a president
                    Episode 2 – Arnold refused to go to church
                    Episode 3 – Mr Haney gives advice to Trump
                    Episode 4 – Hank Kimbell gets promoted to lead Dept. of Energy
                    Episode 5- Lisa Douglas becomes best friends with first lady
                    Episode 6 – Oliver donates professional time to ACLU
                    Episode 7 – Eb buys AR-15
                    Episode 8 – The Monroe brothers build Wall
                    Episode 9 – Sam Drucker sells store to Walmart

                  • Amazing how many people from the alt-right that are Mr. Haney sound-alikes. Pence is the latest one.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Now this was just TRUMP’s first week in office so you’ve got to cut him some slack but if you picked on me to answer I’d say he is definitely going on the right track forward.

              Sure! There is a already a movement of hundreds of thousands of people signing a petition to impeach Trump! Not to mention over 1 million people in the UK, supposedly one of our closest allies, signed a petition to keep him from a state visit to the UK because of his travel and immigration ban.

              Hey not bad for his first week in office! I’ll bet the Republicans find a way to impeach him before his first year!

              • Survivalist says:

                Wait until Iranian false flag operatives blows up Trump tower in India and make it look like Pakistan did it.

                • HuntingtonBeach says:

                  And then the Divided States of America invades Iraq to steal “The Oil” looking for WMD.

                  • SatansBestFriend says:

                    USA didn’t “steal” the oil from Iraq (which u can’t do without a state owned oil company at a bare minimum).

                    They ensured it was available to the free market.

                    I reckon bush and Chaney were peak oil aware, but that is just my opinion .

      • Nathanael says:

        “To be clear we are not talking about illegal immigrants! We are talking about banning people from entering the US who are LEGAL RESIDENTS, have green cards and have jobs, homes and families in the US. And many who have already been granted valid visas by the US state department and are now being stopped from boarding planes at international airports around the world. We are talking about innocent victims of the lowest form of discrimination. If this isn’t fascism I don’t know what is?!

        I don’t see this ending well.”

        The only upside of this is that Trump and Bannon have, by doing this completely idiotic thing, alienated every major corporate leader in the world and large portions of the Republican Party leadership. (You can be sure Tillerson opposes this.) A judge appointed by G W Bush just issued an injunction against the unconstitutional immigration order.

  21. anton koffield says:

    Regarding President Trump and his priorities:

    I wonder how much solar PV could be subsidized if he were to divert his $12-15B (Maybe in reality when the dust settles $15-25B) from his wall project?

    On the other hand, maybe it doesn’t matter…if someone could convince him such a project will bring him great adulation and a lasting positive legacy, maybe he would do it anyway, along with his pet wall…he doesn’t seem to care about deficits and certainly seems to embrace industrial policy.

    Who knows with this Magic 8 Ball of a Prsident…

  22. Duncan Idaho says:

    Myron Ebell says purge necessary at EPA to rid “scientists who believe the global warming alarmist agenda”

    • GoneFishing says:

      More on the end is nigh. A child born lately is very likely to see the end of burning fossil fuels for power.

      Coal and gas prices stay low. A projected supply glut for both commodities cuts the cost of generating power by burning coal or gas, but will not derail the advance of renewables.
      2.Wind and solar costs drop. These two technologies become the cheapest ways of producing electricity in many countries during the 2020s and in most of the world in the 2030s. Onshore wind costs fall by 41% and solar PV costs fall by 60% by 2040.
      3.Asia-Pacific leads in investment, representing 50% of all new investment worldwide. Despite slower growth in the near-term, China remains the most important center of activity.
      4.Electric car boom. EVs increase global electricity demand by 8% – reflecting BNEF’s forecast that they will represent 35% of new light-duty vehicle sales in 2040, some 90 times the 2015 figure.
      5.Cheap batteries everywhere. The rise of EVs further squashes the cost of lithium-ion batteries, boosting power storage and working with other flexible capacity to help balance renewables.
      6.A limited ‘transition fuel’ role for gas outside of the US, with only 3% growth in gas demand for power to 2040, and generation peaking in 2027.
      7.Coal’s diverging trajectories. Coal generation plummets in Europe and peaks in 2020 in the US and in 2025 in China; however it increases 7% globally due to rapid growth in other Asian and African emerging markets.
      8.2⁰C scenario. On top of the forecasted $9.2tn investment in zero-carbon power, an extra $5.3tn is needed by 2040 to prevent power-sector emissions rising above the IPCC’s ‘safe’ limit of 450 parts per million.

  23. Survivalist says:

    Saudi Arabia’s Myopic Vision for Reform
    By Hilal Khashan
    Like many of its neighbors in the Gulf region, Saudi Arabia is scrambling to adjust to a world of low oil prices. The Saudi economy, which relies heavily on oil production, has sputtered and stalled over the past few years, rapidly depleting Riyadh’s once-enormous cash reserves. In a desperate attempt to rescue the kingdom’s foundering finances, Saudi rulers have hastily pulled together a plan to diversify the economy and end its dependence on oil once and for all. But instead of saving Saudi Arabia, the solution Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has proposed will almost certainly lead to its ruin.

    A Flawed Strategy
    Bin Salman announced his Vision 2030 plan in April of last year. In it, he called for the downsizing of the public sector’s role in the economy and the empowerment of the private sector. The latter, he hopes, will eventually become the kingdom’s largest employer and primary means of economic growth. (As of now, nearly 70 percent of the country’s labor pool works in the public sector.) By hiking up the private sector’s contribution to GDP from 40 percent to 60 percent, bin Salman says, the Saudi economy will rise from its “… current position as the 19th-largest economy in the world into the top 15.” He also estimates that unemployment would drop from 11 percent to 7.6 percent.
    Many of the prince’s recommendations are based on a McKinsey report that advocates shocking the Saudi economy back to life. Between 2003 and 2013, the country’s GDP grew at an anemic rate of 0.8 percent, but McKinsey analysts argued that the kingdom could double its GDP over the next 14 years with about $2 trillion in investment.
    Yet there’s a fundamental flaw in how the prince intends to go about getting that kind of money. Vision 2030 is predicated on Riyadh’s ability to build a massive sovereign wealth fund by selling off 5 percent of Saudi Arabian Oil Co. (Saudi Aramco). However, the revenues generated from Saudi Aramco’s unprecedented initial public offering will only stem the flow of money draining from Riyadh’s coffers this year. Any funds left over would be nowhere near enough to sink the kind of investment McKinsey believes would be needed to turn the entire economy around. Instead, the kingdom would have to sell off half of Saudi Aramco’s assets to even approach that value.
    Funding isn’t the only problem with the prince’s plan. Vision 2030 is ultimately geared toward generating revenue beyond the oil sector, in part by ramping up private industrial output. However, that will only work if Riyadh invests in the appropriate industries, such as manufacturing, petrochemicals, mining and health care. There are limits to how much these sectors can be developed, though. Saudi Arabia, for example, cannot realistically hope to compete in a labor-intensive industry like manufacturing when its citizens have grown accustomed to higher-paying jobs in the public sector. The country’s petrochemicals industry, moreover, is already fairly advanced and has little room to absorb more workers. The same is true for Saudi Arabia’s mining sector, which does not require a large workforce. Meanwhile, even if Riyadh pumps a considerable amount of money into its health care sector, the kingdom is unlikely to grow into the regional medical hub it aspires to be since more advanced facilities already exist elsewhere in the region.
    So, the most promising Saudi sector remains religious tourism, which has skyrocketed in recent years and is second in size only to oil. Riyadh raked in $22.6 billion from religious pilgrims in 2015, a figure that is expected to rise by another $10 billion by 2021. Still, the Saudi government’s reluctance to issue visas to travelers may continue to put a drag on the industry.

    More Delusion Than Vision
    The ruling family has already wasted valuable time in its search for a feasible plan for economic development. Between 1970 and 2014, the kingdom spent trillions of dollars on nine different five-year reform packages, yet today oil revenue still accounts for 90 percent of its income. What the prince and his predecessors have consistently missed is that the creation of a Western-style economy requires change that reaches beyond the economy itself.
    Part of that change is instilling a better work ethic and encouraging individual achievement among the population. As it stands, Vision 2030 offers few concrete proposals for preparing Saudi citizens to set aside their view of the kingdom as a nanny state. For decades, Saudi nationals have taken for granted the availability of easy and lucrative jobs in the public sector while expatriates have filled about 80 percent of the jobs in the private sector. Efforts to privatize the economy may indeed create more opportunities for work, but not the kind the kingdom’s citizens are eager to take. If the royal family is serious about overhauling the economy, it will need to take the time and spend the money to educate its people. Only then can it address deficiencies in professional training and cultivate a culture that rewards determination and provides opportunities for all.
    Meanwhile, Vision 2030’s claim that authorities will work to combat all forms of corruption is probably unrealistic. Though an admirable goal, it cannot be achieved in a society where family, tribal and regional ties outweigh the nebulous concept of the Saudi state. Societal norms pressure Saudi officials to favor family and friends, even if they have to violate the rules of bureaucratic conduct to do so. Those who follow procedures, on the other hand, risk being ostracized by their local communities.
    In Riyadh’s frantic attempt to avoid a financial collapse, it has seized on a short-term fix instead of a long-term solution. Scraping together funds, rather than stimulating much-needed economic development, will not do much to protect Saudi Arabia’s future. If the royal family does not do more to attract foreign investment and funnel it into genuine diversification projects, Vision 2030 will succeed only in leading the kingdom into bankruptcy — if not its outright dissolution as a sovereign state.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Unless Saudi Arabia transitions to a renewables based economy asap it is a nation equivalent of a dead man walking… Good Luck!

      • Survivalist says:

        Their economy is based on extracting and exporting oil. How do you transition that to a renewables based economy? Do you mean use their extracted energy to manufacture solar panels for export and hire local Saudis to compete with Chinese manufacturing labour?

        • Fred Magyar says:

          How do you transition that to a renewables based economy?

          That’s the 64 billion dollar question they will have to answer.

          I’m not sure they have enough time left to do it, they should have started decades ago.

          This video shows them starting to think about it. However their culture, their social structure and their monarchy are all all making it even more difficult.

          The breakthrough in renewable energy (vpro backlight documentary)

          My personal hunch is that the ruins of their civilization will be preserved in the desert for future archaeologists to study… I think they are pretty much fucked!

          • Survivalist says:

            I agree. Fucked. Another population soon to be on foot for Europe. Once they fall into civil war and chaos the ripples through the global economy will be severe. One RPG or mortar round fired into a refinery terminal and it’s game over. I’m surprised some enterprising young man hasn’t already gotten himself a fishing boat and a light mortar and started firing HE and WP rounds into an oil terminal.

            • Javier says:

              Actually not. They can live out of tourism from the many millions of Muslims that visit their sacred places every year. That can’t replace the oil economy but it is a very valuable asset that very few countries possess.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                There is no way they can provide food, water and energy for their population let alone sustain their already built infrastructure. Religious tourism fall short by a mile!

              • Survivalist says:

                “Riyadh raked in $22.6 billion from religious pilgrims in 2015, a figure that is expected to rise by another $10 billion by 2021. Still, the Saudi government’s reluctance to issue visas to travelers may continue to put a drag on the industry.”

                Yeah 32 million Saudis living of tourism. That’s about $700 each if they share it. What could possibly go wrong? Maybe the king, often referred to as the custodian of the two holy mosques, could get a job sweeping floors and scraping gum of the seats.

                • Bob Frisky says:

                  Javier’s comment brings up a good point though. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has an awesome economic potential in tourism that isn’t even being fully exploited at present due to restrictive travel policies.

                  • Survivalist says:

                    If travel restrictions were eased would you take your family for a holiday in KSA? Dubai is much better. Girls can drive cars and wear bikinis on the beach and ordering a beer won’t get you flogged. The barriers to KSA becoming a tourist hot spot far exceed its lack of willingness to issue tourist visas.

                • Duncan Idaho says:

                  Maybe they could sell pictures of Mohamed’s Flying Horse to each other?
                  Perpetual motion.

                  • Oldfarmermac says:

                    The members of the royal family who are smart enough to have put a few million each well ahead of the eventual crisis in safe spots overseas will be allowed to move to the countries where they stashed their money.

                    A relatively small number of the ordinary people who have some professional training, as doctors, etc, will be able to get into countries such as Canada,given that such countries allow in people who have training in the right sort of profession.

                    Nearly all the rest are going to perish in place, or in front of a fence erected by some neighboring country, barring some sort of extraordinary good luck.

                    It’s possible that some bug or another might evolve into something that is highly contagious and renders every body who catches it permanently sterile, but the odds of anything along this line actually happening must be at least a thousand to one against.


                    We’re just about dead sure headed for a life boat situation, wherein the people in the countries that are NOT grossly overpopulated, and NOT severely depleted in terms of ESSENTIAL natural resources are ALREADY IN the life boats, and the rest of humanity………. will be going down with the sinking ship .

                    I foresee some VERY nasty political confrontations in respect to immigration as the years pass. BRICKS’n BULLETS’n MOLOTOV COCKTAILS are going to be headlining the news, for years at a time.

                    We’re already at the point here in the USA where we just elected a prez who seems to be determined to take the hardest possible line starting a week ago, literally.

                    For now the debate will mostly be conducted in terms of an enlightened liberal faction tongue lashing the conservative faction that likes things as they are, domestically , in their home countries.

                    It won’t make any friends for me to point out that in my younger days, when I lived in a mostly black city, just about every one of the very liberal young people I was associating with, as a perpetual grad student ( no, no master’s , I didn’t really want one, I was just into the scene and life style) hanging around the university district and living in the bohemian ( now totally gentrified) fan ALL MOVED OUT when their oldest kid hit his fourth or fifth birthday.

                    Of course none of them would admit PUBLICLY that they fled to the nearby safe havens of Henrico or Chesterfield in order to put their kids in better schools, and to live at less risk of getting mugged , etc. Probably eighty percent of the people I knew socially THEN and THERE are still hard core liberals today, with most of the remaining twenty percent either dead or in nursing homes, etc.

                    What I’m saying is that once the shit in the fan starts getting on people who were formerly far enough away from the fan to stay clean, they usually change their political tune.

                    It’s amusing that a lot of people here in this country are talking about American immigration policy, as it existed PRE Trump, as if we are or WERE the country guilty of being the meanest and most selfish one around, in terms of allowing in new people.

                    It’s just not so. I got a belly laugh out of this link. Moving to Canada is not all that easy.


                    “But Democrats looking to move from the U.S. to Australia, Canada and other wealthy English-speaking nations are learning that those nations already have similar policies.

                    A top law firm known for obtaining Canadian visas for U.S. citizens says there are three main ways to get in: by having in-demand job skills, by owning a business or having a high net worth, or by having relatives already there.

                    “Canada’s official immigration page also sets a high bar, listing opportunities to “immigrate as a skilled worker,” “immigrate by starting a business and creating jobs” or “immigrate by investing in the Canadian economy.” The website had so many visitors immediately after Trump’s win that the server crashed.

                    It also maintains a refugee category, but targets people who have already been displaced “outside their home country,” and not those who want to move from their home country to Canada.

                    Canada is willing only to be a last resort for refugees; such candidates are not eligible if they “have another durable solution for protection, such as an offer to be resettled in another country.

                    “Even then, the nation known for its hockey and its Maple syrup then asks individual Canadians to pick up the bill, by either voluntarily funding the program or taking refugees in to their own homes. Individuals must be “selected as a government-assisted or privately sponsored refugee, or have the funds needed to support” themselves and any dependents after they “arrive in Canada.”

                    Canada does have a special program for Syrian refugees and accepted 40,000 since November, 2015, about four times as many as the U.S. during the same time-span under former President Barack Obama.”

                    For what it’s worth, I believe Obama would have been glad to allow in four times more Syrian refugees than Canada did, but was reluctant to do so for fear of motivating too many people to vote R. So his heart was in my opinion in the right place, and he had his head on straight as well, in respect to this particular decision.

                    Trump’s bad news in just about every respect except one, in my estimation, so far.

                    MAYBE he will succeed in renegotiating trade agreements so they are more favorable to the American working class people, who vastly outnumber the people who are insulated from the pain of seeing their livelihoods exported.

                    So far, every other thing he is doing looks like a colossal mistake, as I see things, but there IS a possibility he may be doing something good or useful that hasn’t made the headlines. Maybe he’s trying to close up a post office located within a half a mile of another one , or SOMETHING. Sarc.

                    Having said all this, I believe SOMEBODY ought to post some comments that are a little more realistic and a little less partisan and shrill when it comes to the discussion about immigration.

                    There won’t be a day when I post that I won’t post something pretty nasty about Trump and his buddies, but totally one sided commentary means THOUGHT is left out side in the cold.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Old Farmer Mac,

                    Are you arguing that Trump has not changed immigration policy?

                    That is incorrect.

                    If you are arguing that it is a good idea, I would disagree.

                    We may see backlash where US citizens are banned from travelling to other countries (regardless of their visa status) in retaliation.

                    I imagine if that is the case, there will be many businesses that are affected negatively in the US.

                    For many people in the United States it might not be a problem if their travel outside the US is restricted because they may not care to travel outside the US.

                    Do you think arbitrary discrimination is good policy? I do not.

  24. Fred Magyar says:

    In other news:

    Climate Change Conversation feat. Richard Alley & Michael Mann (January 2017)

  25. clueless says:

    I have always supported PBS [Public Broadcasting System]. They have the best information.

  26. Survivalist says:

    More laughs from the mouth breathers over at WUWT.

  27. Javier says:

    Invited review
    A paleo-perspective on ocean heat content: Lessons from the Holocene and Common Era
    Rosenthal, Yair, et al. Quaternary Science Reviews 155 (2017): 1-12.

    The ocean constitutes the largest heat reservoir in the Earth’s energy budget and thus exerts a major influence on its climate. Instrumental observations show an increase in ocean heat content (OHC) associated with the increase in greenhouse emissions. Here we review proxy records of intermediate water temperatures from sediment cores and corals in the equatorial Pacific and northeastern Atlantic Oceans, spanning 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. These records suggests that intermediate waters were 1.5-2 °C warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum than in the last century. Intermediate water masses cooled by 0.9 °C from the Medieval Climate Anomaly to the Little Ice Age. These changes are significantly larger than the temperature anomalies documented in the instrumental record. The implied large perturbations in OHC and Earth’s energy budget are at odds with very small radiative forcing anomalies throughout the Holocene and Common Era. We suggest that even very small radiative perturbations can change the latitudinal temperature gradient and strongly affect prevailing atmospheric wind systems and hence air-sea heat exchange. These dynamic processes provide an efficient mechanism to amplify small changes in insolation into relatively large changes in OHC. Over long time periods the ocean’s interior acts like a capacitor and builds up large (positive and negative) heat anomalies that can mitigate or amplify small radiative perturbations as seen in the Holocene trend and Common Era anomalies, respectively. Evidently the ocean’s interior is more sensitive to small external forcings than the global surface ocean because of the high sensitivity of heat exchange in the high-latitudes to climate variations.

    The small change in OHC between the dotted line at 0 and the 2010 value, in the figure below, is what has Wehappyfew and other alarmists so worried.

    This article proposes that the ocean acts as a capacitator and that small changes in insolation are amplified to produce the large changes in OHC over the Holocene, that dwarf the changes observed during the instrumental era.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Javier,

      Interesting, but a better analysis would look at global oceans, rather than simply the Pacific. Using the mean estimates from the chart above (fig 7 from Rosenthal et al 2013) and considering the change in OHC per year we see that the rise in OHC from 2000 to 2010 CE was quite a bit larger than the other periods covered by the chart. A factor of about 14 larger than the 7500-9000 BP period.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Perhaps the Pacific Ocean was chosen for figure 7 because only about one fifth of the Global OHC anomaly (relative to 1965-1970) occurred in the Pacific Ocean from 2000 to 2010. If we consider 1971-2010, one third of the Global OHC anomaly from 0 to 700 m occurred in the Pacific basin. In any case estimates of Global Ocean heat content are what matters and we should not ignore the depths below 700 meters.

      • Javier says:

        Hi Dennis,

        The abstract clearly says:

        “Here we review proxy records of intermediate water temperatures from sediment cores and corals in the equatorial Pacific and northeastern Atlantic Oceans, spanning 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record.”

        The figure in figure 7 is only for the Pacific as it is based on the data available since a previous article. The conclusion however extends also to the northeastern Atlantic, indicating a global result. It is very important that it refers to the equatorial Pacific, because Marcott et al., 2013 have the tropics actually warming during the Holocene. This research suggests that was very unlikely and the tropics have been significantly cooling since the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

        Your graph showing OHC yearly rate of change is meaningless. For that you require adequate sampling through all the series, which is never the case with proxies. Rates of change as big as present or bigger might have taken place in the past and we would not detect them in our proxies. All we can really compare is range of variability and present changes in OHC are moderate compared to past changes.

        If you are interested in the paper I can provide it, as it is paywalled.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          The Rosenthal et al 2013 paper has a chart that shows the change in ocean heat content per century.
          From the paper figure 4:
          Fig. 4
          Holocene changes in Pacific Ocean heat content.
          (A) Reconstructed anomalies in Pacific OHC in the 0- to 700-m depth interval for the early Holocene, mid-Holocene, MWP, and LIA periods. Reconstructed anomalies are calculated relative to the reference period of 1965 to 1970 CE (15). (B) Reconstructed rates of OHC change during the main transition periods. Reconstructed anomalies and rates are compared with modern observations for the 2000 to 2010 and 1955 to 2010 CE periods, respectively (5). The middle line at each box represents an average estimate for 50% of the Pacific volume between 0 and 700 m, whereas the top and bottom quartiles of the box represent 62.5 and 37.5% of the total volume in this depth interval, respectively. The bottom whiskers represent 25% of the volume; the top whisker denotes 75%. The modern value is based on the entire Pacific volume for 0 to 700 m.

          Figure below

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          On the equatorial Pacific and northeastern Atlantic, that is still not the Globe.

          and yes I would be interested in the paper, thanks.

          Oh that figure 7 clearly says it is from Rosenthal et al 2013, just click on the link and it is clear.

          • Javier says:

            Hi Dennis,

            The increase in the rate of change per century could be real or could be a problem of resolution. When you go from sampling the average of every 50 years to sampling the average of every 2 years the variability increases. This is a common problem with cores. You can see it very clearly with EPICA Dome C. If you measure rate of change in a short period at the top of the core it comes many, many times higher than for the same period at the bottom of the core, because the resolution goes down as the data becomes older. You have to know how to interpret that.

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Javier,

              If we consider the period from 10,000 BP to 300 BP (1650 CE) for EPICA Dome C temperature and look at the rate of change of temperature (using 40 year average to adjust for changing sampling rate) we get the chart below.

              Note that this is for a single location over land, the variability of temperature for the ocean over a wide area (either the Pacific Ocean or the Globe) would be far lower.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Javier,

          That figure 7 you posted is unchanged from the Rosenthal et el 2013 paper, in the more recent Rosenthal et al 2017 paper, they say:

          Levitus et al. (2012) report a mean ocean warming of the 0-700 m ocean layer of 0.18 C between 1955 and 2010, corresponding to 0.033 C per decade. To obtain a first order comparison, we assume that our records represent the World Ocean and thus are comparable in volume with the current estimates (Levitus et al., 2012). Assuming the intermediate depth ocean (0-700 m) cooled between 10 and 2 Ka by ~1.5 C we calculate a cooling rate 0.002 C per decade. Similarly, considering the intermediate depth ocean (0-700m) cooled by ~0.5 C between 1200 and 1600 CE we calculate a temperature change of 0.013 C per decade. In both cases these rates are smaller than the modern rates even when applying the observed IWT changes to the whole ocean (as opposed to just the Pacific as was done in Rosenthal et al. (2013).

          Chart below with this data for the rate of change of World Ocean Temperature 0-700 meters in Celcius per decade.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Javier,

      From the database in the supplementary materials in Rosenthal et al 2013 (link at end), tab for Table S3 fig S8, I use “A. Pacific OHC estimate considers 50% Pacific volume and average temperature changes inferred from Fig. 8” and call this the “50% estimate” in my chart, only the change in OHC per century are plotted to compare the rate of change in OHC in different periods.

      The concern is that OHC has been rising very quickly relative to past periods.

      Full paper at

      Data base from supplementary materials

      the 2-7.5 ka should be 2-7.5 ka BP

      • Javier says:

        As I said that is likely to be an artifact of sampling rate and increasing resolution as the data becomes more recent.

        You have to go to a proxy that doesn’t suffer from changes in resolution with time, like tree rings. They don’t show such abrupt changes over the past century, compared to previous millennia.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Javier

          The scientists that did the research believe using the instruments is better. The tree ring data is an estimate affected by factors besides temperature such as precipitation atmospheric co2 pollution etc. Basically tree rings are adequate through 1850 or maybe 1900 but rapid changes in the environment since 1900 changes the calibration.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Also we are looking at a 50 year period, usually cores from the past 10 ka have 50 year resolution or better, so in this case that is not likely to be the explanation and not in the opinion of the authors Rosenthal et al. as I have quoted directly from their paper.

            • Javier says:


              Sediment cores and ice cores proxies are awkward data from a statistical point of view. You can calculate a rate of change over that data, but it is likely to be meaningless. Unless you understand the nature of your data, your analysis might deceive you.

              This is from:
              Witt, A., & Schumann, A. Y. (2005). Holocene climate variability on millennial scales recorded in Greenland ice cores. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 12(3), 345-352.

              3 Climate proxy data are awkward data

              From the viewpoint of statistical data analysis climate proxy data based on lab measurements of ice cores are data with awkward sampling properties:

              – Isotope-based age estimates that are affected by random and systematic errors cause uncertainties concerning the age axis. This property makes paleoclimatic records fundamentally different to all data resulting from direct instrumental measurements as instrumental climate data, output of physical lab experiments or even medical data as ECG/EEG measurements. Moreover, these uncertainties along the time axis, i.e. the standard deviation of the random error concerning the estimated ages, grow backwards in time. An appropriate data analysis has to be performed.

              – Due to the nonlinear age-depth relation the data are unevenly sampled. Further, the mass pressure of the ice leads to an increasing compression with growing over- burden or age, hence, to a strong depletion of the lower, i.e. older, part of the ice sheet. Laboratory measurements are performed for core slices of constant thickness; consequently the data density (data per age interval) in the older part diminishes dramatically.

              – As usual, amplitudes are disturbed by noise. The noise intensity of the GISP2 data varies for different paleoclimatic periods and is further affected by changing sampling rates.

              Standard time series analysis techniques and related software packages require evenly sampled and stationary time series, and implicitly, a well-defined time axis. Since data under consideration do not fulfill these assumptions alternative techniques are required.”

              It also applies to sediment cores.

              That rate of change differences that you are highlighting might not be real, but an artifact from the nature of the data, regardless that it is you or Rosenthal who makes that claim.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Javier,

                As I mentioned before, we are looking at an estimate over 55 years for the period from 1955-2010.

                The sediment cores from 10,000 BP to 200 BP likely have better than 50 year resolution.

                Your point would be valid if we were talking about ice cores from 400 ka BP or earlier, but that is not the case.

                Do you really believe that Rosenthal et al and the reviewers of their article are not aware of that issue?

                I would be very surprised if that were the case, I think you give them far too little credit if you believe otherwise.

  28. Boomer II says:

    I have skimmed, not read, this article. It is long. But it seems fitting here.

    I just noticed that it was published in 1994. So much for it being a new story.

    The Coming Anarchy – The Atlantic: “It is time to understand The Environment for what it is: the national-security issue of the early twenty-first century. The political and strategic impact of surging populations, spreading disease, deforestation and soil erosion, water depletion, air pollution, and, possibly, rising sea levels in critical, overcrowded regions like the Nile Delta and Bangladesh—developments that will prompt mass migrations and, in turn, incite group conflicts—will be the core foreign-policy challenge from which most others will ultimately emanate, arousing the public and uniting assorted interests left over from the Cold War.”

    • Nathanael says:

      The only major politicians who truly understood this were Gorbachev and Gore, and the heads of some of the European Green Parties. Sigh….

  29. Survivalist says:

    Here’s an old one but still quite good.

    And the House of Saud is not exactly a homogenous organization.

    It’s worth noting that collapse is not hastened by the peasants revolting, so to speak, (a united elite can easily handle that) it’s hastened by elites competing with each other for an increased share of diminishing fortunes. A family feud amoung the clans within the House of Saud is a likely outcome.

  30. Survivalist says:

    Dated but apt.

    “Five extended families in the Middle East own about 60 percent of the world’s oil. The Saud family, which rules Saudi Arabia, controls more than a third of that amount. This is the fulcrum on which the global economy teeters, and the House of Saud knows what the West is only beginning to learn: that it presides over a kingdom dangerously at war with itself.”

    Saudi Arabia bears watching closely.

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      I’m wondering if ANY of the scientifically literate regulars here believe it is LIKELY we will collectively pull thru this century more or less whole , planet wide, meaning by more or less whole, no nuclear war, no famines killing more than a measly ( sarc ) ten million people at any one time , any one country, no more than another ten million gunned down at border fences, at any ONE fence, etc.

      • Duncan Idaho says:

        The only high probability event at this point, in my opinion, is that the Orwell Estate will sue the Trump Regime for Plagiarism.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Old Farmer Mac,

        I will define likely as a probability greater than 84% (if it were a normal probability distribution, and I have no idea if that is the case, that would correspond to a one sigma standard deviation with 68% within one standard deviation and 16% on the optimistic side where things are better than we might expect 68+16=84%). So yes it is likely we (humans) will make it through in my opinion without catastrophic (30% worldwide unemployment rates) permanent (more than 10 years) collapse worldwide.

        I believe it is likely that the positive trends in renewables, falling TFR, and depleting fossil fuels limiting carbon emissions (along with falling non-fossil fuel energy costs) will outweigh the negative trends in nationalism and intolerance which seem to be on the rise. It does not mean there will not be bumps in the road, such as major wars or global financial crises.

        There will be change, it will be difficult, this will no doubt always be true. Humans are like cockroaches, hard to eliminate.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Maybe, maybe not. Negative trends look overwhelming, positive trends are too small yet to depend upon.

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Gone fishing,

          I guess different people see things differently. There is much uncertainty, but main stream climate scientists expect about 2 C of warming above 1850-1900 mean with 1000 Pg of Carbon emissions (see Allen et al 2009), the 1850-1900 mean is about 0.4 C below the 10,000 BP to 1750 CE mean temperature, so this would be about 1.6 C above the pre 1750 CE Holocene average and about 1.2 C above the HCO (based on the Marcott et al 2013 estimates).

          The depletion of fossil fuels and the ramp up of non fossil fuel energy as fossil fuels become more expensive while non-fossil fuel energy becomes less expensive make the 1000 Pg of carbon emissions scenario far more realistic than many believe. If the mainstream equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate of 3 C proves correct and we also limit carbon emissions to 1000 Pg of carbon (including cement and land use change) we might be ok in my opinion.

          The lower the emissions level the better of course, but anything less than 850 Pg of carbon emissions is not likely to be achieved as we are close to 600 Pg of carbon emissions to date (about 583 Pg C from 1750 to 2016).

          Perhaps we will find ways of removing carbon from the atmosphere such as producing cement that removes carbon rather than adding it to the atmosphere, reforestation and better farming practices might also sequester more carbon over time. Getting population growth to negative rates with lower total fertility ratios as well a reducing, reusing and recycling and building quality products that last longer and can be repaired inexpensively will also help.

          In a comment somewhere you wondered when we would get to 50 million EVs sold per year, my guess is in about 2042 and we might reach 80 million (assuming 8% yearly sales growth) by 2048, by that point the World may have reached market saturation and growth will slow to replacement level and begin to decline with population decline after 2070. If better public transportation and auto driving cars become the norm by 2050, we may never reach 80 million in vehicle sales as fewer will be needed especially in densely populated areas.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Dennis, I was talking about a lot more than climate change and carbon replacement. There is a much larger picture out there going negative. Yes, some technology is promising and it would help to get it installed fast enough, but it will still not solve most of the predicaments and will definitely not handle any unforeseen high amplitude or chaotic events.
            However, if it takes that long to reach 50 million production EV’s or more they will not replace ICE’s before oil runs short. I hope you understand the implications of that.
            50 million per annum for 20 years will be 1 billion and half of those will be old. Also there will be another billion cars on the road, so we will merely have kept things in place.
            Using a ramp-up of 8 percent per annum will give about 7 times current sales in 2042. That would be about 5 million a year, not 50 million.
            Sales have to grow much faster and production must lead it.
            To keep up with a six percent drop in oil production per year means closer to 60 million cars a year, most of them in the early years. Of course efficiency and lifestyle changes could buffer the effect but once that oil starts falling, it could catch us with our pants around the knees transport wise. All in a world where large populations are moving upward and want more personal transport.
            Below is a chart with EV population versus time. It uses an initial 45% growth rate logistically limited to 2 billion. By then falling population might warrant a reduction in growth anyway.

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Gone fishing

              My model is 8% growth after 2040.

              I assume 30% growth in 2017 for plug-in sales. Each year after growth in sales falls by 1% until the growth in sales is 8%. When 80 million in sales is reached sales fall to rate needed to replace old cars.

              The fall in oil output will be about 2% if there is adequate demand.

              If oil is scarce prices will rise and this will speed up the move to EVs plug in hybrids, hybrids, and more efficient icevs.

              High prices will also lead to less driving combining trips car pools and more use of public transit.

              Consider the speed that personal computers and smart phones ramped up. If there is a crisis/depression demand for oil will fall.

              If people finally realize that peak oil has arrived the transition may be faster than my simple model.
              It might be like the industrial ramp for WW2.

              • GoneFishing says:

                I agree Dennis, to achieve a replacement of ICE by 2040 or so needs a huge push in production.

                In my scenario the rate of EV growth is quite high, approaching 300 million per annum around year 17. Production would need to be higher to replace some of the older EV’s that were no longer road worthy or had accidents.
                The only way demand could be that high would be to have government edicts against ICE purchases and/or a lack of liquid fuel. That would be about 2034, well into the downslope of oil production.
                Unit demand could be reduced by the increase in city dwellers using taxi systems or other public transport. It also could be reduced through the building of highly efficient ICE’s.
                Increasing battery charge density would keep demand high and allow for a wide number of ranges and prices in EV’s. The 200 mile range car would become the cheap commuter and local car.

                The problem with a depression is that demand may drop to the level of oil production at the time and reduce the price of oil, thus keeping more ICE’s on the road since people won’t be able to afford the new EV’s.
                Someone would have to come up with the model T version of an EV, affordable and practical to keep the numbers growing.

                Personally, I do not believe that we can or will achieve the high rate of production needed to stay ahead of oil depletion using current production techniques and materials. Possibly 3D printing will help here and some novel materials. The Sherman tank approach of WWII might come in handy. Not the best, but a easily built and a lot of them. Maybe many of us will get around on electric scooters and go-karts!
                A more realistic approach would be slower but that would leave many people without transport as oil production falls. There is always the natural gas conversion which should be avoided.
                It’s fun to think about, but we really won’t know until we get closer to 2030. Other predicaments may throw a wrench in the works by then and slow progress tremendously. On the other hand new materials, engineering and discoveries may speed thing up or even make them unnecessary.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  Of course we could all just slow down and both vehicle types would be more efficient. The electrics double their range as one slows down and they do great in stop and go traffic due to regenerative braking and no idle cost. The ICE peaks out around 45 to55 mph. After that aerodynamics win.



                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Gone fishing,

                    I agree a depression would not help things except possibly to make people realize that oil output is limited.

                    We would need a clear case of oil scarcity and high oil prices leading to social disruption which causes a depression in order for people to realize that ice vehicles are not the way forward.

                    High oil prices (when the economy recovers from depression around 2040) might lead to people slowing down to conserve energy. There is also the possibility that self driving cars providing Uber-like services may be commonplace by 2045 and this might require many fewer cars in densely populated areas.

                    More rural areas will still need cars, probably plugin hybrids until charging stations become more widespread.

                    Eventually we will need electrified rail and buses.

                    Agree there is a huge amount of uncertainty, lots of potential problems as well as potential solutions making prediction very difficult.

                    I think the potential for serious problems is very high probably 75% or more, I just think it likely humans will come up with solutions after a few years so that the problems are not likely to be permanent or catastrophic.

      • Survivalist says:

        The dominos are falling. The number of failed and failing states is increasing. EVs and “renewables” aren’t the answer. If they were the answer we could just send a bunch to Yemen and Somalia and they’d all there be happily ever after.
        When the House of Saud fragments and the clans within fight for the remaining treasure it’s gonna be game over for about 12% of each days C+C production.
        I really like the charts and the geology/economics discussions at POB, but what’s missing is geopolitical analysis and understand of human responses to scarcity.
        The world is transitioning from a resource abundant industrial economy to a resource scarce industrial economy. It will not go well. We will pull the temple walls down on our own heads. The election of a conflict seeking narcissist sociopath in USA is a good example of how poorly humanity is prepared to cope with this transition.

        • GoneFishing says:

          If the Saudi’s want more money they need to invest in PV to free up oil and gas for export. This will give them more money to invest in water production. EV’s are an answer for them especially in the future when their fields are no longer producing very well. Right now EV’s would free up their own internal use of oil and allow them greater profit from their production.
          Who here believes oil will stay cheap? It’s already doubled.

      • Nathanael says:

        “I’m wondering if ANY of the scientifically literate regulars here believe it is LIKELY we will collectively pull thru this century more or less whole , planet wide, meaning by more or less whole, no nuclear war, no famines killing more than a measly ( sarc ) ten million people at any one time , any one country, no more than another ten million gunned down at border fences, at any ONE fence, etc.”

        No it’s not likely. Climate change is the big one here though nuclear war is still a threat. Nobody has a plan to prevent the mass deaths in Bangladesh from sea level rise, so yeah, more than ten million will probably die in a single event.

        I’ve been trying to estimate the odds that we avoid total human extinction. That’s the *baseline scenario* if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. However, I think it is now fairly unlikely. It just became much much more likely that we will stop burning fossil fuels, simply because solar is cheaper, wind is cheaper, batteries are cheaper, and electric cars and trucks are cheaper; large airplanes can perhaps be run on biofuel. So yay, humanity survives?

        Now, I think the most important thing to do is to halt fossil fuel burning and start sucking CO2 out of the ocean *before* it becomes impossible for plankton to form their shells. When ocean acidification hits that point, the ocean food chain collapses and that causes mass starvation on a scale which humanity has never imagined before. If we avoid that, we can keep the famines regional…

  31. Oldfarmermac says:

    This link is mostly a PR puff piece, all brag and hot air, but it does have a few useful facts in it.

    To me, it’s actually a prime example of the best way to shoot your own toes off when promoting an idea.

    First off, I can imagine a few people believing the building pictured is beautiful, because they have been TOLD it’s beautiful, and that sort of people will believe anything, so long as it suits their tribal loyalties. 😉

    And maybe it really is beautiful. It’s MOTHER no doubt thinks it’s beautiful.

    The PROBLEM with this building is that it probably costs twice as much per square foot of usable space and likely takes close to twice as much material per square foot as a conventional design.

    This makes all the huffing and puffing about the zero net energy achievement look perfectly ridiculous to any body who knows a little bit about efficiency and sustainability. It would be far and away more cost effective, and more sustainable, to use remotely mounted solar panels to supply power to the building, and get twice the energy bang for the dollar on the whole job.

    The Norwegian government seems to have mandated that all new construction beginning a couple of years down the road be near net zero. This is a great GOAL, but if the regulations are written in such a fashion that it drives the cost of construction up sharply, it’s not really getting the sustainability job done.

    It would be a WHOLE lot better to simply mandate that whoever puts up a new building also has to put up the money to build enough renewable energy infrastructure somewhere nearby to supply the needs of that particular building. This would be by far a more efficient and cost effective approach.

    • GoneFishing says:

      If the costs stay as advertised the building cost is comparable to any high end office building. When one considers it does not have heating, cooling or lighting costs then it will be a winner.
      Most net zero buildings are slightly more expensive up front but not by a lot. They don’t need the expensive large heating and cooling plants that others require. They are certainly cheaper to operate, so long term costs are lower.

      For areas that cannot get enough sunlight, it may be best not to build there or as you say, put the PV elsewhere.
      Zero energy building is nothing new to Europe.

  32. islandboy says:

    Here’s a marvelous investment opportunity for anyone who thinks a 20 year PPA for electricity from a NG fired power plants in the Caribbean is a really good idea:

    JPS Old Harbour LNG project start awaits drawdown of financing

    No timelines

    The light and power supplier has not said what are now the timelines for construction and commissioning of the plant, given that the expected start-up date was set for the second quarter of last year, with finalisation of the project scheduled for July 2018.

    The company has conceded, however, that given the delay, the plant might not be completed in time to meet the mid-2018 commissioning timeline.

    “We are currently completing the final legal due diligence and technical review process to access funding from the banks,” JPS said via email.

    “We anticipate spending more than US$90 million in equity to fully develop this project over the next two years, with more than US$10 million being spent to date.”

    The project is expected to cost approximately US$300 million. Financing of approximately US$230 million is being provided by a syndicate of local banks and financial institutions led by National Commercial Bank.

    See also:

    JPS finalises financing for 190MW LNG plant


    Jamaica Public Service to raise US$200m on local market

    Just in case anybody thinks I am trying to give investment advice, have a look at the comments section of the first linked article and see if you can figure out what I really think!

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      Hi Island Boy,

      I don’t know any more about the Jamaican grid than I have read from your posts.

      IIRC, in the past your little country has mostly burnt oil to generate electricity, and has recently been working to get away from oil and switch to wind and solar plus gas.

      My personal guess is that it will be a pretty long time before most Jamaicans can afford much in the way of batteries. For that matter, not very many people in my country could comfortably lay out ten thousand dollars or so for personal electrical storage systems.

      The bottom line boils down to this. You will need some reliable base load power, especially at night, for a long time.

      How much do you have in place already? Will it be enough to meet nighttime loads going forward?

      How long do you think it will be before your country can reasonably expect to get by with only a very little or hardly any fossil fuel fired electricity ?

      Having asked all these questions, I would want my money back in ten years, rather than twenty, if I were to loan it out on a gas fired plant in such a sunny country, lol.

      BUT- and this is a rather large but- Wind and solar advocates REALLY REALLY do everything they can, as a rule, to avoid mentioning that fossil fuel fired base load and back up capacity will be ESSENTIAL for a good many years yet.

      The reason guys like Nick G can’t point out where I’m wrong in saying so is that there AREN’T any countries, excepting a couple of postage stamp sized ones that run on water and geothermal, that have succeeded in going entirely renewable. My guess for what it is worth is that NO country will succeed in going totally renewable in less than ten years, barring having LOTS of hydro that could maybe be reserved for night time generation. There might be one or two small countries that could go that route. Fifteen or twenty years seems like a better guess than ten, to me.

      So as I see it, reality dictates that somebody is going to own, maintain, and operate a good bit of fossil fuel generating capacity, in most countries, for at least another decade or two.

      And whoever that somebody IS, they WILL get paid for their capital investment, and for their expertise in managing it. It’s easy enough to bankrupt the CURRENT owners of fossil fuel generating capacity, but the NEW or NEXT owners WILL get paid. They will have guarantees of payment IN HAND previous to accepting ownership and paying the purchase price.

      And any HONEST and ETHICAL accounting of the cost of electricity MUST take the cost of this base load and backup capacity into account.

      Anybody who fails to tell both sides of the story is a partisan mouth piece, and in the end, he will do the cause of renewables more harm than good. Good intentions do not necessarily lead to good results.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Old farmer mac,

        Yes there will be a transition. Many investments in new coal power plants will be money wasted as the plants will become uneconomic in 20 years.

        The falling prices of renewable energy will relagate natural gas to a minor backup role in 30 years and many natural gas power plants will also be shut down. The few that continue running will make some money.

        Natural gas prices will fall due to lack of demand and supply will fall due to low profits.

        As EVs take market share oil supply will fall also due to lack of demand by 2047.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi Dennis,

          I find it amusing that you managed to reply without acknowledging that we simply MUST have a viable fossil fuel electricity industry for quite a while.

          It’s a classic trick, used by both sides in virtually every public debate, to answer a question or challenge by answering a DIFFERENT question or posing another, different challenge.

          But I’m sticking to my guns, when it comes to telling both sides of any issue I touch on, regardless of whether it advances the cause of the side I favor.

          And everybody here knows I have consistently commented in favor of pushing the development of the renewable energy industries along as fast as possible.

          Now YOU and a hell of a lot of other people may actually BELIEVE that the way to advance the renewables cause is to talk about it like a car salesman , doing every thing you can to keep the customer from THINKING about the down side of the purchase, and keeping the focus on the upside if at all possible.


          There is little question it works when the audience is already in favor of renewable energy, and isn’t interested enough to bother with the details, either pro OR con.

          But a REAL problem raises it’s head when people who are either neutral or opposed read endless stories and comments about wind and solar power being cheaper than coal and gas, without acknowledgement that BACKUP IS NECESSARY, and that the ONLY backup that EXISTS on an even REMOTELY adequate scale , for now, and for quite some time to come, is fossil fuel backup.

          We live in a sound bite world, and it’s EASY for anybody with skin in the fossil fuel game to make renewables advocates look like fools and liars when we talk about wind and solar being cheaper without acknowledging the need for FF backup NOW and for years to to come.

          It’s EXTREMELY unfortunate that the environmental question is inextricably entangled with the culture question, but that’s the way it is.

          And with the D/ liberal camp being identified ( correctly) with environmental activism, and the R / conservative camp well aware of this fact, well……..

          the R/ conservative camp IS PREDISPOSED to discount renewable energy, global warming, etc.

          So the R / conservative camp is generally ready to listen to sound bite type stories about how costly renewable energy is.

          All it takes to convince one of the R camp that renewables are a BAD deal is for somebody to point out that advocates cannot point out any country that has lots of renewables on the grid that also has cheaper electricity than countries without.

          We need to do a little better job of making the argument FOR renewable energy in less partisan terms, and I’m not talking only about D’s and R’s.

          I’m talking about obvious and inescapable facts.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Old Farmer Mac,

            It was implicit in my reply that fossil fuels will be needed, no capital letters required. That is why it is called a transition. Nobody thinks we will one day wake up and have 100% renewables, nor is it likely that fossil fuel output will disappear overnight.

            The shock models and reasonable estimates of fossil fuel resources suggest fossil fuel output will decline at about 2% per year (assuming enough demand for fossil fuel to require that level of output).

            If supply is inadequate at low prices, the price of fossil fuel will rise destroying some demand and leading to faster substitution of wind, solar, EVs, trains, light rail, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear power.

            None of this happens quickly and of course fossil fuels will be needed, from a climate change perspective the problem is likely to be too much fossil fuel availability. However it is likely that rising fossil fuel prices and falling non-fossil fuel energy prices might allow the energy transition to occur without catastrophic climate change. I think a major recession or depression from 2030 to 2040 is likely due to the difficulty of making the energy transition, which will lead to far reaching social disruption.

            I have been pretty consistent in predicting a second Great Depression about 100 years after the first one.

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              Hi Dennis,

              The conversation does tend to get hard to follow, when we read replies and post replies hours apart, etc, and lots of other comments wind up interspersed.

              In reply specifically to your 2/ 01 /9:30 pm:

              I am not trying to argue with you, or to dispute your understanding of the actual facts involved in any respect.

              As a matter of fact, I think you are substantially better informed, in respect to the details of our energy problem, than I am. In terms of the big picture, I pretty much agree with you, in almost every respect. When I do disagree, it’s usually a matter of degree, rather than a disagreement based on fundamentals.

              In talking about transitioning away from coal and gas, I think it will take longer than you do, and that it will be practical and economically sensible to maintain some gas and even some coal back up capacity longer than you do.

              There is nothing at all wrong with your comments, as you compose them, and publish them HERE in this forum. They are probably the best detailed and best organized of any and all the comments here. Nobody does a better job than you do in this respect, which leads me to believe you have not only a deeply nuanced grasp of the subject matter , but also that you have substantial experience as a technical writer.

              I would be willing to bet that you are as good as you are as a technical writer because you have spent plenty of time at it in your regular line of work.

              And by the way, if you don’t mind answering, what is your primary line of work? You have mentioned impressive professional qualifications before, but not specifically what kind of work you do, iIrc.

              My argument is not about how we talk about renewables here in this forum, but rather how renewable advocates ( meaning us of course ) talk about renewables in other forums, where the audience is likely to be very poorly informed in comparison to the membership here, and not only poorly informed, but actually predisposed to suspicion or outright hostility to the renewable energy message.

              What I am trying to do is get the membership here to think carefully about how we present the case for renewables in other forums, at other websites, in letters to the editor, in articles we write in blogs of our own, when we participate in public discussions involving renewable energy , etc.

              That’s all, that’s it.

              And I will try to get used to not using caps. For me , they are the same thing as italics or underlines, but I do understand that most people look at caps as yelling.

              The thing is that it takes one keystroke to cap and about seven or eight to itilicize. lol.

      • islandboy says:

        The history of electricity generation in Jamaica is quite interesting. From a page on the grid operators web site, “We are the proud inheritor of a tradition that dates back to 1892, when Jamaica first received electricity. This placed Jamaica in the enviable position of being one of the first in the world to have electricity, and only thirteen years after American scientist Thomas Edison had invented the electric lamp. In that year, the first electricity service in the island was supplied by the Jamaica Electric Light Company from a plant at Gold Street, in Kingston.”(See also Historic Highlights)

        One of the first, if not the first hydroelectric facilities outside of North America in this hemisphere was built in the island to provide power for the tramcar system in the capital city (see The Bog Walk hydro station for The Story of the Electric Tramway, A COMPLETE ACCOUNT OF THE WORK FROM START TO FINISH. ONE OF THE FINEST SYSTEMS IN THE WORLD., published in the Daily Gleaner, April 19, 1899)

        By the late sixties, petroleum dominated the electricity generating sector in the island with hydroelectricity contributing a couple of percent. The Bog Walk hydro plant was closed in 1966. In the 1972 a self described “Democratic Socialist” was elected prime minister of the island and the for the following eight years little or no private investment occurred, resulting in much of the capital stock being neglected. Owners of capital were more interested in getting out of the island, some fearing a Cuban style revolution based on the rhetoric of the then prime minister. By the time a more business friendly administration was elected in 1980, the government had assumed ownership or majority holdings in most of the sugar industry, most of the bauxite mines and alumina plants, the telephone company, the railway, the municipal bus company, some hotels and maybe other enterprises that I don’t remember. During this period in the seventies the owners of the enterprises that had ended up in government hands had started to neglect maintenance of the plant so the new administration had to deal with old, often outdated capital stock, much of it with critical maintenance overdue. In retrospect, one might be tempted to say that the socialist experiment, or rather, the extreme rhetoric that accompanied it, set the development of this island back decades, coinciding as it did with the oil shocks of the seventies.

        By 1980 the electricity supply had become unreliable and power outages became a part of life. The new administration chose to rehabilitate most of the oil fired generating fleet much of which could have been considered at “end of life”. A couple of barge mounted slow speed diesel units were leased to add to the fleet as a supposedly temporary measure but were subsequently acquired by private owners when, private enterprise was invited to build, own and operate generating plants to provide much needed new capacity.

        From the web site of the Ministry of Science Energy and Technology, Current Electricity Generation Investments

        JPS produces electricity using steam (oil-fired), combustion gas turbines, combined cycle, diesel, hydroelectric, and wind which allow for a generation capacity in excess of 629 Megawatts. JPS also purchases additional electricity close to 297 MW from Independent Power Producers (IPPs) such as Jamaica Energy Partners (JEP), Jamaica Private Power Company (JPPC), Jamalco, and Wigton Wind Farm.

        What I find interesting, based on information from a buddy of mine that works with the utility is the case of the lease of two gas turbine peaker plants from an outfit called KES Jamaica, a subsidiary of KENETECH Energy Systems, Inc. in 1995 (see. KENETECH ANNOUNCES SALE OF JAMAICA POWER PLANT). My buddy used to relate the story of how, when the leased period was up, the units were offered to the JPS but, the two parties were unable to agree on a price so, the units were decommissioned and shipped back out of the island!

        I see that as a precedent for how generating capacity could be provided in the interim while prices for storage and other technology fall to levels that are affordable. I totally get the part about batteries not being affordable at the moment. I am currently going through some used deep cycle lead acid batteries to see if I can salvage anything, rather than buying new.

      • Nick G says:

        fossil fuel fired base load and back up capacity will be ESSENTIAL for a good many years yet….The reason guys like Nick G can’t point out where I’m wrong in saying so

        I’ve never said that was wrong.

        Let me say that one more time:


        You’re thinking of my refutation of a claim by Javier that: a 100% renewable grid was impossible. That’s a very different claim.

        Lord, I hope I’ve put this to rest.

  33. Doug Leighton says:


    “The energy transition pays for itself (if you factor in the costs of air pollution). The total estimated cost of the Nordic energy transition is roughly $357 billion more than business as usual, which comes to a total of less than one percent of cumulative GDP between now and 2050. Almost all of these costs will be offset by fuel savings. Even the external costs associated with the health impacts of air pollution alone in the Nordic countries (about $9 to $14 billion annually) are roughly equal to the additional investment needed to achieve a carbon neutral scenario.”

    • Doug Leighton says:

      Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s “First energy plan” criticizes the “burdensome” regulations on the energy industry and aims to eliminate “harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan” which was introduced by President Barack Obama. It has also deleted all mentions of climate change and global warming from the White House website.

      • GoneFishing says:

        They can hide their heads in the sand but the rising tide will still wash over them.

        To have a chance of countering some future warming would mean a massive change in society and technology. This would redistribute wealth and distribute energy generation which is against the BAU plan. It would also allow for a general reduction in the use of energy and place burdensome restrictions or stop orders on some industrial activities. Again, against the BAU plan.

        Does anyone think we can produce over 50 million EV’s per year? Or put up 3000 square miles (land area) per year of PV? That is what it will take. Also lots of windmills, changing the grid, insulating and sealing buildings, removing all that fossil fuel infrastructure and remediating land, cleaning water too.
        And that does not take into account the agricultural transistion needed or fighting sea level rise or water source problems.
        Going to be a very busy next few decades folks, very busy. Too bad the US is backtracking.

        • Nathanael says:

          I think China’s going to do all of that. 50 million EVs per year, 3000 square miles per year of PV. The US can try to help or it can, well, yeah…

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Hi Doug,

        Your two comments, at ten o seven, and ten o nine lay out the case for renewables perfectly.

        It is my firm belief that if we want to succeed in bringing enough new troops into the renewables camp, the best way to frame the argument is in terms of saving money long term on fuel purchases, improved public health outcomes, and a number of things you didn’t mention, such as more local control, improved national security, more local jobs, more local tax collections, etc.

        People just aren’t much motivated by hearing about the same old same old bad news down the road talk, over and over again.. The fact that such talk is TRUE doesn’t change the fact that people are jaded , and bored, and worried about their day to day lives, and their bank accounts, to a far greater extent than they are about climate problems that won’t likely impact them at the personal level for another twenty or thirty years.

        But if you handle it right, you can get them wound up like a banjo string about businesses and industries doing things that cost them money in the here and now.

        If you want to get a redneck to thinking favorably about strong clean water laws, just start talking about how much your water bill is, because your home town has to spend extra money cleaning up the water you drink because somebody upstream is polluting it.

        If he’s a fisherman, or hunter, you can go after the lack of fish in streams he USED to fish in, etc.

        You can talk about how important it is to have lots of state forest and national forest lands held in perpetuity for his kids, so they will always have a place to hunt.

        There ARE ways to win, if we are smart enough to use the right tactics.

  34. islandboy says:

    Greensmith Energy completes 20 MW/80 MWh Aliso Canyon energy storage system in California

    Greensmith Energy (Herndon, VA, U.S.), a provider of energy storage software and turn-key solutions, on January 27th, 2017 announced the successful completion and grid-connect of the first 20 MW/80 MWh energy storage system at the AltaGas Pomona Energy Facility in Pomona, California.

    Working in close partnership with AltaGas, who selected the technology company in 2016, Greensmith claims an industry record in the design, integration and installation of a state-of-the-art energy storage system in under four months – in response to the Aliso Canyon gas shortage.

    Just an indication of how quickly renewable energy technology can be deployed. Additionally, the data from the EIA’s Electric Power Monthly (Table 6.3 New Utility Scale Generating Units by Operating Company, Plant, and Month) shows that up to the end of November 2016, 8 installations totaling 77 MW of battery capacity had been added, two 1 MW, one 2 MW, one 7 MW, one 8 MW, one 10 MW, one 20 MW and one 28 MW. This particular installation will probably show up in the EPM at the end of March, when the data for January 2017 is released.

    It should be interesting to watch the growth in battery installations for 2017.

    • JN2 says:

      Cool. Software by Greensmith. Hardware (Powerpack 2 battery pack units) by Tesla.

  35. GoneFishing says:

    Another asteroid is about to pass close to earth. Ever wonder how big an asteroid needs to be to do major damage? How about the length of a bus? Of course it depends where it hits.

    Or you can calculate your own impacts

    • Doug Leighton says:

      “Or you can calculate your own impacts.” Cool, just sent this off to my Grandson (After playing with it myself of course). 🙂

      • GoneFishing says:

        Bound to happen someday. I have seen two meteorites go over that pieces were recovered later. One was in bright daylight.
        I always wondered the effect of a small asteroid hitting the lake near me. Would the steam cook me? Probably. I am less than one hundred yards from shore.

        Lakes that are asteroid craters.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Although the odds of getting killed by a meteorite or small asteroid are small, since there are now so many people and so many of their buildings, the odds of someone or something getting hit is probably much higher.
          Although a small meteorite is only traveling about 200 to 400 mph, when it hits, something the size of a walnut could hurt or kill you. More than likely it will miss and you may not even notice it.

      • GoneFishing says:

        I watched the aftermath of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 striking Jupiter. Looked like dark whirlpools in the atmosphere, must have been huge to be seen so easily.

    • islandboy says:

      Your link autoloaded a video after the asteroid one that featured “Sophie the humanoid robot”. Kinda creepy!

      • GoneFishing says:

        Yeah, its like a wax museum coming to life. Weirdos.
        Robots should look like machines or at least different than people.

  36. Doug Leighton says:


    “The new results indicate that the similar and seemingly unstoppable melting of huge swaths of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) today by relatively warm ocean waters has precedent in an earlier era. Prior to this new drilling, scientists lacked evidence of such melting from undersea warmth in WAIS’s past.”

    • Javier says:

      “Sediment cores the team collected by drilling in front of the current Cosgrove Ice Shelf indicate that relatively warm ocean waters dissolved the vast ice shelf and even some of the glacier behind it about 2000 years ago, they recently reported.”

      This was the time of the Roman Warm Period. One of the warm periods that occur at about 1000 years interval, followed by the Medieval Warm Period, and the Modern Warm Period. They are followed by colder periods, the Dark Ages (Migration period), and the Little Ice Age.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Javier,

        The difference is that atmospheric CO2 was relatively stable from 11,000 BP to 1600 CE (mean 269 ppm and median 268 ppm), there are indeed warm and cool periods due to the melting of ice sheets and sea ice and the slow change in ocean temperature over time caused by natural changes in the incidence of solar radiation on different hemispheres due to Milankovitch cycles.

        An extra 1.95 W/m^2 of radiative forcing today due to increased atmospheric CO2 alone (other greenhouse gases might be offset by cloud and aerosol changes relative to pre-industrial average conditions) may change things relative to the 500 CE to 1850 CE period. Under very conservative emissions scenarios (1080 Pg of carbon emissions from 1750-2500) the radiative forcing increases to 3.14 W/m^2 by 2080 from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide alone (500 ppm atmospheric CO2) and if aerosol emissions decrease any increased cloudiness may no longer offset other greenhouse gas emissions (methane, NO2, and others) so the actual increase in radiative forcing is likely to be higher.

        I suppose one could try to argue that warming is always good, but I am not convinced.
        Sea level rise is a potential problem even with only 2 C of global warming, though there are many others.

        • Javier says:

          Hi Dennis,

          The millennial cycle has nothing to do with CO2. Gerard Bond very convincingly showed that Bond events correlate very strongly with solar activity, following a millennial cycle. See figure from Bond et al., 2001 where I have labelled the millennial cycle with red lines.

          I suppose one could try to argue that warming is always good

          It depends, but I would argue that in the Late Pleistocene, when the Planet is on average in the coldest temperatures of the past 300 million years, and when if conditions that allow an interglacial end the planet slides naturally into a glacial period, warming is a lot safer than cooling.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Javier,

            The correlation is quite low, an R of 0.44 means the R squared is 0.19.

            One would expect random series to be correlated that well. So the “millenial cycle”, if it is correct, would not need to have much to do with CO2. The signal from CO2 (change in atmospheric CO2) was quite low from 11,000 BP to 350 BP with a mean and median of about 270 and fluctuating from about 260 to 280, the rise from 280 ppm to 500 ppm that is likely to occur over a short 200 year period is a much stronger signal and will dwarf the “millennial cycle” that may have been important from 5000 BP to 250 BP.

            On the warming being safer than cooling, if one lives on an island, perhaps not, or a coastal city, and there are many of those.

            We will not need to worry about global cooling for 100,000 years, perhaps we should save the fossil fuel for then. 🙂

            • Javier says:


              One would expect random series to be correlated that well.

              That’s because climate is affected by other things and the series pick up noise, but the millennial lows in solar activity coincide all with peaks in ice rafted debris in the North Atlantic.

              The signal from CO2 (change in atmospheric CO2) was quite low from 11,000 BP to 350 BP with a mean and median of about 270 and fluctuating from about 260 to 280

              Holocene CO2 changes between 6800 and 600 yr BP according to Monnin et al. 2004:
              258-283 ppm. Increase +25 ppm
              This is one third the increase of CO2 over going from glacial conditions (190 ppm) to interglacial (265 ppm), yet the Holocene increase took place over a general cooling. This is called the Holocene Temperature Conundrum: Rising CO2, dropping temperatures.

              the rise from 280 ppm to 500 ppm that is likely to occur over a short 200 year period is a much stronger signal and will dwarf the “millennial cycle”

              So it is generally believed, yet periods of cooling or hiatus characterize periods of below average solar activity, even now. So it doesn’t appear that the dwarfing is working.

              In any case the next millennial high is around 2100, so no solar cooling until afterwards. The issue is that part of the warming might have been solar in nature. And not properly reflected in TSI changes, because as the paper above says:

              “We suggest that even very small radiative perturbations can change the latitudinal temperature gradient and strongly affect prevailing atmospheric wind systems and hence air-sea heat exchange. These dynamic processes provide an efficient mechanism to amplify small changes in insolation into relatively large changes in OHC.”

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Javier,
                Yes the natural signal has been overwhelmed by the CO2.
                This is why we only see a slow down in the rate of warming rather than a significant decrease in temperature.

                I will repeat that only those with poor reading comprehension think that mainstream climate science suggests no natural variability.

                • Javier says:


                  “the natural signal has been overwhelmed by the CO2.”

                  This is far from being demonstrated as the natural signal has been changing in the same general direction as temperatures.

                  All long term natural cycles bottomed during the LIA, that’s why it was such cold period, and have been going up since. The millennial solar cycle is not expected to top until around 2100.

                  The CO2 warming has been over imposed to natural warming, confounding scientists. That’s why most predictions are failing. Natural warming and CO2 warming proceed by different mechanisms. Natural warming is working through the expansion of the tropical Hadley cells (a phenomenon that CO2 hypothesis has to ignore because it cannot explain), and the contraction of the polar cells, while CO2 warming reduces the equator-polar thermal gradient through Arctic amplification, reducing the strength of atmospheric phenomena, contrary to alarmist expectations.

                  When natural and CO2 cooperate we get accelerated warming, when they don’t we get a hiatus. The day natural warming turns into natural cooling that’s what we will get, and CO2 will only be able to moderate it. Fortunately that day isn’t close.

                  • Javier said:

                    “This is far from being demonstrated as the natural signal has been changing in the same general direction as temperatures.”

                    The delusions of Javier are deeply rooted.

                    Reminds me of Cleese’s line “I fart in your general direction”, indicating someone that is totally clueless about the idioms and language of climate science. What Javier taunts comes off as comically inept ….

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    You seem to think climate scientists believe that only greenhouse gases affect climate.

                    From what I have read that seems very far from the mark. The natural variability by itself does not explain global temperatures from 1850 to 2016 very well, when other factors such as anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols and their interaction with the environment are considered a much better model can be created.

                    Also keep in mind that the analysis of Rosenthal at al, while interesting gives only a rough temperature estimate of the top 700 meters of ocean.

                    The cooling or warming of this layer can be affected by heat transfer to the atmosphere as well as changes in heat transfer to deeper layers of the ocean. We don’t have good data on changes in the global ocean’s temperature below 1000 meters in the past.

                    An assumption that ocean temperatures below 700 meters have remained fixed over time may not be correct.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    I agree that natural variability has an effect and so do climate scientists, though somehow you miss this.

                    Yes when natural variability and anthropogenic forcing are both acting to increase temperature the rate of warming is faster and when they act in opposite directions the rate of warming will be reduced (such as from 1945 to 1975).

                    It is not clear that solar variability has been more important than oceanic cycles such as the AMO and ENSO, but in any case changes in the rate of warming will occur due to changes in the rate of change of atmospheric green house gases as well as natural variability.

                    There are not coherent explanations of natural variability and correlations with an R squared of 19% don’t really qualify as good explanations in my opinion.

                    Potentially some future volcanic super eruption could lead to some natural cooling which might offset some of the anthropogenic warming. When that might occur is difficult to predict.

    • clueless says:

      Doug – “the similar and seemingly unstoppable melting of huge swaths of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet”

      So, why did NASA publish this?:

      • Doug Leighton says:

        Sea ice and glaciers (with ice shelves) are different things. Sea ice forms at the ocean surface once the temperature drops to the freezing point during fall and winter. This is distinct from the ice of ice shelves.

        • GoneFishing says:

          This year winter has often been like early spring, with the lake open much of the time and migratory birds enjoying the water, instead of the ice (precious normal). Snow cover is rare this winter and never deep or lasting. Cross country skiing around here started to become sketchy in the late 1980’s. Now it is not good, because even with snow there are rain and melting events which ice harden the top layers of snow very quickly. Have to go 200 to 300 miles north to get good snow.

          “In the more than 30 years I’ve been a meteorologist, I’ve always enjoyed sitting down each day and taking a look at the latest computer model forecasts of the weather for the upcoming ten days,’’ said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for the site Weather Underground. “That pleasure began becoming tinged with anxiety beginning in 2010, when we seemingly crossed a threshold into a new more extreme climate regime. The relatively stable climate of the 20th Century that I grew up with is no more.’’

      • wharf rat says:

        Melting Woes: Antarctic Sea Ice at Record Lows
        December 16, 2016

  37. Doug Leighton says:

    Hi Fred,

    In case you hadn’t noticed.


    • Fred Magyar says:

      Tks, I heard about it on the car radio while driving home this evening and had planned on looking it up. You saved me the trouble.

      The researchers were unable to find any evidence that the animal had an anus, which suggests that it consumed food and excreted from the same orifice.

      Sounds a lot like some of our politicians… 😉

      Seriously though, it is an amazing find!

    • GoneFishing says:

      Big mouth but not an asshole, how unique. Evolution took a turn there, didn’t it?

  38. clueless says:

    OFM stated that he would prefer not to see totally one-sided comments. In an effort to satisfy that request, I submit the following:

    If you review the actual text of the executive order what you will immediately notice is the order doesn’t specify ANY countries to be included in the Visa suspension (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen).
    President Trump is not suspending visas from countries his team selected, they are simply suspending visa approval from countries President Obama selected. Additionally, Trump is suspending ALL visa applications from those countries – nothing to do with Muslim applications.
    • In 2013 President Obama suspended refugees from Iraq for six months. • In 2015 Congress passed, and Obama signed, a law restricting visas from states of concern; • and in 2016 Obama’s DHS, Jeh Johnson, expanded those restrictions. …. all President Trump is doing is taking the same action as Obama 2013, and applying Visa restrictions to the nation states Obama selected in 2015 and 2016.
    From the Executive order:
    […] to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). (link)
    U.S.C.1187 Law Link Here
    The President Obama Department of Homeland Security already targeted those seven listed countries for the past several years as nations of concern.
    In February of 2016 the Department of Homeland Security announced that was continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of additional concern.
    DHS: “limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.” DHS noted “the three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals.”
    President Trump is carrying out an executive action in support of the US Customs and Border Protection Act of 2015, which relates to “the Visa Waiver

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      “OFM stated that he would prefer not to see totally one-sided comments. In an effort to satisfy that request”

      Maybe mister know-it-all should have thought about that before he started trashing HRC

      “President Trump is not suspending visas from countries his team selected, they are simply suspending visa approval from countries President Obama selected”

      “all President Trump is doing is taking the same action as Obama 2013, and applying Visa restrictions to the nation states Obama selected in 2015 and 2016”

      It’s time for Republican Trump to take personal responsibility for his actions

      • clueless says:

        “It’s time for Republican Trump to take personal responsibility for his actions”

        When you personally sign your executive order; tell everyone in the press that you did; publish the order using the government printing office; pass out written background to the press on how you came up with the list, etc. – please advise all of us of what else anyone could do to “take personal responsibility” that would satisfy even the simplest mind out there. Maybe knock on your door and tell you to your face?

        • R2D2 says:

          “all President Trump is doing is taking the same action as Obama 2013”

          But Obama did this and Obama did that. Don’t judge me because it was Obama’s list. It was only like Obama.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        “Maybe mister know-it-all should have thought about that before he started trashing HRC”

        Well, as best I remember, I had the field pretty much to myself, whereas lots of people were badmouthing Trump, including you.

        So that looks just a little bit like balanced commentary to me.


    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Clueless,

      Very convincing, no countries were named in the order, a list was named [section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)] which included those countries. The fact that all citizens of those primarily Islamic nations were targeted (except diplomats) rather than any religion specifically being named suggests it has nothing to do with the Islamic faith.

      Yep very convincing 🙂

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        Hi Dennis,

        Donald J Trump, Stephen Kevin Bannon and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III have a history of civil rights for all Americans and are not white supremacists .

        Just wanted to add my comment for the January sarcasm contest

      • hightrekker23 says:

        Of course, its just a coincidence that they are all Islamic Countries.
        It was jest analysis.

  39. Ralph says:

    Petition on the official UK government petition site requesting that Trump’s stat visit be cancelled. (nearly) 1.5M signatures as I type, and rising at 45,000 an hour. That is over 2% of UK population so far. A counter petition confirming Trump’s visit has 5,000 signatures but is being signed at 3,000 an hour.

    A similar petition one year ago got 580,000 signatures.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Ralph,

      Its all those illegal immigrants no doubt signing the petitions. 🙂

  40. Survivalist says:

    Saudi Arabia Wheat and Water:

    “He added that the Kingdom’s wheat import has increased from 300,000 in 2008 to 3 million tons by the end of this year. This makes the Kingdom number six on the list of top countries importing wheat.”

  41. clueless says:

    Solution to the problem. Let’s just reopen Ellis Island.

    Oh no! Our country was not welcoming. All of our ancestors were fascists!

  42. clueless says:

    Why can’t Fox News ask some tough questions of Trump? I still have no idea if he wears boxers or briefs.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      It’s no wonder you can’t recognize Fascism

    • Survivalist says:

      I bet he goes ‘commando’.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Because it is Steve Bannon who is the brains behind the White House’s actions. His goal is to create as much chaos and outrage as possible. The recent immigration ban was his baby and he knew exactly what he was doing… He is the equivalent of Joseph Goebbels. Trump has placed him on the National Security Council. These are definitely not normal times…

      • Survivalist says:

        Trumps arrogance and ignorance about the world reminds me of the story about the October 22, 1957 London Times headline: “Heavy Fog in Channel – Continent Cut Off.”

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        Fred, I 100% totally agree with you. Just keep repeating it until everyone gets it.

        Bannon is an Anarchist

        There’s a storm coming

        It’s only day 10

  43. Fred Magyar says:

    Scientists Find a Voice at Massive Rally for Immigrants
    Students, doctors and researchers join a big protest in the academic hub of Boston

    I thought I’d put in a little plug for the voices of reason for a change, It’s been getting more than a little tiring to have to listen to the worst of our society recently!

  44. Duncan Idaho says:

    What a Debbie Downer!

    Our progress in getting away from fossil fuels has not been very fast, either. Going back to 1985, fossil fuels made up 89% of the total, and wind and solar were both insignificant. As indicated above, fossil fuels today comprise 86% of total energy consumption. Thus, in 30 years, we have managed to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 3% (=89% – 86%). Growth in wind and solar contributed 2% of this 3% reduction. At the rate of a 3% reduction every 30 years (or 1% reduction every ten years), it will take 860 years, or until the year 2877 to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels. And the “improvement” made to date was made with huge subsidies for wind and solar.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Doesn’t understand non-linear growth.

      • hightrekker23 says:

        But we shall see.
        I’m on the fence on this one, but my gut instinct it is not going to work.
        Hopefully I’m wrong.
        I’m moving to Oregon, and am going to get some primary experience with PV.

  45. Survivalist says:

    Let the sweating begin

    “Analysts also speculated a public treason trial could serve as a venue to air more potentially damaging information gleaned about the United States — and new President Donald Trump — without using back channels such as the website WikiLeaks to make it public.”

  46. Doug Leighton says:

    Hi again Fred,

    It’s been a good week for paleontology (Loricifera in particular).


    A new species of fossil has been discovered that will shed light on early animal ecosystems. Investigators discovered the new species while conducting a survey of microfossils in mudstones from western Canada. To their surprise, the samples yielded miniscule loriciferans: a type of animal so small it has been considered “unfossilizable”.

  47. Longtimber says:

    EVs are coming. EVs are coming. An attempt in quantifying transformation.
    “I then went on to say that “since the volume of displaced oil compares with Kuwait or Venezuela’s oil production in 2009 or the increase of U.S. oil production between 2012 and 2014, this provides considerable support to Bloomberg’s prediction that EVs could indeed produce a new oil crash in the world…””

  48. Doug Leighton says:

    Some good news and some bad news,


    New research suggests that the capacity of the terrestrial biosphere to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) may have been underestimated in past calculations due to certain land-use changes not being fully taken into account.


    Many performance indicators of global and national energy systems suggest that global temperatures could still be kept below 2°C. However, future trajectories will soon diverge from 2°C pathways if key existing technologies are not rapidly deployed and new technological advances made.

    • Doug Leighton says:



      Crude oil demand won’t peak anytime soon, the head of the International Energy Agency Fatih Birol said, adding that growth will be spurred by emerging economies. Reuters quoted Birol as saying, “We do not see in the near and medium terms oil products can be substituted by other fuels. More than one third of growth comes from trucks in developing Asia.”

      • GoneFishing says:

        Fatih was saying just a few year ago that we should get off of oil. Now he says there is no substitute for oil.
        Even Bloomberg thinks that EV’s are going to displace large amounts of oil within the coming decade.

        Asian trucks —->Seneca Cliff ?

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          My opinion is that a Seneca Cliff scenario is a very real possibility, and that it might come to pass with little or no warning more than a year ahead.

          But I also believe that oil demand will continue to increase for quite some time, maybe as much as twenty years or more, barring a major economic collapse.

          Diesel engines and diesel fuel be cheaper options than batteries for heavy trucks, construction machinery, and farm machinery, etc, for that long or maybe even longer.

          And while batteries might be eventually be powerful enough and cheap enough to use in such machinery, they might not.

          And even if they do get to be that good, and that cheap, say ten years from now, it might take another ten years for the manufacturers to make enough of them, and customers to wear out their sunk investment in diesel powered machinery, and trade up in sufficient numbers to substantially reduce the need for oil on a day to day basis.

          • Nathanael says:

            For this stuff I realized it was incredibly important to quantify oil demand. So I went through and read a hell of a lot of stats on how oil is used and how it’s refined.

            Turns out gasoline is *ridiculously*dominant. Basically if the gasoline market disappears, we are going to be awash in oil, just from existing fields. Diesel and kerosene can’t save the oil companies from bankruptcy. (Diesel’s already declining anyway; city buses are the first to go.)

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              It’s true that if we can electrify the vast majority of automobiles and light trucks that we would need quite a bit less oil, maybe as much as a third less.

              And if the sale of oil were to decline by a third over a short period of time, the price would certainly crash to almost nothing, and a lot of oil companies would certainly go broke.

              But we would still need many millions of barrels per day, to run everything else BUT cars and light trucks.

              And we will continue to need those millions of barrels per day for a good many years to come.

              If I wanted to put some money in the stock market, an oil company would be one of my last choices, for sure.

              • Nathanael says:

                Heh, yeah — I do tend to analyze things from a stock market perspective. Occupational hazard.

                You’ve actually underestimated the effects. Eliminating gasoline demand eliminates about a third of the demand for oil; but eliminating most of the diesel demand, which is also mostly for cars and trucks, eliminates *another* third.

                Then there’s kerosene for aircraft. Everything else oil is used for? We don’t need petroleum for them and we’ll quit using petroleum for them very quickly. I’ve got to explain this in detail.

                The fractionation of the oil barrel during the refining process means that one or two high-volume high-value products are created (gasoline, diesel — kerosene in the past and maybe kerosene in the future), and a lot of other products are created as *byproducts*. These other products (asphalt, etc.) have high volumes *because* they are byproducts of high-volume gasoline production, and end up having low prices for the same reason. (By contrast, anything which comes out of the same fraction of the oil barrel as gasoline is super expensive because making it reduces gasoline production.)

                When the gasoline/diesel markets collapse and the oil companies go bust, *refinery capacity will shrink* to match the new demand levels for gasoline/diesel (or eventually, to match the demand level for kerosene). This will reduce the volume of production of *all* the other byproducts (asphalt, etc.) and cause their prices to go up.

                Most of these byproducts are already teetering at price levels where a fairly small rise in price will cause a switch to substitutes. Asphalt is an example: it can be replaced with concrete. Lubricants/plastics/chemical can be replaced with synthetics from natgas or biogas feedstock.

                Some of the byproducts are *already* so expensive that people are switching to alternatives to save money, including butane and propane for heating.

                A few of these byproducts are so cheap and junky that they’ll probably still be produced until they’re regulated out of existence, like bunker fuel for ships. But if bunker fuel ever does get more expensive, watch the ships switch to biofuels or something.

                “And we will continue to need those millions of barrels per day for a good many years to come. ”
                Sure, this isn’t happening overnight. The question is how many years. My projections see the price crashing in the 2023-2026 timeframe, the bankruptcies happening over the next 10 years as the road vehicle fleet is replaced and gasoline demand disappears, and the disappearance of most of the rest of the business (as the byproducts become too expensive to compete) in the 10 years after that. But those are rough guesses.

                Despite the utter disasters caused by global warming, which will be blindingly obvious quite early into this transition, I suspect a “safe space” will be carved out for aircraft kerosene because people like flying, and there isn’t a great alternative yet. As a result, I suspect that in about 10 years, worldwide, government regulation will target all forms of fossil fuel burning *except* aircraft — all other forms will be financially unsound by then and accordingly easy targets.

                I may be slow in my estimates of the transition, actually, because there are multiple positive-feedback-cycle effects reinforcing one another. But I think a solid projection for oil production for the 10-year-plus timeframe would have to be based almost entirely on aircraft kerosene demand.

                • Oldfarmermac says:

                  Back atcha , Nathaniel,

                  You might be right, the consumption of oil could crash very quickly.

                  But your analysis depends on a couple of assumptions, one being that batteries will get to be good enough and cheap enough in the relatively near term to displace the ice in cars and light trucks. This one seems to be fairly reasonable, and I’ll accept it, beginning say five years from now. But it might be ten or fifteen years before most cars and light trucks are sold new without an ice engine under the hood, and possibly even longer.

                  Most people are simply unable to get their head around the FACT that it will take batteries better by a factor of TEN to run heavy trucks and construction machinery. Cars cruise, you need only a LITTLE horsepower to keep a car up to highway speeds. Trucks and construction machinery DO NOT CRUISE. It’s pedal to the metal, or pretty close, during working hours, which tend to be LONG hours, and the power demand STAYS HIGH all the time, or at least MOST of the time.

                  The battery in a TESLA S will run an S for four or five hours or so at highway speeds, and the S has a motor with 450 horse power. But at modest cruising speeds, the car is using only about one quarter, or even less, of the battery charge in an hour. Put the hot rod model Tesla battery in a three hundred fifty horsepower ( And that’s a very modest sized engine in a late model eighteen wheeler, but otoh it’s capable of actually DELIVERING that 35o for five to ten thousand hours, constantly, without major repairs . A car engine that is SAID to have 350 horse power might last an hour at that output, if it can do it, but the odds are high it can’t. )

                  That hot rod Tesla battery would last less than an hour from fully charged to flat, in a typical ten wheel dump truck running fully loaded. I doubt it would stand very many charging cycles used in a truck.

                  That same battery would only run my utility tractor, a SMALL tractor, maybe three hours doing field work.Plowing it would likely not last even that long. It would take one twenty times as good to run my utility tractor and orchard sprayer most of a working day, because the sprayer engine is two hundred horsepower actual, not advertised. It takes ALL two hundred horses, ALL THE TIME, when working, plus half the time it takes everything the tractor has to maintain the proper speed, in case I have to climb a slight grade.

                  This problem is compounded by the fact that I need the tractor most of the day , or all day and well into the night, when I do need it, but it sits around probably four or five times as many days as I actually use it. The sprayer is used a normal max of only about fifteen days a year. The POWER problem is just as acute, or even MORE acute, in the case of mid sized to heavy construction machinery, and trucks above about four or five tons cargo capacity. And while newer trucks and nearly new construction equipment is used regularly, slightly older equipment sits around more days than it is used.

                  Bottom line, batteries up to the job don’t yet exist, and may or may not be available at affordable prices later. Buying them at prices that they can be used on a daily basis is one thing, but intermittent use is something else altogether, in terms of the capital expense.

                  AND about kerosene, well diesel engines can be tuned to run even better on kerosene than they do on ordinary diesel fuel, and it won’t cost anymore to build them to run on kerosene, at the factory.

                  And while asphalt is cheap, CONCRETE AIN’T, and the only viable substitute I know of for asphalt IS concrete, and it’s a second class substitute at that , due to the high initial price of it, the difficulties involved in building new roads out of it, and especially the cost of repairing concrete highways.

                  So maybe you’re right , or maybe there will be a robust market for oil for decades to come.

                  And there’s a real possibility that with demand declining, due to electrification, some oil producers will continue to make excellent profits, as higher cost producers find themselves compelled to give up and quit. Depletion is very very real, although there is a price war happening right now. That price war means a lot of producers are running at a long term loss.

                  In the future, companies and countries with established oil fields may find it necessary to sell for a lower price than needed to generate an overall profit, but that doesn’t mean they can’t continue to produce and sell oil. It’s better to lose a dollar on a sunk investment while generating some spendable cash than it is to walk away and lose the dollar AS WELL AS the cash from production.

                  Bottom line, I wouldn’t invest in oil unless I had in insider’s expertise, and even then I would be very careful.

                  So we’re in the same book, part of the time at least.

                  But my gut feeling is that it’s way too soon to write the oil industry’s obituary.

      • islandboy says:

        “We do not see in the near and medium terms oil products can be substituted by other fuels.”

        Of Course! So says the head of an agency that has consistently low balled it’s forecasts for renewables while being optimistic about FF, petroleum in particular. The IEA has been called out as recently as October 2016 by the Energy Watch Group ‘for what it says is a “heavy underestimation” of the growth of solar and wind in its latest report.’

        To quote Tony Seba again, “It’s usually the ‘experts’ and ‘insiders’ who dismiss Disruptive Opportunities”.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Slowdown???? What slowdown?

      Daily CO2
      January 29, 2017: 405.76 ppm
      January 29, 2016: 402.24 ppm
      Delta = 3.52 per annum
      (that rate of increase gives almost 700 ppm CO2 by 2100)

      Atmospheric CO2 for month December 2016
      parts per million (ppm)
      Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (NOAA-ESRL)
      Preliminary data released January 6, 2017

      Methane concentration is rising at about 10 ppb per year the last 3 years and 8.3 ppb/yr over 30 years.

      Global surface temperature is rising at 1C every 40 years now (over 40 year time span). The Arctic region is rising at more than twice that rate since 1960.
      I declare global warming and climate change with no stopping or slowdown in sight.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        “I declare global warming and climate change with no stopping or slowdown in sight.”

        I see that and raise you one. Or maybe three: degrees C that is. 🙂

        • GoneFishing says:

          I will see those degrees and raise you two London Hippopotami and one Pennsylvania alligator.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            Ok, Señores, and I’ll lay my cards on the table, face up … Royal Florida Polar Bear Flush! And now I’ll just sweep my winnings off the table into my BIG SOMBRERO, Adios Muchachos! 😉

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              Can you guys remember seeing a cartoon with two guys in a car headed south on I95, with the overhead sign reading Miami one hundred miles, and the snow a foot deep and blowing a blizzard?

              One guy is saying to the other, ya think maybe there’s something to this new ice age theory?

              It’s time for the direction of travel to be reversed, and the guys in the car to be talking about the orange groves in Vermont or something along that line.

              I wish I could draw.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                …orange groves in Vermont

                I’m sure they will get citrus canker… 😉

      • Duncan Idaho says:

        Yea, what planet is the CO2 decreasing on?
        And what color is the sky?

      • Javier says:

        It must be that pesky El Niño, because global CO2 emissions have slowed down since 2012 and stalled since 2014.

        Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes stall

        “In 2015, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes have stalled, confirming the slowdown trend observed since 2012. It is a result of structural changes in the global economy, global energy efficiency improvements and changing energy mix in key countries, concludes the latest report by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the JRC.”

        I declare global warming and climate change with no stopping or slowdown in sight.

        You’re funny.

        • Javier said:

          “It must be that pesky El Nino”

          Does Javier even know what an El Nino is? And if that’s not the case, feigning exasperated sarcasm is not very becoming.

          There is an underlying cycle to El Nino that has to do with geophysical processes on the Earth (and Moon)

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi WHT,

            I think Javier is simply saying that the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 tends to be higher when there is a strong el nino. As far as I can tell that is correct.

            His comment that the rate of increase in CO2 emissions since 2012 has also fallen is also correct.

            Although I often disagree with Javier, in this case I do not.

            • Javier asserted CO2 emissions have “stalled since 2014”

              I don’t see any stalling – as in a plane stalling in mid-flight and not able to maintain altitude. And why would anyone suggest that it would stall given the huge inertia of the world’s economy?

              There is something very strange about what Javier is trying to do here. He essentially shotguns all sorts of alternative interpretations to anything he comes across.


              • Duncan Idaho says:

                He is:

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi WHT,

                I interpret stalled as a slowdown in the rate of growth.

                For fossil fuels and cement that is correct. The land use change estimates are not very good, there are a wide range of estimates over the past 10 years or so and not very good agreement between different models. Chart below shows carbon emissions from fossil fuels and cement and total carbon emissions using average model values from the global carbon budget, vertical axis is Pg of carbon per year.

                Data from global budget link at page linked below


      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Gone fishing,

        If one assumes carbon emissions have some degree of influence on future temperature increase and one also assumes that wind, solar and EVs continue to increase while fossil fuel output decreases due to depletion and substitution of non fossil fuel energy, then the logical conclusion is that the rate of warming should be reduced in the future.

        This assumes that fossil fuel resources are near my medium estimates, that wind, solar, and other non-fossil fuel energy increase at realistic future rates and that mainstream climate science estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity are correct.

        All of these assumptions could be wrong, but in my opinion they are likely to be correct.

        See also Allen at al 2009 (link below)

        • GoneFishing says:

          I agree that slowing down the rate of CO2 increase will have a future effect on the rate of global temperature increase. I do not agree that it is or will be the major contributor to global warming, or that it is a strong controller of climate at this point.

          Interesting model, devoid of most of the many feedbacks in play now.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Gone fishing,

            You seem to be in agreement with Javier that atmospheric CO2 is of little importance. The conclusion one could draw is that it does not matter how much carbon dioxide we dump into the atmosphere as it is not the major contributor to global warming, or that it is a strong controller of climate at this point in your opinion.

            As I believe I clearly stated, the model is inadequate, so that using Earth System Models is preferred.

            Those models do include most of the feedbacks including sea ice and snow cover extent, though ice sheets and permafrost effects are not included in many models as the understanding is under development.
            We can speculate that we understand what will occur with these aspects of climate change, but my reading of the science is that there is not very good agreement on these aspects of climate science.

            If your main point is that there is the potential for large changes that are not anticipated due to our poor understanding of ice sheets, permfrost, and other factors, I agree there is a great deal of uncertainty. These effects might be larger or smaller than the best scientific estimates. My claim would simply be that we do not know.

            I disagree that carbon emissions are not important, but I agree there are many feedbacks that come into play as a result of high levels of atmospheric CO2 and its very long residence time relative to methane and the level of emissions still occurring make it one thing that humans have control over.

            Things will look very different with atmospheric CO2 at 700 ppm vs 500 ppm.

            • GoneFishing says:

              Dennis said”You seem to be in agreement with Javier that atmospheric CO2 is of little importance.”
              You have your logic backwards. Javier does not believe CO2 has much forcing effect. I see many natural feedbacks that have a larger and growing forcing effect whose sum will make the effect of anthropogenic CO2 small. Understand the difference?
              In about a decade, the IPCC will be catching up to what is going on now, but by then they will be considered superfluous and fairly useless.
              Just watch reality unfolding in the Arctic and in the Jetstream. No need to even wait for future effects. Once you comprehend those, there will be no need for this kind of discussion.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Gone fishing,

                What you both share is a disdain for mainstream climate science. Just opposite ends of the spectrum.

                Where Javier believes climate sensitivity is at the low end of the spectrum, you believe it is at the high end.

                Both views are incorrect in my opinion.

                My opinion is centered on the kind of research discussed at real climate.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  I have a dislike for incomplete science and delayed politically averaged science designed for politicians. In the earth system CO2 is both a follower and a leader of climate change depending upon it’s source, it is not anywhere near the only cause or factor, just one of many.
                  Incredible, isn’t it, how the Wisconsin ice sheet melted without CO2 rising above pre-industrial levels. CO2 actually followed the melt not preceded it.
                  The loss of snow and ice cover in the NH has already caused a forcing of more than 0.5 watt globally with a potential of 3 watt/m2. More importantly that local land or ocean will see a difference of up to 300 watts/m2. Now tell me when heating increases that much, there will not be melting of permafrost or large changes in ocean-atmosphere system. The actual areas involved in the process are not experiencing a global average, they are experiencing a local change in albedo, a real change not a mathematical proposition.
                  That is why a number of scientists are saying that changes are accelerating in the Arctic, real inputs. Sure CO2 is somewhat involved, but local albedo change is magnitudes greater than CO2 effects there.
                  From that process comes severe weather changes and the release from soil and water of more GHG.
                  The world is not an average number, it is a vast accumulation of interactions at the local levels. The magnitude of local effects is vastly different than the mathematical global average. The results are not average results.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Gone fishing,

                    Absolutely agree that carbon emissions are one of many factors affecting climate, my point is it is one that we have some control over and today it is influencing the some of the other factors (snow and ice albedo feedback and carbon cycle feedbacks in particular). We have no control over the magnitude of those feedbacks, only on the rate that we emit carbon and anthropogenic land use change.

                    Let’s assume the various natural feedbacks are as large in magnitude as you estimate.

                    One could think of the carbon emissions as a lever which when released are magnified by feed backs by a factor of “x”.

                    I am simply advocating keeping the initial carbon emission lever at the minimum possible extent.

                    I also maintain we don’t know how large “x” is nor do we know the period it will take for the full Earth System effects to be realized. Maybe 1000 years or maybe 5000 years.
                    Can you take me through your example of 300 W/m^2? Is that an annual average or are you taking peak insolation in June and assuming that there is no sea ice in the Arctic in June.

                    Yes all weather is local and changes in local conditions will cause changes in circulation patterns. How fast permafrost will melt is not clear and there is a wide range of results from different carbon models, as well as a wide range of results from different AOGCMs and Earth system models.

                    Those models show what the local effects might be.

                    You may have impatience for incomplete science, but despite claims to the contrary there are many areas of climate science where the magnitude of future changes is far from settled.

                    Further improvement in models is needed, especially carbon models and ice sheet models.

                • Dennis Coyne says:

                  Hi Gone fishing,

                  You do say you believe CO2 will have an effect on future warming, and Javier agrees. You both share the opinion that the effect of carbon dioxide will not be significant.

                  It seems you also assert that natural feedback is much more important than the forcing from carbon dioxide and the associated feedbacks (water vapor, ice albedo, changes in ocean circulation, and effects on clouds). Javier would agree that natural forcing (note the name change from feedback) is far more important than carbon dioxide which in his view is a minor player.

                  As to the difference between a forcing and a feedback, this is somewhat subtle. I suppose Javier’s view is that it all comes down to TSI which then triggers various natural feedbacks, you seem to be focused on ice albedo feedback from sea ice, snow and ice sheets and possibly on changes in sea level due to nonlinear ice sheet response and the ocean circulation.

                  All of these are important. I agree with those that believe our ignorance of the threshhold where large scale climate changes might be triggered due to nonlinear processes is ample reason to be cautious. I have no idea what the probability distribution is for such a catastrophic event, but a WAG is 15%. The higher total carbon emissions are, the higher the probability (the 15% guess is based on 1100 Pg of total carbon emissions).

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    You still do not comprehend my position which is far different from Javier or are just being purposefully obtuse and insulting by making me to be like Javier.

                  • Synapsid says:

                    Gone Fishing,

                    Please take Dennis Coyne at his word.

                    If you’ve been following this site at all, you know that no one here is less likely to insult anyone.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Synapsid, you are being naïve.

  49. Duncan Idaho says:

    Thanks HRC!

    You overthrew this one, and it now has the highest murder rate in the World.

    Honduras elites blamed for violence against environmental activists

    • Survivalist says:

      Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras are collapsed. Think 13th century England but instead of Dukes and Knights it’s drug lords and gangs. Many people are fleeing to Mexico from these three countries and increasing the social pressure there with increased crime and poverty.
      Mexico is in rough shape and it’s only going to get worse.

      • Duncan Idaho says:

        I’m living in Mexico currently.

        • Survivalist says:

          What’s your prognosis? I can’t see Mexico keeping it together for much longer.

          • hightrekker23 says:

            A tale of two cities.
            Things are going to get dicy, especially in the North.
            Southern Mexico could possibly be better off in the rural areas, as cheap US subsidized corn and other things slow down.
            Mexico has a revolutionary history, with a educated and developed Left, something that is discounted.
            (I’m either Duncan of Hightrekker depending what browser I’m on)

            • notanoilman says:

              Tend to agree with that split but too much of the education is focused on the revolution and, IMHO, encourages the revolutionary spirit against authority. Many areas are comparativly stable.

              NAOM (WWW Mexico)

  50. Ezrydermike says:

    Innovative Battery Storage Facility at SCE’s Mira Loma Substation Allows for More Renewables

    SCE selected Tesla for the project which can store 80 megawatt-hours, enough energy to power more than 2,500 households for a day.

  51. Duncan Idaho says:

    A major plutonium plant at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state has been put on pause after radioactive contamination spread outside the facility. A radiation monitor alarm sounded Friday while crews were working to contain radioactive contamination on a waste pile. The contamination was found where workers planned to contain it during the demolition. Radiological surveys identified low levels of contamination on workers’ protective clothing but no contamination on the clothing they wore underneath or on their skin. Nasal smears also found no evidence of inhaled contamination. Project contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation says the company is investigating how the contamination spread and will take steps to reduce the risk of another incident. Demolition is expected to resume next week.

    • Nathanael says:

      Hanford: the nastiest of the many toxic radioactive messes in the US. (Russia has some which are worse.)

  52. Oldfarmermac says:

    For Dennis , since the reply slots are all taken up above.

    “Are you arguing that Trump has not changed immigration policy?”


    ‘Do you think arbitrary discrimination is good policy? I do not.”

    Nor do I. Generally speaking, I hardly ever disagree with you, except occasionally about the size of the box , the overall context , that needs to be considered in thinking about a given issue or question.

    What I am saying, in this case, is that a lot of people have made smart ass remarks about American immigration policies, when they were pretty much in line with just about every other western countries policies, PRE TRUMP. I presume you noticed that caveat or qualifier, although I expect people like HB and Survivalist to over look it.

    It’s very fashionable in some liberal celebrity circles to blame everything wrong in the world on the USA in general, and on working class and poor white people specifically.

    That sort of thing can be great fun, but it’s dangerous, politically.

    Pile enough of that kind of mean humor and similar condescending nose in the air remarks and jokes on often enough, and repeat them long enough, and you have made a major contribution to the election of a TRUMP.

    I am sure YOU get what I’m talking about in respect to winning and losing elections based on how you talk about the opposition.

    Sometimes the badmouthing works.

    Sometimes it costs you more votes than it wins for you.

    My opinion, my firm belief actually, is that most of the time, when such remarks are directed at religious people, working class people, and whites specifically, by D and or liberal pundits, they result in a net loss of votes for the D party.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi OFM,

      Sorry I missed the pre-Trump part. I agree US immigration policy before the Trump administration was not much different from most other OECD nations (though I am far from expert on this subject).

      I should read more carefully before commenting.

      • Javier says:

        Hi Dennis,

        As far as I can tell the EU doesn’t have any immigration policy worth of that name. When confronted with an immigration crisis that in great measure has contributed to the Brexit, they have resorted to the Spanish solution. For a very long time Spain has been paying big bucks to Morocco to keep a lid on illegal immigrants from Africa and Morocco from trying to cross to Spain. Now the EU does the same with Turkey. Problem solved, except that nobody cares that the illegal immigrant conditions in Morocco and Turkey are appalling. Out of sight, out of mind. It is all a big hypocrisy.

        In Spain we are criticizing Trump’s wall, however we have very tall walls surrounding the Spanish African cities of Ceuta and Melilla, and the Straight takes care of the rest. We are all a bunch of hypocrites.

        Illegal immigrants trying to cross the wall into the Spanish town of Melilla while the police awaits them. If they are caught before reaching the city, they can be expelled without any process, right away. This has been going on with conservative governments as much as with socialist governments. No change.

  53. hightrekker23 says:

    Frazier Steps into the Ring:

    UPDATE: Wall Street’s ‘fear index’ jumps the most in 3 months as Trump spooks market

    4:48 am ET January 31, 2017 (MarketWatch)
    By Mark DeCambre, MarketWatch

    CBOE Volatility Index gains more than 20% at its peak on Monday

    A popular measure of Wall Street fear jumped by the most in about three months on Monday, as the equity market retreated amid concern over President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at tightening U.S. immigration rules.

    The CBOE Volatility Index, which measures Wall Street expectations for large swings in the S&P 500 , climbed by 12.3% to 11.88, marking the sharpest percentage jump since Nov. 3, according to FactSet data. The gauge of market anxiety had risen by as much as 20% at its peak on Monday.

    The moves in the VIX takes it closer to 12, which is still very low for the metric by historical standards, with levels of 20 typically considered the clearest sign that fear has gripped the market. A reading around 12 still signals relative complacency.

    However, the gauge has hovered at historically low levels since Trump’s election victory Nov. 8 sparked a jump in euphoria and appetite for assets perceived as risky, like stocks. Trump has fostered expectations that his administration will be business friendly and therefore good for stocks. But Trump’s recent executive orders on trade and immigration are causing investors to reassess the benefits of his more protectionist agenda, including building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and retooling trade agreements to put “America first.” Investors also are worried that the president may be prioritizing other legislations over tax cuts and other economic policies that he pledged to enact.

    The most troubling aspect of the climb for VIX is that it had been trading as low as 10.58 as of Friday’s close, around 2014’s lows and close to a 10-year nadir. Some view the VIX as a contrarian indicator. In other words, the lower it goes, the greater the likelihood of a sudden, jarring pullback that can catch investors off guard, some market technicians say.

    Read: The stock market’s ‘fear index’ may have nowhere to go but up (

    A combination of tepid growth data as measured by U.S. gross domestic product on Friday slowing in the fourth quarter (, and the immigration policies, which resulted in a number of protests across the U.S., have driven stocks lower.

    The S&P 500 index lost 13.79 points, or 0.6%, at 2,280.90, marking the worst decline for stocks in 2017, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost its grip on the psychologically significant milestone of 20,000, achieved last Wednesday, closing off 122.86 points, or 0.6%, at 19,971.13.

    Meanwhile, the Nasdaq Composite Index suffered the sharpest drop, tumbling 47.07 points, or 0.8%, at 5,613.71. The tech-heavy index is often used a proxy for risk appetite because of its preponderance of risky or growth-oriented assets.

    Along with the VIX, other measures of fear were climbing, indicating heighten market worries. The VelocityShares Daily 2x VIX Short Term ETN (TVIX) ended up 5.4%.

    As the market pared some of its worst losses of the session, the market’s fear gauges also retreated off their highs. That might suggest that Wall Street is fairly resilient.

    -Mark DeCambre; 415-439-6400;

    (END) Dow Jones Newswires

    • Nathanael says:

      The massive instability in the US government makes the US a dangerous place to invest.

      I’m still invested in specific stocks in the US (because I’m a US citizen) but I’d expect the VIX to skyrocket for years.

    • Boomer II says:

      I can’t fathom why anyone has thought business will get better under Trump. Even if there are fewer regulations and lower taxes, businesses aren’t going to expand if there aren’t buyers. And given the unstable times we are in right now, I think buyers will be conservative. I also don’t think there will be lots of new jobs to drive the economy.

  54. Doug Leighton says:

    So, real or (more) fake news?


    “A former climate change adviser to Donald Trump has said the President will pull America out of the Paris agreement and an executive order on the issue could come within “days”. Myron Ebell, who took charge of Mr Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team, said the President was determined to undo policies pushed by Barack Obama to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. He said the US would ‘clearly change its course on climate policy’ under the new administration and claimed Mr Trump was pretty clear that the problem or the crisis has been overblown and overstated.”

  55. Nathanael says:

    Petroleum companies on death watch:

    Exxon still issuing dividends in excess of earnings:

    Chevron too:
    (Dividend rates is 27 cents per share)

    Slashing money for exploration because it wasn’t finding any new oil. Losses on upstream. Losses on downstream. The chemicals business won’t save them. They’re depending on prices rising, and it won’t happen.

  56. Ezrydermike says:

    ElectroMotive is a joint effort of the The 11th Hour Project and Insight Campaigns. Born out of our shared vision for better, cleaner cities, we’re on a mission to change the way you think about electric cars. The first stop on our journey is our very own hometown of Los Angeles—where our notorious love affair with cars comes second only to our reputation for trendsetting innovation. As the only virtual EV showroom built exclusively for Los Angeles, ElectroMotive is the ultimate destination for Angelenos to browse, learn and fall in love with the next generation of cars. Together we can drive L.A.’s car culture into the future.

  57. Survivalist says:

    “David Whitehouse (of GWPF. the so-called “Global Warming Policy Foundation”) even uses the phrase “A ten-year hiatus in Arctic ice decline?” I suspect he doesn’t know the meaning of the word “hiatus,” because the graph he shows to support this idea is this one:”

  58. Survivalist says:

    “A regular big lie from climate deniers, in fact a huge lie from climate deniers, is when they deny that there’s been acceleration of sea level rise. Sea level acceleration is a fact.”

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      Now that we have a government didicated to the principle that the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco and Firearms should exists to facilitate citizen’s enjoyment of all three, self identified environmentalists, science activists and SJW’s of all stripes are in the throes of denial and Casablanca-strength casino shock at the extent of post-inaugural losses too deep to shrug or march off.
      Lets hope this mobilizes the cognitive.

    • Javier says:

      Tamino is the big liar and a IPCC denier.

      He pretends not to know, or truly doesn’t know that the rate of change of temperatures and sea level rise are coupled and show the same ~ 60 year cycle with very little acceleration.

      This figure is sea level rate of change as per IPCC. AR5-WG1 figure 14-3-1. Over imposed is temperature rate of change (3 green curves) from the European Union from this source:

      Tamino really doesn’t know what he is talking about, and neither do you.

      • wehappyfew says:

        Can you put an arrow on that chart showing the “Pause” … pretty please?

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Oops! There was no pause! Listen to Steven Chu tell it!

          A Discussion with Naomi Oreskes & Steven Chu (December 2016)

          Who knows maybe one day we will have a Nuremberg style trial for climate science deniers and merchants of doubt, trying them for crimes against humanity.

          • Doug Leighton says:

            “…crimes against humanity.” Too limited Fred: please include plant and (other) animal species as well.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Yeah, I know and agree but this is the anthropocene and only a very tiny minority of the GRRRREAT apes with tiny hands, understand how they are connected to to the rest of the planet. Heck. they don’t even understand how they are connected to rest of humanity. As for climate science deniers and merchants of doubt who hold degrees in science, I have only utter contempt for their kind!

          • Survivalist says:

            I call them deceivers. Deniers is too kind.


        • Duncan Idaho says:

          I’ve always wondered what color the sky is on the planet out friend Bob err Javier lives on?

        • Javier says:

          Can you put an arrow on that chart showing the “Pause” … pretty please?

          The Pause is the period from 2003 when the rate of temperature change has plummeted, while the CO2 hypothesis says it shouldn’t. It is likely to continue after El Niño, so it should become more clear in a few years.

          Acceleration is defined as the derivative of the rate of warming. That graph shows very clearly that the biggest acceleration took place in the 1920’s, due to natural causes. And surprisingly CO2 has not been able, contrary to expectations, to increase the rate of warming above that of natural causes.

          That graph clearly shows there is nothing to fear from global warming or sea level rise. Predictions of 2°C or 1 m rise in sea level by 2100 are just not going to happen. Natural causes are in charge, and the effect of CO2 is much smaller than it was feared.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Javier,

            If we create a 78 year “natural cycle” caused by solar and ocean and atmospheric variation which fits the 1850-2015 global land ocean data from Berkeley Earth fairly well. Then reasonable estimates of future carbon emissions (1080 Pg of total carbon emissions after 1750) results in about 1.6 C above 1951-1980 average global land ocean temperature in 2100 (about 1.95 C above the 1850-1900 mean). In the chart below I show a Cstad (carbon and stadium wave) model with a 78 year natural cycle. The model is very simple natural log of atmospheric and a sinusoidal function with a 78 year period as independent variables regressed against BEST land ocean temperatures as the dependent variable. The transient climate response for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 2.44 C as determined by multiple linear regression.

            The model output after 2100 does not take account of future ocean warming so that this would be an underestimate of future warming due to the oversimplifications of the model. That is why we need models that include the physics as emulated by MAGICC 6.

            A realistic model (GISS Model EH) has temperature continuing to increase to about 2 C above the 1951-1980 mean by 2500 in this 1080 Pg C emissions scenario.

      • Survivalist says:

        Fail again Dr Javier.

        NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083, “Global and regional sea level rise scenarios for the United States,” has an extreme case sea level rise of 2.5 meters (over 8 feet). See Fig. 8 on page 22 of the report

        • Javier says:

          There is just no limit to alarmism. We could just be hit by an asteroid or comet in the next few years. Or suffer an extreme solar particle event next week. Or enter into a magnetic polar reversion process anytime. These are also real risks. It is a miracle that for the past 10,000 years we have been generally increasing our level of civilization.

          However IPCC projects a 0.3-0.4 m sea level rise by 2100. It is very likely that we don’t even get that, as those calculations were made without taking the hiatus into consideration. And the 1000 year cycle in solar activity is reaching its peak by 2100. It can be seen in that graph too.

        • Javier says:

          Now, why would we think that CO2 has much to do with global sea levels?

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Javier,

            The Ocean takes a long time to warm and cool. If we look at Global Sea level for the past 500,000 years, the relationship between sea level and CO2 is pretty clear.



            • Javier says:

              According to that graph, with 400 ppm we should be like 50 m underwater. Waterworld?

              The Sun warms the oceans. The oceans warm the planet. The planet releases CO2. CO2 warms a little bit, but not much because interglacials always end when they have high CO2 levels that do not prevent the cooling.

              So the connection that matters is Sun -> Temperatures.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                No Javier,

                The variability in solar output alone does not explain the earth’s temperature, it’s more complicated. And the explanation for a lag in temperatures of 6500 years?

                Based on that chart it seems sometimes obliquity matters and sometimes not. We would also need a physical explanation for why a 6,500 year lag is needed to make the data match.

                Yes Milankovitch cycles intitiate the process and the sun definitely matters, but less than you believe.

                There are multiple factors at work and raising atmospheric CO2 through anthropogenic emissions has raised temperatures, which is quite clear.

                A model using solar alone does not explain temperature well after about 1985. A model using the natural log of carbon emissions works quite well through 2016, using AMO and natural log of carbon does quite nicely as well. Total solar irradiance can also be added and is a slight improvement (R squared increases from 90% to 91%).
                Transient climate response (TCR) is 1.9 C with 95% confidence interval of 1.7 to 2.1 C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This CMT Model (Carbon, AMO, TSI) is shown in chart below compared to BEST land ocean temperature data.

                • Javier says:


                  “And the explanation for a lag in temperatures of 6500 years?”

                  That is the thermal inertia of the planet due to being mostly water.

                  It is the same explanation as for why the winter solstice is the 21st of December yet the coldest of the winter comes about a month later, despite everybody knowing that the hours of insolation drive the seasons.

                  “Based on that chart it seems sometimes obliquity matters and sometimes not.”

                  To start an interglacial you need obliquity plus other factors (precession, feedbacks) since the Mid-Pleistocene transition. Prior to it obliquity alone was enough and the interglacials came every 41,000 years (not 23,000 years).

                  To end an interglacial obliquity is enough. Once obliquity goes down the interglacial ends after a lag proportional to the heating during that interglacial. Always. Doesn’t matter what precession does. Always.

                  “A model using solar alone does not explain temperature well after about 1985.”

                  a) Solar doesn’t work the way we think it works. Variations in TSI are just too small. There is an amplification effect that we don’t fully understand.
                  b) Solar is not the only factor. CO2 has also contributed to the warming.

                  You might think that solar can be dismissed because TSI changes are too small, however almost every paleoclimatic paper finds a stronger role for the Sun in past climate changes than what we allow for in the present climate change. Something just doesn’t add up. The climate of the past operated by the same physics as today except for the added GHGs. We still don’t understand how the climate works at very fundamental levels. The clouds are another classical example.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    I agree clouds and aerosols are poorly understood. Yes changes in TSI are important and with feedbacks from CO2 and water vapor and ice-albedo, the changes in TSI are amplified, volcanic eruptions also play an important role and their influence is also amplified by climate feedbacks.

                    Are the models perfect? Clearly not as different models give different results and the problem is complex.

                    Different researchers have different estimates of climate sensitivity, so this is another area where understanding is incomplete.

                    An important difference is that you take the lowest estimates of climate sensitivity and assume those are correct. There are others that take the highest estimates of climate sensitivity and assume that those estimates are correct.

                    I am agnostic on which are correct and simply take the mean or median estimate as the best guess.

                    The bottom line is that we don’t know.

                    The data from 1850 to 2016 suggests a TCR of about 1.9 C, when the eventual warming of the ocean (over a 500 to 1000 year period occurs) we are likely to see at least a 2.7 C increase in Global temperatures if atmospheric CO2 were to stabilize at 540 ppm (average for pre-industrial Holocene was approximately 270 ppm).

                    An optimistic scenario with about 1118 Pg of carbon emissions would result in about 454 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere after 1000 years. This would result in about 2 C above pre-industrial Holocene temperatures in 3080 CE.

                    Model for Mean CMIP3 model with ECS of 3 C in chart below compared to BEST LO Data where 0 C anomaly is 1961-1990 average.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    The question is a matter of physics. There were very large changes in carbon dioxide, as well as major changes in ice sheets and sea ice during glacial to interglacial transitions for the past 800,000 years, the physical models explain this well when the effect of atmospheric CO2 is included.

                    The DO events are debated, but are thought to be related to ice sheet instability and/or changing ocean currents due to fresh water input as ice sheets melt and possibly release large water flows as ice dams break and affect ocean salinity and interrupt typical (present day) oceanic flow patterns. On a global scale the temperature effect was not as large as it was in the North Atlantic.

                    Also consider


                    During glacial periods of the Late Pleistocene, an abundance of proxy data demonstrates the existence of large and repeated millennial-scale warming episodes, known as Dansgaard–Oeschger (DO) events1. This ubiquitous feature of rapid glacial climate change can be extended back as far as 800,000 years before present (bp) in the ice core record2, and has drawn broad attention within the science and policy-making communities alike3. Many studies have been dedicated to investigating the underlying causes of these changes, but no coherent mechanism has yet been identified3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Here we show, by using a comprehensive fully coupled model16, that gradual changes in the height of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets (NHISs) can alter the coupled atmosphere–ocean system and cause rapid glacial climate shifts closely resembling DO events. The simulated global climate responses—including abrupt warming in the North Atlantic, a northward shift of the tropical rainbelts, and Southern Hemisphere cooling related to the bipolar seesaw—are generally consistent with empirical evidence1, 3, 17. As a result of the coexistence of two glacial ocean circulation states at intermediate heights of the ice sheets, minor changes in the height of the NHISs and the amount of atmospheric CO2 can trigger the rapid climate transitions via a local positive atmosphere–ocean–sea-ice feedback in the North Atlantic. Our results, although based on a single model, thus provide a coherent concept for understanding the recorded millennial-scale variability and abrupt climate changes in the coupled atmosphere–ocean system, as well as their linkages to the volume of the intermediate ice sheets during glacials.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Javier,

                The interglacial does not end abruptly and yes the sun matters, but the amplification of the solar forcing by the carbon cycle is also important, the feed backs of increased CO2 which causes more warming which leads to more water vapor which leads to more warming as well as less ice and snow which decreases albedo and leads to more solar energy absorbed by the planet. They are all important.

                The data shows the relative importance using a multiple linear regression, though a physical model gives better results as it includes more factors and is based on physical principles that are well established rather than relying solely on data and a simple multivariable linear regression (the simplest of statistical methods).

                It doesn’t need to be a single cause, solar output, CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere, ocean currents, and the Earth’s albedo (sea ice, ice sheets and vegetation change) are all important parts of the story.

                • Javier says:


                  “The interglacial does not end abruptly”

                  Of course it doesn’t. During the Quaternary Ice Age the default state of the planet is the glacial period. Only during some obliquity cycles can the planet escape it due to a set of favorable circumstances. When those favorable circumstances dissipate and the obliquity cycle ends, the planet slides naturally and slowly into a new glacial period.

                  “but the amplification of the solar forcing by the carbon cycle is also important”

                  It is logical but undemonstrated. CO2 is a byproduct of the warming, and therefore a feedback. As there are other feedbacks we cannot assign a value to their amplification effect. I would say that the increase in water vapor (humidity) is likely to be at least an order of magnitude bigger, and it is also a byproduct of the warming.

                  We know that CO2 plays absolutely no role in the Dansgaard-Oeschger events, which are the most frequent abrupt climate change events in the geological record. If D-O can produce such amount of warming without CO2 help, it is clear that CO2 is not required either for deglaciations.

                  “It doesn’t need to be a single cause”

                  But it does need a driver or trigger, because it is the product of a cycle with a more or less regular spacing, not the product of a random walk from a chaotic mixture of several causes.

                  And we know that in the Early Pleistocene it had a single cause, which was obliquity.
                  Occam has a very sharp razor that defends the economy of explanations. One has to be wary of being cut by his razor for inventing new explanations when the old one still works.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:


                    The obliquity may not be the trigger, at least for the past 800,000 years, as the glacial cycle has been roughly 100,000 years over that period.

                    I agree the changes in carbon dioxide are likely to be triggered by changes in TSI, and indeed the water vapor feedback is important, but the CO2 is important and well understood, without feedbacks it would lead to about 1.2 C of warming just based on the basic radiative physics. The feedbacks triggered by this CO2 warming (mostly the water vapor feedback) at least doubles the “fast feed back” due to a doubling of CO2. Longer term warming of the ocean due to the long residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the slow response of the ocean due to its large heat capacity.

                    See Houghton J, Global Warming: The Complete Briefing: Third Edition (2004) pp. 23-25 for a brief explanation.

                    At that time Houghton’s estimate based on the evidence was an ECS of 2.5 C, this is similar to the GISS Model E-H model from CMIP3, the CMIP 5 models are higher around 2.7 C.

                    The physics and chemistry demonstrates very well that atmospheric CO2 increase and associated feedbacks (water vapor, cloud-radiation, ocean circulation, and ice-albedo) covered on pp. 90-95 of Houghton 2004 leads to significant warming and has been demonstrated by both data and models. You can claim otherwise, but the body of peer reviewed literature and the majority of climate scientists would disagree.

                  • Oldfarmermac says:

                    Occam’s razor is a VERY useful tool, an INDISPENSABLE tool.

                    But we all know that old saying about hammers and problems.

                    When the ONLY tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

                    The precautionary principle is ANOTHER such tool, one even MORE valuable , and more useful, in managing the affairs of men, than Occam’s razor.

                    The simplest, most probable, and most logical explanation of a fact or problem should be considered FIRST but failure to consider other possibilities is foolish in the extreme.

                    Things are not always as they seem, or even as they appear to be after a fairly detailed examination of the known facts.

                    I have personally failed to solve a number of problems in my day to day and professional live by way of the application of Occam’s Razor, after days and occasionally weeks of trying, eliminating one possible solution after another.

                    In most cases, I have eventually discovered a solution by way of exploring EVERY possible explanation I could think of.

                    On other occasions, I have been forced to give up, and live with the problem.

                    Javier doesn’t believe in observing the precautionary principle in relation to forced warming.

                    Just about every scientist I have ever spoken to, or read, DOES believe the climate issue is literally a potential life and death issue, and that it is CRITICAL that we heed the precautionary principle in respect to fossil fuel pollution and climate.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Javier,

                The two models in the chart below consider a very simple modelling concept using multivariable linear regression of temperature (dependent variable) against the natural log of atmospheric CO2 (C), AMO (M), and TSI (T) for a “CMT Model” and an “MT Model” which ignores atmospheric CO2.

                The BEST Land Ocean Global Temperatures are used and are compared to the two simple models.

                The CMT model has an R squared of 93% and the MT model has an R squared of 64% for the 1900-2015 period.

                The transient climate response (TCR) of the CMT model for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 1.9+/-0.2 C (95% confidence interval) based on the regression results for data from 1856 to 2005.

  59. Dennis Coyne says:

    Hi all,

    The servers went down some time after 11 PM on Jan 31, 2017 and just came back up.

    My apologies, I contacted the hosting company as soon as I was aware to get the problem resolved.

    Seems to be working now.

  60. Survivalist says:

    Splitting countertransference
    Borderline Personality Disorder
    USA just elected Caligula

  61. Oldfarmermac says:

    From somewhere up thread out of reply slots,

    Yes ,Rick has a problem, framing the big picture as an us versus them thing.

    Likewise, unfortunately, quite a few hard core liberals have the same problem.

    THEY want everything the way THEY want it, and are as equally guilty of wanting to make the rules as Rick’s faction.

    Generally speaking, it’s the way it is, it’s what it is, thus ever it was, and thus ever it will be.

    Somebody wins, somebody loses.

    The liberalish leftish faction just lost a major battle, but they haven’t lost the WAR.

    Demographics will determine the outcome of the war, in the end, and barring idiocy level mismanagement on the part of the liberal faction, they WILL win, just as the Union won the Civil War, and the USA and allies won WWII. The numbers are on the side of the D / liberal faction, long term, just as the numbers were on the side of the UNION, and the ALLIES .

    The foot soldiers that are the mainstay of the rightish conservative leaning faction are by and large boomers and older people. Funerals among older cultural and social conservatives are coming faster year by year, where as the younger more liberal faction is growing more numerous year by year.

    I spend as much or more of my time as an observer of the big picture political scene as anybody, and tell it like it is, or at least like I see it, after looking long and hard.

    The handwriting is on the wall.

    Trump and his cronies are sort of like the Japanese in the early days of WWII. Their best generals and admirals made it clear, when asked. They said, paraphrased, that they would be able to run wild for a year, maybe two, while the enemy rubbed his eyes and made coffee and thought about getting busy, and then, barring miraculous good luck, it would be all down hill from there.

    Trump and his cronies are going to run wild, that’s obvious enough, to the extent they can get away with it, and it’s going to take a while for the country to get rid of them.

    But barring BAD LUCK, we WILL get rid of them in 2020.

    The potential bad luck that worries me most is that the D’s might run another R Lite candidate.

    • Nathanael says:

      This has been my analysis too, for a long time. The big wild card is whether President Bannon will find a way to steal the elections in 2018 and 2020 — or just suspend elections entirely.

      I don’t think they can do it. But only because Bannon and Trump have managed to earn the undying, relentless opposition of a large number of state governors, who are independent powerbases. In many governmental collapses, the regional governments assume outsized importance. And because they’ve managed to alienate all the major corporations with instability and incompetence.

      We have a George W. Bush appointed judge issuing the injunction to halt Bannon’s immigrantion order, on the request of state governments who are hurt because major multinational corporations can’t get their employees who already have visas into the country… and Trump’s response is to attack the legitimacy of the judge, which will just push another group into the anti-Trump camp.

      This is not how dictators seize power successfully. It’s how would-be dictators behave just before their assistants assassinate them.

      P.S. Thanks for your interpretation of what was going on in the minds of Tojo’s military, which I’ve always found head-scratchingly insane.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        In a nutshell, the best of the Japanese military minds tried to tell the politicians, businessmen and less perceptive military people that if Japan set out on a war of conquest and made the mistake of provoking the USA , Japan would very likely lose the war.

        The politicians and business men, with a substantial fraction of the armed forces guys egging them on, decided to take the gamble, and establish what they called the Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere, by way of conquest. They lost.

        The best of the Japanese generals and admirals did what they were duty bound to do, and fought the war as best they could, even though they wished to avoid it altogether.

        It’s simply a historical accident that at the time of the American Civil War, the best of the men in uniform, or trained at West Point, were Southern guys, and they felt duty bound to stick to their home states when war came. It’s not generally realized, but at that time, the individual states , and most of the individual people, looked at the UNION more like we look at INTERNATIONAL agreements today, than as the REAL government. So far as they were concerned , in those days, it was state first, Union second, even in the northern states, in the minds of most people.

        So the cream of the military minds resigned their US comissions, and fought for the South.They knew victory was a long shot, because almost all the heavy industry was located up north, and the north had it all over the south in terms of population, commerce , population, etc. Nevertheless they did what they were duty bound to do, knowing that if they won, it would be a matter of God’s intervention on their side, plus pluck and luck. They lost.

        Lee invaded the North hoping to force an end to the war without ever having a snowball’s chance in hell of CONQUERING the North, and everybody who knows shit from apple butter about the American Civil War knows it. The best he could hope for was that the people of the North would give it up and allow the South to go her own way. The gamble failed.

        The first paragraph of this lined article:

        “Late in the afternoon of July 2, 1863, on a boulder-strewn hillside in southern Pennsylvania, Union Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain dashed headlong into history, leading his 20th Maine Regiment in perhaps the most famous counterattack of the Civil War. The regiment’s sudden, desperate bayonet charge blunted the Confederate assault on Little Round Top and has been credited with saving Major General George Gordon Meade’s Army of the Potomac, winning the Battle of Gettysburg and setting the South on a long, irreversible path to defeat.”

        It’s not quite as simple as that, but Chamberlain is justly known as one of the key men in American history, a citizen soldier who was arguably THE NAIL that saved the Union, by way of rewriting the old story about the horseshoe nail that cost a king his kingdom.

        At one time I spent a couple of years reading a LOT of military history as part of my random life long walk thru the great books. The history of scientific and industrial progress is reflected in military history early on. There was a time when the amount of iron or steel that went into a spear point or sword cost more than all the tools a peasant farmer could afford to own. A soldier often had his spear and sword before the peasant could afford more than maybe just an axe, and had to get by with wooden tools otherwise.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          This link contains a chart showing how big a part of the economy was represented by the federal government historically. Prior to the Civil War, the federal goverment consisted mostly of the Post Office and a few other small departments, with only a very modest standing military, etc.

          This explains why most people at that time thought of their home state as their COUNTRY, more so than the UNION of the states.

  62. Oldfarmermac says:

    This isn’t a sound bite link, but it’s well worth the time needed to read it, and it indicates that there may be some silver lining in the stormy black looking Supreme Court cloud problem.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Old Farmer Mac,

      I agree that piece was very good, a nice balance.

  63. islandboy says:

    AES claims world’s largest battery storage system

    The 30 MW lithium ion battery system is the third massive system to go online in Southern California this week, totaling 77.5 MW of capacity.

    Further up, I posted a comment stating that up to the end of November 2016, 8 installations totaling 77 MW of battery capacity had been added so, in one week California has added more battery capacity than the entire US commissioned for the first 11 months of 2016.

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      It’s good to see that California is forward looking enough, and rich enough, to push battery storage to the limit, and past.

      These installations are VERY expensive, for now, and even considering that having them means there is a lessened need to build more marginal fossil fuel generating capacity, and a savings is realized on the purchase of fuel, due to making greater use of wind and solar power infrastructure that is already in place, they probably still aren’t a good deal in terms of dollars and cents. YET.

      But if the price of such batteries comes down by half over the next five or six years………. The arithmetic starts looking good for adding more and more battery backup.

      Maybe the cost of batteries will fall far enough that eventually most homeowners will be able to afford one big enough to meet most of their overnight needs, which would mean we could get a far better return on the cost of solar energy infrastructure.

      My guess is that within ten to fifteen years, most people will have at least a couple of smart appliances that will run automatically whenever enough wind and solar power is available, and thus allow more and more coal and gas generating capacity to sit idle more and more hours.

      And if we get to the point we occasionally have a LOT of surplus wind or solar power, it will probably become economical and practical to store it in the form of heat. Most houses built these days have a lot of masonry and concrete in them anyway, and adding some wiring to heat up this material won’t cost much at all. Changing the plans to incorporate MORE concrete and masonry isn’t hard, and won’t cost much, because what you add in the form of concrete, you can usually eliminate in the form of wood or metal.

      Water tanks with evaporators aren’t exactly cheap, but they need not cost a WHOLE lot either. The evaporator can be siamezed to any existing air conditioning equipment, so chilling the tank of water won’t cost much in terms of refrigeration equipment.

      Early morning sun can be made to serve as the energy source for afternoon cooling this way. 😉

      But it’s still a mistake to believe or pretend we can do away with fossil fuel fired electricity anytime soon. It’s going to be a rather long time before we can retire most of our coal and gas fired generation capacity.

      And while the folks who want to be all religious about it will strongly disagree, it might be a good bit more economical to maintain a modest amount of coal and gas fired backup capacity for a LONG time to come. The less it’s needed, the less it will pollute, but if it IS needed………. and it’s NOT THERE……

      Well a few serious blackouts might result in a political backlash that would in turn result in building a LOT of new coal and gas plants, or refurbishing old ones in mothballs.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Old farmer mac,

        A bit of fossil fuel backup could be maintained, but natural gas makes more sense than coal as you get more energy per unit of carbon emissions. It will come down to what is cheapest, it may be cheaper to build excess wind and solar and produce hydrogen to power fuel cell backup in the future or use vehicle to grid or batteries rather than maintain a fossil fuel power plant that is rarely needed.

        If one believes that climate change is not a problem, then we can burn all the fossil fuel that we can extract, but it will become more and more expensive over time.

        The problem with burning fossil fuel is that the carbon remains in the atmosphere for a very long time, an average residence time of 30,000 years. So keeping the carbon in the ground to the extent possible is a good idea.

        It is science not religion. Read the paper linked below by David Archer of Real Climate.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi Dennis,

          You’re the last person I expected to read my comment LITERALLY.

          OF COURSE the science is the science, and religion has nothing whatever to do with it, except as a way of making fun of people who insist on snow white solutions in a world that’s all shades of gray .

          Consider the anti nuke faction for instance, which insists we can’t afford nukes because it costs a gazillion bucks to clean up every last microscopic trace of radioactivity. Nobody has ever held any other industry to such an impossibly expensive standard. Nobody ever will. MAYBE the only REAL reason to do so in the case of nuclear power is to use this tactic to effectively outlaw the construction of any new nukes. This sort of absolute insistence on snow white perfection is what I mean by getting religious about a problem or issue.

          It’s not at all unusual for people to go insist on going to unnecessary and even ridiculous extremes in demanding a “perfect” solution without considering whether such a solution is affordable, and whether we would be collectively better off settling for a GOOD solution, for a minor fraction of the cost of a perfect solution, and spending the difference, the savings, on ANOTHER problem.

          Environmentalists are especially prone to this failing in respect to nuclear power, pesticides, and greenhouse gas pollution.

          The law of diminishing returns tells us that the cost of building out enough renewable infrastructure, and enough storage capacity, to deal with the last few kilowatt hours in a pinch will be very high indeed, because that last large increment of capacity and storage will only rarely be needed at times when the weather refuses to cooperate over a wider area and for a longer time frame than usual.

          There WILL be times when the wind doesn’t blow very much and clouds hide the sun, for a longer period of time than future EXISTING battery, pumped storage , or other storage tech can cover the shortage, unless we go WAY overboard in overbuilding.

          We WON’T overbuild to the extent necessary to go all the way renewable for a long time for a very simple reason. There will be too many competing demands for the money and the resources involved, and it will be politically impossible keep the human and financial capital focused on energy infrastructure to the necessary extent.

          Ya know what they say about history, it doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes,and I don’t see any reason at all to expect future history to quit rhyming. There has never been ENOUGH money to meet all needs, perceived or real, and there never will be enough.

          Naked apes will always have their paws out for MORE , NOW, without worrying much about the risk of serious trouble somewhere down the road.

          So let’s see. We have existing coal and gas fired generating plants, and they’re sunk investments for all practical purposes. Maintaining only gas plants WOULD obviously be better in terms of minimizing emissions, but there are ISSUES when it comes to depending solely on gas . ONE, gas lines don’t extend to many parts of the country, or the world, and never will. So depending exclusively on gas for backup may be impractical to the point of being impossible. TWO, gas is not easily stockpiled in large quantities and therefore knowing adequate supplies of gas will be available on short notice, when the industry adapts to the LACK of gas as a generating fuel might be a tough problem.

          Coal can be easily and cheaply stockpiled, and delivery will never be much of a problem as long as there are railroads.

          We have plenty of fairly new (now) coal fired generating plants that will be worth a couple of cents on the dollar as scrap that can be kept in running order more or less indefinitely, say the next thirty or forty years, at very moderate cost. Let’s pull a number out of the air, and say that it will cost fifty billion, or maybe two hundred and fifty billion, to build enough seldom needed wind and solar capacity and storage to deal with the last ten days of the average year when the weather is lousy. Running these coal plants for ten days would produce about three percent of the emissions they would generate running them year round.

          That’s not much CO2 when we stop to think about how many OTHER problems we could solve with that much money , minus the actual cost of maintaining and running the coal plants for ten days.

          Personally I don’t believe we will EVER got to the point we don’t generate greenhouse gases on a routine basis.We aren’t likely to give up raising ruminants as table fare, or air travel, and we may never have good enough batteries or other means to run some essential mobile machinery.

          The REAL question is how we can best minimize green house gas pollution, and the most practical and economical way to do that might well be to burn SOME coal.

          As the Russians say,”Perfect is the enemy of good enough.”

          I might be wrong , but I don’t think anybody can PROVE I’m wrong. I’m perfectly willing to agree that you might be right, and that we will be able to manufacture and store molecular hydrogen to use as emergency back up fuel, or able to build enough renewables that we will never have blackouts due to bad weather.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Old Farmer Mac,

            Perhaps we will need to burn some coal, my point was simply that burning natural gas is preferred from a carbon emissions perspective (coal emits roughly 3 times the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of energy provided if we assume the same thermal efficiency of coal and natural gas power plants.) The fact is that modern natural gas power plants are usually more efficient than a modern coal fired plant,so in reality the natural gas plant may be better by a factor of 4.

            On nuclear, I agree if the cost is competitive and a nation is not concerned with the risks then those can be built.

            The fact is in the US there is no solution for disposing of nuclear waste, nobody is talking about molecules, there is lots of spent nuclear fuel just sitting at decommissioned Nuclear facilities. The cost of the disposal should be included in estimates of nuclear power as well as the “reduced cost insurance” provided by the government through the Price-Andersen Act. The reason for this law was that private insurance would have been prohibitively expensive, so this is a subsidy to the nuclear power industry.

            The hydrogen would be produced during times when excess energy was produced, alternatives would be vehicle to grid storage, battery storage and pumped hydro, thermal storage (for heating and cooling) is another possible solution (which you have mentioned). The cheapest solution (considering any externalities) should be used. Research on safer nuclear power is a great idea (the plants should shut themselves down with no power required) but I worry about nuclear proliferation.

            To me we should work towards mostly wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal and eventually non-fossil fuel backup and excess power widely distributed and interconnected so that very little backup is needed. This won’t become reality for 40 years or more.

            In the mean time fossil fuels will be needed, I have never intended to imply otherwise and only a fool would believe that was not the case. I assume you do not think I am a fool, perhaps I am mistaken. 🙂

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              Back to you Dennis,

              You may rest assured that I have a VERY high opinion of your intellect, and that I had no intention of insulting you.

              I’m presuming since you included the smiley, you aren’t offended, but if so, you have my apology.

              My basic argument in this particular case is that the way gung ho renewables advocates talk about renewables is in my opinion actually hurting the renewables cause.

              And I do actually agree with you in respect to the hot nuclear waste problem, in general terms, but I also do believe that the anti nuclear faction is perfectly happy to insist on snow white perfection when the cost of it is utterly prohibitive. Hey, there really ISN’T any reason an old nuke inside a containment building can’t have the fuel removed, and the building sealed up, and a more or less permanent electronic gaurd system installed.

              Pour that sob full of concrete, and well the doors up solid, and pour some more, and nobody is going inside for THOUSANDS of years, unless they have some REALLY heavy duty demolition equipment, and lots of men to run it,and nobody around to bother them, and even then, they wouldn’t find anything very useful for making a weapon.

              Perfection is for propaganda artists with an agenda, and in this case , the agenda is to shut down the nuclear industry.

              We are doing countless things on a day by day basis that are hundreds of times more dangerous and harmful to the environment with hardly an ORGANIZED PEEP out of anybody in respect to our doing them.

              But oh BROTHER, when it comes to nukes, you HEAR ABOUT IT.

              As an aside,
              I’m still waiting for a petroleum geologist to tell me why hot waste and spent fuel can’t IN PRINCIPLE be ground up and injected in small quantities in old DEEP oil wells, which will be grouted up. The oil stayed put for millions of years, and I can’t see any reason to think diluted hot wastes ten thousand feet down under the capstone that traps oil would ever cause a problem.

              Redrilling such a well , and recovering the small amount of waste that would be put in EACH old well in a given exhausted oil field would be so insanely expensive it wouldn’t work as part of a terrorist plot. It might even be impossible to get the wastes back up to the surface.

              Nobody loves car salesmen. Talking only about the upsides, and minimizing discussion of the down sides, or ignoring downsides altogether, can and in my opinion often DOES result in predisposing a new reader or listener to decide renewables advocates are like car salesmen, willing to tell you anything to get you to buy the goods.

              If you ( rhetorical you ) fail to acknowledge the downsides, and at least mention them briefly in articles or comments, then an anti renewable mouthpiece can rip your articles or comments up like the proverbial chicken on a dry cow turd.

              All they have to do is say, dripping sarcasm, is something along this line. Remember , we live in a sound bite world.

              “Oh YEAH? Why doesn’t he admit that while he’s talking about how CHEAP wind ( or solar ) power is he CONVENIENTLY forgets to mention that we still gotta pay for building, manning, fueling, and maintaining our existing gas and coal fired plants for the next twenty or thirty years? Maybe longer?

              And because they are going to be used less and less, while the cost of them remains the same, the owners are necessarily going to have to be paid more and more for the use they DO get out of them? This here cheap renewable ‘lectricity chicken salad is made out of CHICKENSHIT. It’s going to cost you more than it’s going to save you, if it EVER saves you anything at all.

              So far as most people are concerned, so far as the DEBATE is concerned, HE just made a fool out of YOU ( the rhetorical you of course) because most people aren’t much interested in putting any time and effort into learning anything in depth about renewable energy, or any OTHER topic, unless it’s either job related, or something in the line of a hobby.

              The people who vote D and liberalish are ALREADY on board, even if they know hardly anything at all. They’re on board because they observe the rules involving tribal loyalty, and tribal identities. They’re FOR renewable electricity BECAUSE R’s and conservatives are either against it, which is often true, or because they THINK R’s and conservatives are against it, and because the D party is FOR it.

              The people we CAN WIN OVER short to medium term are the middle of the roaders and R / conservative types who are willing to listen, so long as we address them respectfully.

              There ARE millions of them, tens of millions of them. I know, because I LIVE among them, and know them INTIMATELY.

              Talk like a car salesman, and they will very quickly tune you out. Getting their attention a second time, and consequently their vote , is a MUCH harder job.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Farmer, I understand and agree somewhat. There was an event that lasted seven weeks here, with little light (lots of rain/clouds) and only occasional wind. That was a regional event and a once in a lifetime occurrence so far. Much like we do in a drought period, we might have had to reduce our use of power and possibly bring in power from other nearby regions to compensate. It was not during the winter so no heating problems would have occurred. Some photovoltaic energy would still have been produced even during that period.
            I do not think those events are frequent enough or widespread enough to be a major problem. Also buildings are becoming more efficient and will be self-heated plus have some backup storage too in the future.
            I lived through a year where electric power was out for one month total, two weeks for one period. It didn’t cause major problems, just made life more difficult. The problem was not lack of energy but the non-distributed sources being cut off due to massive downed power lines and roads being blocked everywhere by downed trees and water damage. That scenario will keep repeating more frequently in the future if we do not properly distribute energy production.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Comments are getting hard to track, this one is in respect to coal versus gas as backup fossil fuel generation for the next few decades.

          Some parts of the country, and the world , have natural gas available. Some don’t.

          It MAY prove to be far more economical to preserve some coal fired back up capacity for quite a long time than it would be to arrange transport of gas to places without gas pipelines.

          My point is that sometimes it’s a lot better to get rid of say eighty or ninety percent of a given problem,in this case CO2 pollution, at maybe a quarter of the cost of doing away with one hundred percent , and spend the money and resources saved on OTHER problems.

          The marginal cost of getting rid of the last little bit of coal generation, maintained as back up and used maybe a couple of weeks a year, will be HIGH.

          Spending the money on some other problem, such as subsidizing the insulation industry for example, or building some mass transit, might contribute MORE and FASTER to solving the CO2 pollution problem.

          I am NOT arguing that this WILL prove to be the case, especially over the LONG run, but I’m of the opinion that the medium term, meaning maybe the next three or maybe four decades, maintaining some existing gas and coal fired generating capacity is the wisest course.

          In the short term, we can easily afford to shut down down some of the older coal plants still running on a regular basis NOW.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      AES Huntington Beach is now licensed to modernize its existing plant with a cleaner, more efficient and environmentally friendly one. Our modernized plant will also generate local economic benefits. It will create 3 million hours of construction-related work, generate more than $8 million annually in local expenditures and spur a nearly $1 billion private investment in California’s electric infrastructure, at no cost to taxpayers.

      Protecting the Environment
      To help clean and protect our environment, we’ve installed over $22 million in state of-the-art emissions control equipment at AES Huntington Beach — helping reduce NOx and CO emissions by approximately 90%, making us one of the cleanest plants in California.

      We’re one of the few generators in the state to install carbon dioxide reduction equipment, and are the first plant in the nation to use a urea to ammonia conversion system — eliminating the need to transport ammonia through our community.

      But protecting the environment means more to us than lowering emissions. We proudly support the Huntington Beach Wetlands conservancy, a community-based group of volunteers working toward restoring and managing the coastal wetlands in the Orange County Coastal Zone.

  64. Oldfarmermac says:

    Tesla is experiencing some growing pains, but nothing that won’t be fixed pronto.

    I think it’s a little bit on the righteous side, in the way that cops and inspectors LIKE to find SOMETHING to gripe about,concerning the performance model battery being too heavy and thus GUESSING that the roof is not strong enough to provide adequate roll over protection.

    A Tesla S is so stable on it’s wheels, due to the very low center of gravity, that rollover accidents will always be EXTREMELY rare. About the only way to roll one is to drive it up on something that will FLIP it over.

  65. Duncan Idaho says:

    El Niño coming?

    It’s early, but more models are confirming.

    • Javier says:

      Models confirm nothing. El Niño models are all over the place, so whatever happens, a few models would have predicted it. They would not be the same models that correctly predicted previous changes. Pretty useless, but very expensive exercise. The only thing that they prove is that they can’t model El Niño.

      Our own resident expert in El Niño, Webhubtelescope, predicts no Niño. It is going to be fun if he beats most models.

      • Duncan Idaho says:

        I agree, it is early, still behind the Spring Barrier.
        But betting against the ECMWF you are usually going to get your ass kicked.

        • Javier says:

          But betting against the ECMWF you are usually going to get your ass kicked.

          Really? Do you consider this as getting it right?

        • Javier says:

          A recent article shows that our ability to predict El Niño has been going down, not up.

          Zheng, Fei, et al. “Modulation of Bjerknes feedback on the decadal variations in ENSO predictability.” Geophysical Research Letters (2016).

          “Clear decadal variations exist in the predictability of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), with the most recent decade having the lowest ENSO predictability in the past six decades. The Bjerknes Feedback (BF) intensity, which dominates the development of ENSO, has been proposed to determine ENSO predictability. … This result indicates that more attention should be paid to off-equatorial processes in the prediction of ENSO.”

          So models are worse at predicting ENSO, but luckily they have an explanation.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Duncan,

      From the presentation linked below:

      The summary slide is:

      Equatorial sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are near-to-below average in the central and east-central Pacific Ocean. They are above-average in the far eastern Pacific Ocean. A transition to ENSO-neutral is expected to occur by February 2017, with ENSOneutral then continuing through the first half of 2017.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Duncan,

        The presentation above was from Jan 30, 2017. Has there been a big change in the last 4 days? 🙂

  66. alimbiquated says:

    Looks like the Saudi family firm is finally getting serious about solar after years of empty promises.

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      My impression is that the Saudis have been serious about going with solar power all along, EVENTUALLY.

      They have gotten a little favorable publicity by way of talking about it, but they haven’t had any real incentive to go ahead with the spending the money, because from one year to the next, building a solar farm is still a net losing proposition, as best I can tell.

      But it COULD be that I’m wrong about that, and that you can build now and come out ahead, rather than waiting for the price of construction to fall even farther.

      My own plan is to put in a fairly substantial personal solar power system WHEN I think the prices of the components have just about bottomed out and are likely to start going up again.

      So far, I’ve come out way ahead by delaying the purchase, because the electricity my system would have produced over the course of a year would have been worth a lot less than the money I have saved by delaying the purchase a year at a time.

      The Saudi’s are probably basing their decision from one year to the next on about the same sort of reasoning.

      • Nathanael says:

        The cost of the components will go down essentially forever.

        The correct way to make the decision on when to install solar — from a financial point of view — is to do an internal rate of return calculation.

        You figure out the amount of money you save each year by having the solar install, and you calculate that as an effective return on your initial investment. Then you compare the rate of return to the best alternative investment you could have invested your money into.

        The assumptions regarding panel lifetime and price of grid electricity strongly affect the IRR calculation. So do the assumptions about solar production levels but those are highly predictable. The biggest influence is the upfront capital costs.

        Where I am, last I checked, I got an IRR under 3% for rooftop solar. I can get 15% in the stock market right now (albeit taxable so you have to discount for that) and 3.75% in guaranteed insurance contracts. That means it’s not time yet for me.

        Now, even if the IRR of solar is better than the rate of return on the best alternative investment, you might still want to wait a year if you expect the IRR to rise substantially. IRR is stil the tool to use to check: you can do an IRR calculation for “buy solar panels next year” based on next year’s expected prices, accounting for the lack of income stream this year due to holding cash, and compare *that* to the IRR for buying solar panels this year. At some point, the money lost due to waiting a year exceeds the money gained by improvement in IRR year-over-year and you should bite the bullet and do it.

        However, the IRR depends massively on your exact personal situation, so you have to compute it for yourself. A sunny area with very high grid prices and cheap solar installations (e.g. Hawaii) will have a massively higher IRR than a low-sun, wintery area with low grid prices and expensive solar installations (i.e. northern Quebec).

        The *Saudis* are being idiots. They’re currently generating electricity with oil, so the cash generated by avoiding that is equal to the revenue they could get from exporting that oil — very high. They have probably the best sunlight in the world, almost as good as the Sahara Desert, so panel production per watt will be very high. They have cheap labor and no red tape, so their install prices will be very low. Their best alternative investment is… probably T-bills which earn 0%. I can guarantee you that the IRR for utility solar in Saudi Arabia is really, really high.

        The UAE has already figured this out; Dubai and Abu Dhabi have been installing utility solar like mad. The Saudis? Nope.

  67. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    Talk of transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy

    … on the one hand, or nuclear power on the other, remains talk—I encourage anyone who doubts this to look up the amount of fossil fuels burnt each year over the last two decades and see if they can find a noticeable decrease in global fossil fuel consumption to match the much-ballyhooed buildout of solar and wind power.

    The industrial world remains shackled to fossil fuels for most of its energy and all of its transportation fuel, for the simple reason that no other energy source in this end of the known universe provides the abundant, concentrated, and fungible energy supply that’s needed to keep our current lifestyles going. There was always an alternative—deliberately downshifting out of the embarrassing extravagance that counts for normal lifestyles in the industrial world these days, accepting more restricted ways of living in order to leave a better world for our descendants—but not enough people were willing to accept that alternative to make a difference while there was still a chance.”

    See also;

    The “Wind and Solar Will Save Us” Delusion

    Green Mythology: adding different types of renewables smooths output

    • aaaa says:

      Just an anectdote here – solar farms have popped up all over my county, and everybody HATES them

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        There are no solar farms YET in my immediate neighborhood, but there are some within an easy drive just to the south in North Carolina, and virtually EVERYBODY loves them, except the hard core dingaling Republican types who oppose them because the D party supports renewable industry, or because they are opposed to subsidies as a matter of principle.

        The ones who are opposed to subsidies as a matter of principle do not as a rule realize that half the industries in North Carolina benefit from subsidies one way or another. The long term agricultural mainstay, tobacco, which is thankfully on the way OUT, is a prime example. Virtually all the research involving the growing of it, and all the expert professional assistance provided to working farmers, was paid for with tax money.

        But the large majority of even hard core Republicans have a very favorable and business like opinion of the handful of solar farms built so far, and it’s not uncommon to hear about this sort of guy going an hour’s drive out of his way to SEE one of them. They see new jobs and new local tax revenue, and they are smart enough to know that if you can’t STOP’EM when it comes to fattening up at the tax money trough, well then, the best course is to JOIN’EM.

        And I have yet to meet any R type who believes it is possible to stop the government from passing out subsidies right and left, to every body from socalled artists to welfare bums , from alpha to omega.

        It’s EXTREMELY amusing to listen to some of them foaming at the mouth about subsidies when I KNOW PERSONALLY that they have FATTENED UP THEMSELVES at the subsidy trough.

        One is a moderately rich relative who got his start by buying a big farm using a subsidized loan, and he got his last tricked out F250 pickup almost for free by being able to write it off against his taxes at a special rate put into the tax code by R ‘s making a little whoopee for contractors and businessmen jumping in bed with D’s making a little whoopee for the auto workers unions, lol.

        You ought to hear him rant and rave about TESLA and TESLA customers getting a MUCH SMALLER tax break on a new car. 😉

        Both parties in were in turn well pai……… ERR, I mean blessed with substantial contributions from the owners of the truck industry, and of course the D’s got pai… err DOUBLE BLESSED because they also got contributions in cash and kind from the auto workers themselves.

        Such contributions are nothing more and nothing less than subsidies to the political parties, in terms of the parties wealth and health.

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        Why do you think they hate them, aaaa?

    • Fred Magyar says:

      The industrial world remains shackled to fossil fuels for most of its energy and all of its transportation fuel, for the simple reason that no other energy source in this end of the known universe provides the abundant, concentrated, and fungible energy supply that’s needed to keep our current lifestyles going.

      First, only simpletons, traffic in simple reasons! Reality is a bit more complex but that requires multiple digressions to elucidate and simpletons by definition, generally lack the educational background and critical thinking skills required to understand the behavior of complex non linear systems. Maybe visiting sites of systems thinkers such as George Mobus might be a good place to start:

      Second, anyone who claims that no other energy source in this end of the known universe provides abundant energy is a moron of the highest order and probably skipped physics 101! There is no intelligent discussion to be had with such people!
      This is the 21st century anyone can get a free online physics course from a reputable university in this day and age.
      Maybe take a basic chemistry course as well.

      Third, those who make any arguements about keeping our current lifestyles going are still barking up the wrong tree! One has to be really stupid if they think our current lifestyles are sustainable in any way shape or form either with or without alternative energy. In any case they are most certainly not sustainable with a continuation of the use of fossil fuels. It is a strawman arguement.

      In closing, The reasons for this are not as easy to pin down as those found in a simple course in physics or chemistry and require a much broader and more general education in the humanities, arts, archaeology, history, anthropology, not to mention, the biological sciences, etc…

      While ignorance is not a crime, deliberate ignorance is not excusable in our present age. Worse still is the pushing of alternative facts such as those promulgated in the links provided such as this: (bold mine).

      In my opinion, the time has come to move away from believing that everything that is called “renewable” is helpful to the system. We now have real information on how expensive wind and solar are, when indirect costs are included. Unfortunately, in the real world, high-cost is ultimately a deal killer, because wages don’t rise at the same time. We need to understand where we really are, not live in a fairy tale world produced by politicians who would like us to believe that the situation is under control.
      Gail Tverberg

      • islandboy says:

        Well said Fred! As if to back you up:

        Solar and EVs to grab 10% of fossil fuel market share within decade, says study

        If solar PV can maintain the pace of cost reduction, the technology could supply 23% of the world’s power by 2040, said the report, rising to around 30% by 2050. In such a scenario, coal could be phased out completely, leaving natural gas accounting for just 1% of global power, augmented by extra wind and nuclear.

        For EVs, current adoption rates are likely to accelerate, leading to a 35% share of the road transport market by 2035. This would see oil and coal demand peak around 2020, with approximately two million barrels a day of oil displaced by 2025 and as much as 16 million barrels a day by 2040.

        “There are a number of low-carbon technologies about to achieve critical mass decades before some companies expect,” said Carbon Tracker’s head of research James Leaton.

        His colleague, Luke Sussams, added: “EVs and solar power are gamechangers that the fossil fuel industry consistently underestimates. Further innovation could make our scenarios look conservative in five years’ time, in which case the demand misread by companies will have been amplified even more.”

        • Fred Magyar says:

          His colleague, Luke Sussams, added: “EVs and solar power are gamechangers that the fossil fuel industry consistently underestimates.

          I would suggest that it is those who still believe in the fossil fuel companies are the ones that have their heads buried in deep in the sand. They are still living in a fairy tale world produced by politicians who would like us to believe that the situation is under control.

          If the current US administration is any indication, then the situation is already wildly out of control! Beware The Bad Hombres. Brace for impact!

          I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition…


        • Oldfarmermac says:

          The previous link which I failed to copy, from the same site as Island Boy quotes at 10:13 am says the Saudis are taking bids this month for some industrial strength solar and wind farms, with construction to begin well within the year.

          They have said these new wind and solar farms will produce the cheapest electricity in the world, and I’m willing to take their word for it.

          And for now at least, they won’t have to worry about storage, because it’s a given that they can back off on burning oil to whatever extent they can generate wind and solar juice at this time, and for some years to come.

          Now the Saudis aren’t much on spending their money on things that aren’t of immediate benefit to them, after the fashion of the Germans supporting wind and solar power, or the USA subsidizing electric cars.

          But they are quite accomplished at counting their money and getting good value for every dollar or whatever it is they call their money, I forget.

          So while the price of oil is in the pits for the moment, it looks as if they have decided that it’s time to get on with it, strictly in terms of costs and returns.

          It probably helped that the construction industry in general is slow these days, meaning they’re getting a really good deal on the labor component of the jobs, and while the wind and solar markets are good, there still seems to be excess manufacturing capacity in both fields. That means getting a good deal on the components as well.

          This brings up an interesting point.

          Has anybody thought that NEXT year, or maybe the year after that, the cost of building new solar and wind farms might actually go UP?

          If a hot sellers market comes to pass, manufacturers and contractors might be able to raise their prices MORE than enough to offset the usual annual drop in the cost of new wind and solar infrastructure. I’m not predicting, just speculating.

          The same things happen in my line of work. The industry average cost of producing any staple crop generally declines a little in real terms year over year, but in a seller’s market , farmers still get a nice fat price premium.

          • wehappyfew says:

            I think it is likely to be cyclical, like any industry with long lag times between the investment in capacity and the delivery of finished goods. Not much different from Oil and Gas.

            There was a relative shortage of refined silicon ingots a few years ago (2006 or 2007?) that temporarily elevated the price of PV panels. The response was massive investment in silicon refining capacity, especially in China. Now PV prices are still depressed due to that overcapacity. It wouldn’t be too surprising to see that overcapacity working itself out… prices rising (or not falling as fast, as you point out), higher profits, more investment, overcapacity again, etc.

        • Nathanael says:

          Actually, doing the projections properly, 2026 is about right for 100% renewables in the electricity sector. It’ll probably slow down near the end so maybe 2030.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Good morning again , Fred!

        When it comes to our beliefs and values touching on the environment, we’re always in the same book, generally in the same chapter, and on the same page more often than not.

        “In closing, The reasons for this are not as easy to pin down as those found in a simple course in physics or chemistry and require a much broader and more general education in the humanities, arts, archaeology, history, anthropology, not to mention, the biological sciences, etc”…! !!!!!!!!

        Truer words were never said, and a MAJOR reason I throw in so many allusions to great books and personal or historical experience is to try to get any reader of my comments to think in broader terms, to expand his intellectual box. A little taste of Twain or Dickens or Thoreau or even Eisenhower.

        Does anybody here remember the speech he made warning about what has come to be known as the military industrial complex? It’s been my experience that most liberals avoid reading it, maybe not actually going out of their way to AVOID it, but otoh certainly not seeking it out when making up their minds about such matters.

        Conversely, most SO CALLED conservatives, meaning R voters, can’t be bothered to learn much about the environment, because the more they learn about the environment, the more conflicted they become, and we ALL want peace and tranquility between our own ears.

        I mostly detest elitism in any form, but to deny it exists is a fundamental and potentially fatal mistake.

        And when one gets right down to the nitty gritty, it’s my belief that not more than maybe one person out of twenty in the USA is possessed of a reasonably decent grasp of both the sciences and the broader field of the humanities, broadly defined.

        We’re an elite group here in this forum, and no mistake, and the fact that we ARE an elite is an important reason I hang out here more than any other one place on the net.

        Most people who have spent some time teaching, if they are honest, will tell you that if you have a way of motivating them, the large majority of students can master the basics in almost any field.

        They will also tell you that only a rather small minority, maybe five percent, of all the students that pass thru their classrooms have a real DESIRE to learn and UNDERSTAND the big picture,the reality that we live in.

        Ninety five percent of the engineers I have ever met probably have not read a single book since they graduated , excepting books directly related to their work, or books about trivial subjects they read for entertainment.

        Ninety five percent (I may be a little on the pessimistic side ) of all younger English teachers never taken a REAL course in the physical sciences, or a REAL math course. English teachers as a rule DON’T read much at all in the way of serious nature books, excepting the ones written by for example Thoreau, which touch on both human and scientific matters. There aren’t a whole lot of that kind, and they don’t go deep enough into nature to impart any real understanding.

        What I’m saying here is that the herd mentality and herd behavior are built in, and there doesn’t seem to be much hope of getting rid of the herd mentality, or changing the nature of herd behavior.

        But herd mentality and behavior can be MANIPULATED. The Koch brothers faction is VERY good at it, but that doesn’t mean OUR side can’t play the same game.

        One of my goals is to discover the techniques that will work best for the environmental movement. I have posted a lot of thoughts and opinions about these techniques already.

        Hopefully you and some of the other regulars will add your own thoughts and opinions concerning these techniques, and suggest some additional ones.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Thanks OFM, you made me look up Eisenhower’s speech and as a bonus I came across this George Carlin video… I have to wonder what he would have to say about Trump and his gang?

          (Know Your Enemy) Military Industrial Complex of Death ( George Carlin: War & Penises )

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            If Eisenhower happened to be alive today, and still the CIC , and Trump and his homies were in uniform, he would have them relieved of all responsibilities except cleaning latrines within a matter of hours, and their court martials wouldn’t be just about kicking them out. They would be all about criminal charges, and long vacations in military prisons.

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        “Hi John,

        Apparently, my previous comment didn’t pass muster here (assuming no technical glitch), so how about this one? (I have edited out what may transcend your blog’s ‘Leave Your Comment’ guidelines.)

        How would you respond to the below where I quoted you?

        From the Peak Oil Barrel comment section:

        “The industrial world remains shackled to fossil fuels for most of its energy and all of its transportation fuel, for the simple reason that no other energy source in this end of the known universe provides the abundant, concentrated, and fungible energy supply that’s needed to keep our current lifestyles going.” ~ John Michael Greer


        “First, only xxxxxxxxxxx, traffic in simple reasons! Reality is a bit more complex but that requires multiple digressions to elucidate and xxxxxxxxxxx by definition, generally lack the educational background and critical thinking skills required to understand the behavior of complex non linear systems. Maybe visiting sites of systems thinkers such as George Mobus might be a good place to start…

        Second, anyone who claims that no other energy source in this end of the known universe provides abundant energy is a xxxxx of the highest order and probably skipped physics 101! There is xx xxxxxxxxxxx discussion to be had with such people!
        This is the 21st century anyone can get a free online physics course from a reputable university in this day and age…

        Maybe take a basic chemistry course as well.

        Third, those who make any arguements about keeping our current lifestyles going are still barking up the wrong tree! One has to be really xxxxxx if they think our current lifestyles are sustainable in any way shape or form either with or without alternative energy. In any case they are most certainly not sustainable with a continuation of the use of fossil fuels. It is a strawman arguement.” ~ Fred Magyar

        In any case, I will post this attempt to your blog as well as a verbatim copy of it over there at Peak Oil Barrel, and if you’d like allow it to pass muster here this time and/or to respond over there and/or via my email, it would be appreciated. I mean, this is/you are about learning, truth, transition and whatnot, yes? Thanks.
        ~ Caelan Macintyre

        Copy of JMG’s blog’s ‘Leave Your Comment’ guidelines:

        “Courteous, concise comments relevant to the topic of the current week’s post are welcome, whether or not they agree with the views expressed here, and I try to respond to each comment as time permits. Long screeds proclaiming the infallibility of some ideology or other, however, will be deleted; so will repeated attempts to hammer on a point already addressed; so will comments containing profanity, abusive language, flamebaiting and the like — I filled up my supply of Troll Bingo cards years ago and have no interest in adding any more to my collection; and so will sales spam and offers of “guest posts” pitching products. I’m quite aware that the concept of polite discourse is hopelessly dowdy and out of date, but then so are a good many other things we will have to preserve, or laboriously reinvent, on the long road down from Hubbert’s peak. Thank you for reading The Archdruid Report!” ~ John Michael Greer

        • Fred Magyar says:

          For the record, my comment was posted at POB because it was intended for the audience here! If I had wanted to engage with JMG I would have posted there. You do not have my permission to edit my comments as you please and post them to other blogs. Since my comment is on a blog it is fair game to post a link to it or copy it or excerpt it while attributing authorship to me. It is not ok for you to x out any part or modify it so that it may or may not conform to someone else’s idea of what is or is not acceptable. Your behavior is childish and immature, if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen!

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            “You do not have my permission to edit my comments as you please and post them to other blogs.” ~ Fred Magyar

            “Yeah, well tough noogies!” ~ Fred Magyar

            Previous context:

            “As I feared, a rebuttal with name calling and absolutely no substance!” ~ TechGuy

            “Yeah, well tough noogies!” ~ FM

            TechGuy’s quote’s an apt prologue to my previous comment, incidentally.

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            This Just In:

            “Caelan, okay, you pulled a comment of mine out of context and tossed it somewhere where a troll could yell at it. So?” ~ John Michael Greer


            “Hi John, Thanks for responding.
            I did post, upthread, the link with your quote here, but should have reposted it for you/your blog. I guess Fred Magyar did not avail himself of its context, via the link, which would not surprise me.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre


            “It is not ok for you to x out any part or modify it so that it may or may not conform to someone else’s idea of what is or is not acceptable.” ~ Fred Magyar

            My comment-in-question contained a link back to your original comment.

            “For the record, my comment was posted at POB because it was intended for the audience here! If I had wanted to engage with JMG I would have posted there.” ~ Fred Magyar

            Well those were your intentions, and that’s fine, but they weren’t mine.

            You replied to a quote external to POB, but you also did so in way that John characterized as ‘a troll yelling at it’…
            The internet exists beyond just POB, Fred– systems thinking, right?– and I find it, as John might say, ‘wryly amusing’, that you should write, ‘…if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen!’, etc..

            So if you wish to do the ‘mature, adult’ thing and respond appropriately (say, minus the infantile expletives?) to JMG’s context, please do.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          HI Caelan,

          It’s good to see you’re back. I’ve been to so many funerals in the last few months that anytime a regular fails to post a comment for a few days, I’m predisposed to think he’s gone for good.

          Greer gets it better than just about any body else who is primarily a writer, rather than a scientist. Fred Maygar gets it likewise.

          Greer talks mostly about the nature of our problems and what we can and might do to adapt at the human level.

          There is THERE THERE when it comes to a conflict between what Greer has to say, and what Fred has to say.

          Fred spends a lot more of his time on the more hopeful aspects of new technologies and correcting bullshit comments.

    • Javier says:

      Arctic warmth beyond the extreme

      Not very different from last year (see figure below).

      That heat has no where to go except the space. The atmosphere doesn’t warm the oceans during the Arctic winter, as it is colder, and does not melt the ice as it is below freezing all the time. If there is less sea ice in the Arctic during the winter the ocean loses more heat, as the ice acts as an insulator.

      “scientists are struggling to explain it and are in disbelief.”

      That is the least surprising part.

      • Javier says:

        Arctic temperatures 2016 & 2017.

        Notice how last summer temperatures were slightly below the green line, leading to more September ice despite warm record year.

        • islandboy says:

          Hmmm? I notice that the 2016 Arctic summer temperature didn’t go more than a degrree and a half or so above 0ºC, consistent with the mean. I wonder what happen if all that ice up there disappeared?

          edit:At the same time I notice that winter temps in the above graphs appear to be significantly higher than the mean despite Javier’s “increased heat loss into space during the winter. Interesting.

          • Javier says:

            Congratulations. You just noticed the effect of El Niño residual heat being transported North by the atmosphere.

            Don’t make too much of the warm masses of air that move into the Arctic exchanging with cold Arctic air that moves to lower latitudes making cold waves. Look at the temperatures from 1976.

            It is amazing that some scientists are using them to make the news 40 years later.

            • chilyb says:

              Hi Javier,

              The 2016 and 2017 plot of arctic temperatures look profoundly different than 1976. There are no below average temperature days for winter, spring or fall.

              I will take a guess. You don’t think this is significant at all.

              • Javier says:

                That means the world has warmed. Looks like a dumb question. Everybody knows the world was cooler in the mid-seventies. That’s why I chose that year. But the heat waves in the Arctic, as warm as the present ones or more, were already there. They were just not alarming anybody then.

                Think about that, going from 240-265°K in the Arctic in just a few days, as it happened in 1976. Now with a higher baseline we go to 258°K and everybody goes whoaaa!

                Kinda irrational, isn’t it?

                • Nathanael says:

                  Can this lying troll please be banned?

                  It’s really tedious to scroll through the comment sections trying to get past the trolling shit he spews.

                  (And yeah, he’s just lying in this one.)

      • Fred Magyar says:

        The atmosphere doesn’t warm the oceans during the Arctic winter, as it is colder, and does not melt the ice as it is below freezing all the time.

        That’s has to be the dumbest statement I have ever read! There is one atmosphere and all the oceans are connected. Which means that while it is winter in the Arctic it is summer in the southern hemisphere and the atmosphere continues to transfer heat into the oceans.

        • Javier says:

          We are talking about the Arctic atmosphere (North Polar Cell) and the Arctic Ocean obviously. You are not paying attention.

      • wehappyfew says:

        Again, Javier exposes his fundamentally ignorance of basic radiative physics.

        When the Arctic is warmed in the winter by heat from the tropics, this results in a net warming of the planet. If more heat than usual flows north = more warming. Less heat flowing north than usual = less warming (more efficient cooling).

        With the Arctic being warmer than usual for the past year, the Earth is losing heat less efficiently.

        This is a consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Climate scientists know and use this law all the time. A biologist won’t have the faintest clue how this works… as demonstrated here by Javier.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          A biologist won’t have the faintest clue how this works… as demonstrated here by Javier.

          Now, now, wehappyfew, let’s not jump to any conclusions about Biologist’s understanding of basic physics based on Javier’s deliberately obfuscatory pronouncements.

          As far as I’m aware, any undergraduate course in Biology from a major accredited university has as part of it’s basic requirements a strong foundation in math, physics and chemistry.

          Office of Undergraduate Biology

          Major Requirements

          Biology majors are enrolled in either the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences or the College of Arts and Sciences. The requirements of the major itself are identical in both colleges, although the individual requirements of the two colleges will result in biology majors taking somewhat different overall undergraduate programs.

          Students can tailor their individual academic goals by selecting the college of enrollment, one of 14 biology concentrations, and specific courses to meet requirements. Biology students are broadly educated in chemistry, physics and mathematics while developing an excellent foundation in biology from our entry-level biology courses and more advanced courses in genetics and biochemistry. Students who wish to graduate with honors must apply to the Biology Honors Program in the second semester of their junior year. Students must maintain a minimum 3.0 cumulative and science/math grade point average and write a thesis based on original research conducted under the direct guidance of a Cornell faculty member.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            The Cornell undergrad program is very similar to the ones at just about any larger university with a college of agriculture, such as my dear old Alma Mater.

            This is why I have a LOT of credits in biology, although I’m an ag major. Just about all the ag majors, excepting ag economics and ag engineering, are based entirely on the fundamentals of biology, and you spend as much or more time with the biology guys as you do the ag guys.

            And when you do get into a class the biology majors don’t take, you are still mostly doing biology, but with the emphasis shifted to some particular aspects of the field, in the same sense that doctors studying human health study mostly biology, with the emphasis on the details that can be manipulated in order to cure diseases, etc.

        • Javier says:

          Again, Javier exposes his fundamentally ignorance of basic radiative physics.

          You didn’t have enough when you were shown not to understand that an El Niño increases Outward Long wave Radiation?

          Now you are going to show how you don’t understand how meridional transport works.

          The surplus energy that cannot be radiated back to space in the tropics has to be transported by the atmosphere and the oceans to higher latitudes to be radiated by regions that have a radiative deficit.

          As the planet warms there is more and more heat being transported to higher latitudes. This is the basis for the Arctic amplification. The tropics do not warm significantly.

          El Niño starts as ocean surface and subsurface warming in the Pacific tropics, then with a delay the heat makes it to the atmosphere in the tropics and from there is transported to higher latitudes affecting the whole world. This is the basis for El Niño warming.

          The more heat regions of radiative deficit receive from the tropics, the more heat they radiate to space by OLR. In the Arctic during the winter, that heat has nowhere else to go. It won’t go into the Arctic ocean and it won’t go into the Arctic ice. It will just increase polar OLR.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Rather sophomoric terminology to describe a well known effect. Does not change the radiative imbalance, in fact it increases it due to well known and simple physical phenomenon.

            • Javier says:

              Of course is very well known, but Wehappyfew appears to not grasp it as he wants to discuss what I previously said:

              “That heat has no where to go except the space. The [Polar] atmosphere doesn’t warm the [Arctic] oceans during the Arctic winter, as it is colder, and does not melt the ice as it is below freezing all the time. If there is less sea ice in the Arctic during the winter the [Arctic] ocean loses more heat, as the ice acts as an insulator.”

              The practical effect of the present situation in the Arctic, with warmer than usual surface temperatures and lower than usual sea ice, is that there is an increase in Outgoing Longwave Radiation from the Arctic. As some people are concerned that the planet is running a dangerous energy imbalance, the news that more energy is being lost to space in the Arctic this winter should be good news (for them) and not a new motive for alarmism. It would be worse (for them) if that energy remained in the system and went to increase Ocean Heat Content, or (God forbids) surface temperatures.

              It is hard to understand alarmists. They always seem to find a motive to worry even when things are going their way.

              • Oldfarmermac says:

                Every time Javier posts a comment having to do with climate, somebody who knows more about the subject posts one that proves to anybody who is technically literate that Javier is either way over his head and doesn’t know what he is talking about, or else that he is simply a troll.

                Considering the number of times this has happened , and his refusal to acknowledge his obvious and amateurish mistaken interpretations of the data, it’s a dead certainty that he’s a troll.

                Nobody could be so consistently wrong by accident, it HAS to be deliberate.

                Then he invariably comes back with another reply indicating that the person who knows MORE BY A MILE is an alarmist , or the fool.

                He has posted comments here in this forum that it is ok to ignore the precautionary principle in respect to climate and fossil fuel air pollution.

                Any body who knows shit from apple butter about the sciences, or about any sort of potentially dangerous undertaking or work, knows enough to know that such a person is to be kept as far as humanly possible from any
                any position involving good judgement concerning accidents and the potentially catastrophic consequences that can result due to ignoring the precautionary principle.

          • wehappyfew says:

            A good demonstration of cut-n-paste skills… and a glaring deficit in understanding the 1st LoT, Stefan-Boltzmann, and the basic math skills to work out this simple first year physics problem.

            If the heat transport from tropics to poles INCREASES, then the average temperature, total heat content, etc is unchanged… the surplus decreases in the tropics, the deficit increases at the poles, but no change in global average temperature because the energy is just moving around … 1st LoT.

            But the net OLR for globe IS affected by redistributing the heat differently. The tropics are cooler – they radiate less. The poles are warmer – they radiate more. Due to the 4th power term in the SB Law, the decrease in the OLR from the tropics is much larger than the increase at the poles. The Global average OLR decreases, eventually the globe must warm to offset the decrease in OLR.

            Conversely, reducing the heat flow from the tropics to the poles has the opposite effect. Warmer tropics radiate more, cooler poles radiate less. The net change is an INCREASE in OLR… Stefan Boltzmann applied to non-uniform radiating bodies… this is a simple problem in first year physics.

            The fact that you had no idea this relationship exists and couldn’t work out the simple math even after I helpfully gave you the name of the relevant equation is further confirmation of your inability to understand the physics of climate.

            Stick to cut-n-pasting pretty charts.

            Nice try on the strawman, though.

            • Oldfarmermac says:

              Javier knows just enough to make a perpetual nuisance of himself. It’s good that guys like wehappyfew take the time to point out his bullshit in terms of atmospheric physics.

              It will be perfectly obvious to anybody ACTUALLY paying attention that he is either trolling or else that he doesn’t actually have a clue what he is talking about, and just posting stuff shotgun style, hoping to mislead readers who aren’t willing to take the time to follow thru.

              There’s a good chance that he is getting his stuff from somebody who makes a business out of supplying it to a lot of other JAVIERs.

              I will set the record straight when he posts stuff related to my own field.

              The fact that he says there’s nothing to worry about and that we can ignore the precautionary principle in relation to climate and pollution is ample evidence that he is either a fool or a troll.

              I will start posting his position in respect to the precautionary principle and climate every time he posts a comment.

              • I am sure that Javier knows more than you about farming and agriculture, because he is a fabulous biologist, and one of the bigly greats in his field.

            • Javier says:

              Again you show that you don’t know what you are talking about. Simple problem of physics?
              You have it wrong as usual.
              The tropics get neither cooler nor warmer as the temperature in the tropics doesn’t change much. You must remember IPCC figure on how global warming takes place by latitude.

              So let’s see what happens during and immediately after an El Niño:

              “Accumulation of heat in the equatorial upper ocean is found prior to the onset of the 1986–87 El Nin ̃o. The accumulated heat in the equatorial upper ocean comes from the surface heating, which exceeds the poleward transport of heat in the upper ocean. The accumulated heat in the upper ocean resurfaces in the eastern Pacific and the 1986–87 El Nin ̃o warming develops. The warming results in a substantial increase in the equator-to- pole heat transport in the equatorial ocean. The ocean warming is also accompanied by a significant increase in the poleward transport of energy in the atmosphere and a significant reduction in the surface heat flux into the equatorial ocean, though these changes are smaller than the increases in the poleward heat transport in the ocean. Because of the feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, the variations in the net radiative energy flux at the top of the atmosphere are small and the surface heat flux into the equatorial ocean is mainly modulated by the poleward transport of energy in the atmosphere, which is in turn modulated by the intensity of the cold tongue.”

              Sun, D. Z. (2000). The heat sources and sinks of the 1986–87 El Nino. Journal of climate, 13(20), 3533-3550.

              So let’s see if you get it. El Niño heat is in the ocean, then it makes it to the atmosphere in the tropics, then there is an increase in OLR in the tropics and an increase in meridional transport, mainly through the atmosphere. The increase in meridional transport carries more heat to the regions of radiative deficit where the remaining heat is lost to space by OLR. The end of the road is the Arctic. Not much heat makes it there, but whatever heat gets there during the winter goes to space.

              So in summary, the heat that was in the oceans before El Niño goes mainly to space after El Niño. When we measure it in its way out we think it is planetary warming, when in reality it is planetary cooling.

              El Niño was very reduced during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. They started to become a salient feature of the Earth’s climate about 7000 years ago, when the planet started cooling.

              Global warming by latitude as per IPCC AR4 fig. 9.6

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Javier says we ought to ignore the precautionary principle in relation to the climate change question.

        How about it Javier?

        Virtually every professor in every field of hard science I have ever talked to, or read, thinks the climate question is literally a life and death question for a substantial chunk of the biosphere.

  68. Oldfarmermac says:

    Good morning Fred,

    Javier is possessed of skills well beyond the ordinary when it comes to seeing what he wants to see, for sure.

    But I’m not in favor of running him off. I’m learning a little more about the details of climate science every day as the result of having him here, and reading your responses, and those of the other guys who get it.

    I guess it is possible to make sense of what he is saying, by interpreting it this way. The atmosphere is not warming the ocean during the winter, because the ocean is warmer than the atmosphere, and therefore it’s warmer in the polar winter , WHICH IS NO SURPRISE to anybody because the ocean in polar regions is releasing heat.

    BUT he conveniently manages to over look the fact that if it’s warmer than usual during the southern polar winter because of the interaction between atmosphere and ocean, well, the explanation for THAT just MIGHT be that the OCEAN is warmer than usual…….. which just MIGHT be the result of the ocean having warmed up noticeably in recent years due to ………. ( gasp! ) forced warming………….

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      I agree.
      Baghdad Bob was a comic distraction that added to the absurdist nature of the Iraq War.
      Javier serves the same function.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      But I’m not in favor of running him off.

      Who said anything about running him off?

      I guess it is possible to make sense of what he is saying, by interpreting it this way.

      He can say whatever he wants and I can interpret it any way I please… I interpret his statements as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and distract. In the past I made a serious attempt to give him the benefit of the doubt. I have since concluded that he is not an honest broker. Either that, or he has on industrial strength blinders.


      • Doug Leighton says:

        It’s interesting the way Javier has managed to turn this Blog into a Denier site by the sheer volume of his posts and how responding to his inane comments in effect abets the process. Considering the danger we face from fossil fuel driven climate change, I find it annoying that fossil fuel trolls are allowed (encouraged) here — so be it.

        IMO underlying facts on climate change have been known for decades and allowing the never ending delivery of an alternate set of ‘facts’ is a disservice to readers/participants alike.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Agreed! Though IMHO, the best way to address this is not to respond to his posts by using rational arguments and data. Just call him a LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! when ever he posts his BS.

          • Doug Leighton says:

            Some people have the idea they can make a statement which leaves no room for response and when the other guy says nothing, take this for victory. Notice how often Javier leaves his “debate” by having the last word even though “that word” does not make a germane point. Result, a hijacked Blog.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              Correct and it is a very deliberate and effective tactic. I’m not sure what the best response to it is and I have been experimenting with a number of different types of responses.

              Perhaps instead of any response just a link to Merchants of Doubt…

              If everyone who recognizes that he is a bald faced liar just replies with that link instead of giving him a platform to ply his BS …

              • I think the best responses are to suggest looking up explanations for:

                Psychological Projection
                Gish Gallop
                Fallacious Arguments

                If more people were students of the art of rhetorical deception and pseudo-scientific argumentation, we may not be in this spot. But then again, maybe this blog wouldn’t exist :/

                • Fred Magyar says:

                  Yeah, one thing is for sure we all need to make a concerted effort and stop responding to his arguments and thereby continuing to give him a platform on which to ply his nonsense.

                  That is one of the reasons that I posted something on mosquitos when he opened this thread with his post on El Niño.

                  He only made a half hearted attempt to reply by saying something about the Disney movie, Lilo and Stitch… kinda took the wind out of his sails there for a while until many of the regulars started posting data attempting to debunk his BS.

                  That just played right into his hands and we ended up with another thread completely hijacked by Xavier!

                  I think the same strategy should be applied to every ordinary drive by troll as well. It is not our job to educate every Tom Dick and Harry who happens to stop by here, we should send anyone with questions about climate science to the FAQ page at RealClimate.

                  Anyways just some thoughts. It might be time for me to move to a little fishing village on the Amazon river… and watch the downfall of our once Great civilization from there.


              • Doug Leighton says:

                “If everyone who recognizes that he is a bald faced liar just replies with that link instead of giving him a platform to ply his BS …”

                Short of banning him that may be effective. Certainly responding with reasoned arguments (as Dennis and others often try) is futile and often counterproductive.

              • A while back — I don’t know if it was me or someone I was in cahoots with — but we caught on the idea that these guys always seemed to fall back on using a kindergarden ABC or ABCD argument.

                It’s as simple as ABCD — Anything But Carbon Dioxide

                They will use any argument as long as it doesn’t involve CO2.

                • Oldfarmermac says:

                  I will take it on myself to make sure Javier doesn’t get the last word in very often, lol.

                  That won’t be hard at all for me.;-)

                  It will be good training for me as a wannabe political pundit and writer.

              • GoneFishing says:

                I suggest that everyone who feels disrupted or silenced by a denier should use that as a call to action to double their efforts to combat and communicate climate change. Not only double your efforts but do everything possible to boycott and promote a boycott of fossil fuels and their political agenda.
                I have zero use of fossil fuels as my goal by 2019. They aren’t making much money from me now and I have gotten other people to follow along that line. Now is time to double down.

                • Fred Magyar says:


                  BTW, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t post updated climate related science here, such as links to talks and scientific papers.

                  However we need to make it abundantly clear that we do not tolerate anyone who engages in a deliberate campaign of doubt.

                  Perhaps we can tag such post with this image

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Back atcha Fred,

        There’s no possible way to conclude other than that he’s trolling , pure and simple.

        If he were honest , he would admit once in a while that he has misinterpreted the data and links he posts to make his argument.So far, as best I can remember, he’s been pretty close to perfect in reaching erroneous conclusions, and it takes a fucking expert to be wrong ALL THE TIME, an expert in the art of trolling, that is!

        I’m going to post a comment to the effect that he’s the only so called scientist I have ever heard of who blithely disregards the precautionary principle in response to his every comment from here on out.

        Please post your bullshit sign too.

  69. GoneFishing says:

    Recently, a new class of rigid foam has become available: graphite polystyrene (GPS).
    The addition of the graphite results in an insulation that can provide the same or greater R-values as EPS, but in a thinner product. This makes GPS insulation suitable for use in space-constrained areas and in colder climates. Another benefit is the graphite in GPS insulation enhances the material’s R-value as temperatures decrease.
    Similar to EPS, various manufacturers produce GPS with blowing agents that do not diffuse during the insulation’s time in service, so the insulation does not experience thermal loss as do some rigid insulations. Consequently, the R-value at time of installation is what will be provided years later—this is very important for long-term energy savings in buildings.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Now that’s cool! (pun intended)

      I wanted to see the interview with Katherine Holt posted on the Royal Society of Chemistry…
      And found another interview with her on Youtube in which she tells the one and only joke she knows.

      It’s about a dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac who stays up all night thinking about whether or not there is a dog.

      I don’t know what her marital status is but based on that alone, I’m ready to propose! 😉

      • Fred,

        Now that right there is funny! And since you’re in line for her, I just wonder if she’s got a sister.
        Sometimes gotta laugh to keep from crying!

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      technology does not create energy, technology uses energy.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Huh?! No shit, since it is a fundamental law, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed! However technology can be used to create products that help conserve energy or make it possible to use energy much more efficiently. Creating a product that is lighter and more compact than previously available insulating foams, yet one that maintains the same R-value would certainly be advantageous.

      • GoneFishing says:

        That came from left field but how about this: Technology releases and transforms energy. I am sure that nuclear power plants don’t make any energy, right? They use energy?
        I really don’t see your point about energy anyway, since we are bathed everyday in thousands of times what we need. All we need is technology to transform and transport it to the appropriate places in the appropriate form to then transform it to the needed or desired form of energy to do the work we want done.
        The sun makes more energy than we will ever need. E=mc2.

    • Caelan MacIntyre says:

      Of course we don’t look only at ‘long term energy savings’ WRT insulation, right?

  70. Oldfarmermac says:

    Trump has really outdone himself!

    It’s taken him only a few days to do what took all other recent presidents over a year to do.

  71. Oldfarmermac says:

    Being the rolling stone I am, wrecked automobiles are something I happen to know a lot about.

    It’s astounding that a car could be hit as hard in the back as this one was, and yet the door lines and roof lines appear to be perfect, no broken side glass, etc. The driver walked away.

    Now note the fact that the front tire on the truck is flat, indicating that the collision was violent enough to drive the truck bumper and other structural steel parts back far enough and hard enough to puncture the tire. Trucks are seldom damaged this way when they rear end a car.

    A Model S is probably as strong as a NASCAR racer, and the guys who drive those crash at least a couple of them at very high speeds every race, on average. Race car drivers do have really good seats and safety harnesses, rather than just seat belts, plus helmets and fire suits, etc, but the Tesla S still looks good beside a full fledged race car when it comes to protecting the driver.

  72. Oldfarmermac says:

    Getting rid of Trump and his homies is going to be a big job, but not as big as it looks, if people are willing to wake up and THINK.

    Here’s something to think about, based on a book written by a woman who was a professor at Princeton at one time, but I think maybe she moved on to something else recently.

    A LOT of conservatives are simply appalled at Trump and everything he stands for, while at the same time thoroughly disgusted with part or most of the liberal social agenda. They will work with centrist Democrats to set things right again, if given the opportunity.

    It’s worth the time needed to read it carefully.

  73. Oldfarmermac says:

    There’s one hell of a fight going on inside the D party and the future of this country depends in very large part on who wins it.

    Here’s a brief excerpt.


    But Sanders cast the endorsement as evidence that Perez is part of “a failed status-quo” that needs to be swept aside.

    “Joe Biden is a friend of mine and I have a lot of respect for Tom Perez. In terms of the next chair of the DNC, however, the question is simple: Do we stay with a failed status-quo approach or do we go forward with a fundamental restructuring of the Democratic Party? I say we go forward and create a grassroots party which speaks for working people and is prepared to stand up to the top 1 percent. That’s why we have to support Keith Ellison,” Sanders said in a statement.

    There’s no doubt that Biden’s endorsement further cements Perez’ status as the choice of the party’s establishment (though Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer, the top democrat in Washington, has endorsed Ellison). And it did not come as much of surprise because people close to former President Obama had so clearly telegraphed support for his former cabinet official.

    Hey HB, notice that SCHUMER who is the TOP DOG D in DC at this time, is supporting the same guy for DNC chair as Sanders.

    The remnants of Clinton’s old machine may manage to hold onto control of the D party, but not for very long, in my opinion.

    It’s my belief that the only real hope for the D party, and by extension the country, is for the D party to give up on the REPUBLICAN LITE misadventure, and return to its roots as a party of the people.

    The Trumpster’s women don’t have anything on the women that were at the D convention this last time around, they were wearing Prada.

    • Survivalist says:

      Anybody who views D’s as a solution to the R problem is just as misguided and ignorant as people who view R’s as a solution to the D problem. America is collapsing. Try not to get caught up in the crisis cults that arise as the collapse proceeds.

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        Good morning, Survivalist

        You might be right, TEOWACKI might be baked in , no matter WHAT we do.

        At one time, I was more or less convinced that this IS the case.

        But in recent times, I have grown cautiously optimistic that with good luck and good leadership, a fair sized portion of the planetary nekkid ape infestation might actually survive overshoot, which IS baked in , for sure, and continue to live lives enhanced to a substantial extent by the fruits of industrial civilization.

        It doesn’t take a whole lot of energy or natural resources to live a HELL of a lot better than a peasant lived a couple of centuries ago.

        If I live another decade, I can adjust to using ten percent of the fossil fuel I use today, by rearranging my personal affairs, as necessary. This would put quite a crimp in my day to day routine, but it wouldn’t lower my standard of living significantly.

        And while I don’t have a LOT of faith in the D’s delivering GOOD leadership, I have NEAR ZERO faith in the R’s, as they exist today, doing even remotely as well as the D’s in terms of responsible leadership.

        The biology is hardly to be questioned, it’s the consensus view of the leaders of the field.

        The political analysis is basically my own.

        YMMV in that respect.

  74. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    “Hi Euan,

    It seems that a ramp down in power is likely not to be a problem (simply redirect wind turbines when there is too much supply from wind or reduce output from tidal power). If we assume your analysis is correct it seems to show that ramp up rates are unchanged. Would variable pricing for power help to reduce the swings in demand for power a bit or has such a policy already been implemented in the UK?” ~ Dennis Coyne

    “There really is little further to gain from differential pricing unless you can persuade a large chunk of the country to operate on night shift. It’s already spread out demand remarkably evenly during waking hours, with only a modest evening rush hour peak on top…


    The big remaining differentials in demand are seasonal and associated with cold weather, not across the 24 hours. I suppose you could tell people not to launder their clothes or heat their homes with electricity during winter?” ~ It doesn’t add up

    Solar Panels Could Ruin Your Roof

    “Because the decision to place solar panels on the roof is often made by professionals who don’t have a background in roofing, they may not be aware of the impacts on the roof performance or the difficulties and costs involved when completing maintenance or replacement.

    The logistical and legal issues associated with installing solar PV on roofs are also complex… If not clearly defined by contract, conflict can result over safety provisions, lost income when the panels are removed during roof work, or liability in the event of theft, vandalism or damage.

    Membrane manufacturers typically have their own requirements if solar panels are installed. If any array is installed over an existing roof without the contractor or roofing manufacturer’s permission, your warranty could be nullified.

    Lastly, the fire testing of roofs covered with PV panels is far from complete… Some ballasted systems use plastic components that are far from fire resistant. Polystyrene insulation pads installed under the panels to minimize the risk of damage to the membrane are also cause for concern.”

    Renewable energy mix played role in SA blackout, third AEMO report confirms

    “South Australia’s renewables-heavy power mix was a factor in the statewide blackout in September, a new report by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has confirmed.”

    The Largest Machine Ever Built

    “One of the greatest achievements of the 20th century, the North American power grid is gigantic, widely connected and vulnerable to massive failure.

    “In my opinion, the time has come to move away from believing that everything that is called ‘renewable’ is helpful to the system. We now have real information on how expensive wind and solar are, when indirect costs are included. Unfortunately, in the real world, high-cost is ultimately a deal killer, because wages don’t rise at the same time. We need to understand where we really are, not live in a fairy tale world produced by politicians who would like us to believe that the situation is under control.” ~ Gail Tverberg

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Solar Panels Could Ruin Your Roof

      And thinking could wear out your brain!

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        I’m gung ho for installing all the solar panels we can, here, there, and elsewhere, and have said so countless times.

        BUT it’s true that installing solar panels on an existing roof can be a tricky and potentially risky proposition. There’s simply no way to install them without making lots of holes in the existing roof, and every hole is a potential leak.

        And when it comes time to replace the old roof under the panels, well, the odds are pretty high the panels, and the racking, and the wiring must come down, and then you rip off the old roof, and replace it, and then you put the panels up again.

        I personally won’t ever install panels on any roof that belongs to me, because I have plenty of space for ground mounts, which are infinitely easier to care for.

        But IF I wanted to put panels on a roof, I would either delay the job until it’s time for a new roof anyway, or make sure there’s a bond posted to pay for roof problems. Contractors of all sorts come and go. Leaks come but they NEVER go, except when evicted by way of hiring roofers to fix them.

        The bright side of the panel / roofing is that a new installation combining both the roof and the panels being new ought to last a long time.

        And before long, we will have panels that do double duty AS the roof. I expect they will be pretty expensive, but otoh, they’re probably going to last longer than most conventional roofs by a factor of two at least.

        I’m all in favor of personal and community owned solar power, but so far as I can tell, the most cost efficient way of getting it, potentially, is to build mini solar farms, and feed the juice into the local grid, and discount the homeowners bill in proportion to his investment in the mini solar farm.

        Unfortunately there are a hell of a lot of knotty problems associated with this approach, and it is unlikely to be used much, due to the difficulties imposed by lawyers, building inspectors, city and county supervisors, the electric utility itself, etc etc.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Yep, good idea to have a good to new roof before installing solar PV.
          Anyway, does it cause leaks?

          But will they cause leaks in the roof? No. Modern solar technology is installed using time and lab tested equipment that is designed to protect the roof. Yes, installers will need to make holes in your roof to attach the solar panels securely, but they will be using special attachments that cause the water to run around and away from the penetrations. This is made possible by the fact that water very predictably runs down your roof. The attachments either have a raised barrier, that diverts the water around the attachment point, or create a ‘dimple’ that helps create a reliable seal between the roof material and the attachment point.

          In fact, solar panels actually help protect the roof they cover from the harsh and degrading UV rays of the sun. By preserving that part of the roof, it keeps pounding rain off (though rain is what ends up cleaning your panels by washing debris off.

        • scrub puller says:

          Yair . . .

          With proper corrugated zincalume or Colourbond steel roofing several systems have been developed to use the original roofing screws to fasten the panels . . . approved even in cyclone areas.


          • Fred Magyar says:

            ….approved even in cyclone areas.

            That’s HURRICANE areas… we Americans are no longer allowed to be nice to Australians! 😉

            But seriously, I worked with permitting of rooftop solar in Florida a while back. It is a non issue as far as causing damage to roofs is concerned.

            • scrub puller says:

              Yair . . .

              Gotcha Fred, it’s just another beat up.


            • GoneFishing says:

              If roofs are a problem, just put it all over those big government and corporate lawns. That should be enough area to power the world. Make them do it for free and be good citizens.

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            I put the ‘Solar Panels Could Ruin Your Roof ‘ with a strong suspicion that it would be latched onto and run with, so to speak.

            Sure enough, that’s what happened, ironically.

            There is a big world of context out there that is often ignored, such as on sites like these.

            In the real world, McMansions, location-/climate-/etc.-inappropriate buildings, leaky condos, asbestos insulation, lead paint, foam insulation, toxic this-and-that, tract/cookie-cutter housing and generally-shoddy construction and structural and material defects and dangerous cost-cutting measures, etc.– and maybe even messed-up solar panel installations– exist, and more than what some might think, except perhaps those with such mindless, sound-byte, sheeple-appealing commentary as this:

            “And thinking could wear out your brain!” ~ Fred Magyar

            …Which is maybe in large part why the aforementioned happens with such inordinate statistical significance.

            D’Oh!” ~ Homer Simpson

            • GoneFishing says:

              To a very small degree there are the list of things you say, but they are corrected over time and as problems are noticed. To focus on the rare and give it an inflated place in our view is the place of the public media. Sounds like you have been brainwashed by them.
              You appear to see the present and have no historical context or a grasp of the changes made over time. All buildings for the last 50 years or more are built more tightly, insulated better and use more advanced materials and construction practices. The amount of energy saved over those decades is huge. I grew up in a house built in 1948 as part of the post WWII housing boom, it was fully insulated. Had two layer windows, efficient heating plant, and awnings to prevent excessive solar heating in the summer.
              Buildings got better insulated and sealed with time to the point of that McMansion using about the same heating energy as a smaller house of many years ago.
              I have been in houses from the twenties that the wind blew through and had little or no insulation. It’s all gotten better and is still improving.
              Yep there are always some cheaters that try and get away with cheaper construction but codes and oversight prevent most of that.
              To act as if the rarity is the norm is just wrong.
              BTW, what is wrong with foam insulation. It has been a boon to energy savings and is probably one of the best investments one can make. Placing it in blocks, under concrete floors, on basement walls (inside and outside), is extremely energy saving.

              • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                GoneFishing, I have little time at the moment to reply, but reality is not so simple…
                If you came to my door to offer some foam insulation, I’d be asking you quite a few questions about; what are its alternatives and how do they compare; what’s in it; what is its toxicity; how is it manufactured; is it a company that’s been around long enough and what is its record; what kind of a company is it, how does it treat its people and what kind of care or attitude might it have toward me and my surrounding community; how long does the insulation last; how easy is it to replace; is it locally-made; how long has it been used and do we know enough about it over what length of time; is its disposal, environmentally-friendly; what does it release into the air normally, if anything, and when it burns, such as in the case of a house fire; how does it affect the rest of the house and its materials, and so forth.

                Now, as someone who’s trying to sell the stuff, you might not tell me the entire truth, so, ultimately, I will have to make up my mind, despite your possible glowing praise, about whether to use it or not.

                Ditto for all or much of the above with anything else, including solar panels as well as their roof installations.

        • islandboy says:

          Back in the days of TOD, one Westexas used to admonish us to “get out of debt and get thee to the non-discretionary side of the economy” in the face of the threat of Peak Oil. Following his advice, I decided to prepare for a career in solar energy and took advantage of the training in Installing Photovoltaic Systems available at the Florida Solar Energy Center. Turned out to have been a wise choice since they covered most of the stuff you have alluded to and stressed the requirements for the Florida building code for the installation to be able to withstand category 5 winds.

          Fred can correct me if I’m wrong but IIRC, installations in Florida “must also satisfy a structural integrity requirement that can be satisfied with either a written statement signed and sealed by a professional engineer or load testing results from an independent testing laboratory”. I just did a search and this document basically outlines the permitting process for Broward County, Florida:

          The process is not trivial and I distinctly remember the instructors spending a fair amount of time on assessing roofs and stressing how important it was to make sue that a brand new PV installation was not going to be installed on a roof that was nearing the time to be re-done. They encouraged participants to time the installation to coincide with major re-roofing jobs and co-ordinate with roofing contractors, if at all possible, in order to avoid issues with roofing warranties. They also pointed out that a PV installation over a new roof may shelter the roof somewhat and reduce wear and tear on the roof.

          So, in the final analysis, the effect of the installation of a PV system on a given roof will be influenced by the level and quality of training of the PV installer, the integrity of the installer and the degree of regulation by the authority having jurisdiction, in most cases the local (state or county) government. For those who do not like governments and regulations, this is a case where government regulation can protect the public from unscrupulous entities that might otherwise “ruin you roof”.

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            But that would seem to lend support to the case that even something ‘as simple’ as solar panels on rooftops– never mind the panels and their associated systems, themselves– can be a less-than-simple affair, thus more subject to the vagaries of complexity, like human error; vandalism or unintended damage (like throwing stones/etc., or walking or dancing, on them?); theft (like from an increasingly desperate population?); issues with re-roofing/roof-leaks; animals, plants and/or assorted detritus making their homes under the panels; climate change effects, like freak (hail, tornado, etc.) storms and 100 or 1000-year hurricanes every 10 years; and affordability issues with all of the above and more, etc..

            You also lend support, Alan, given your ‘career’, that your views on here regarding solar are not necessarily entirely unbiased, objective, nor reliable, if I really need spell it out a little more.

            Lastly, governments, such as with regard to government regulations and their enforcements, may have progressively-less teeth going forward, given, for examples, decreasing tax revenue, increasing bankruptcies/debt-loads and bursting bubbles and civil unrest of various sorts.

            • Fred Magyar says:

              But that would seem to lend support to the case that even something ‘as simple’ as solar panels on rooftops– never mind the panels and their associated systems, themselves– can be a less-than-simple affair, thus more subject to the vagaries of complexity, like human error; vandalism or unintended damage (like throwing stones/etc., or walking or dancing, on them?); theft (like from an increasingly desperate population?); issues with re-roofing/roof-leaks; animals, plants and/or assorted detritus making their homes under the panels; climate change effects, like freak (hail, tornado, etc.) storms and 100 or 1000-year hurricanes every 10 years; and affordability issues with all of the above and more, etc..

              ROFLMFAO! Oh Yeah! The world will be destroyed by desperate people DANCING on the solar panels! Bwhahahahahah!

              There is one thing for sure, there is zero danger of you wearing out your brain by actually thinking… though the constant wash and dry cycle of all the brainwashing you subject yourself to will most certainly do the trick!

              • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                ^ Which doesn’t actually contest anything.

                And it’s ‘theft’ before ‘desperate’ in the sequence, but glad you enjoyed ‘dancing’ as I did writing it.

                Here’s a hit from a cursory search, incidentally:

                “the panels are rated for a weight of 178 pounds per square foot.

                Does the warranty cover walking on solar panels?

                SolarWorld offer what looks like a reasonable warranty, but as you’d expect, it includes a number of exclusions. Among those is this one:

                i. Damage or failures caused by external factors (including weather, animals, vandalism, accidents and the like)…

                There’s a problem — we never see the panels actually working, either before or after the test…

                The ground reaction force when you walk is somewhere in the region of 1.5 times your body weight, so every time you step on a surface whilst moving you’re pushing down with as much as 293 pounds.

                The footprint of a size 10 1/2 shoe is going to run in the region of 1/3rd of a square foot — you can see where this is going…

                Even if the panel can handle all that weight, treading on it is a bad idea. Your feet get pretty filthy — you use them to touch the floor, after all — and pick up all sorts of debris. The problem isn’t the muck or dirt that might be on your shoes, as that can be hosed off easily enough. More of a concern is any grit, stone chips or small shards your feet might have collected.

                Suddenly you aren’t putting big rubber soles down, but hard, sharp points. Any hard debris stuck in the sole of your shoe is going to scrape and gouge into the surface of the panel. With enough weight behind it you might even puncture it or cause large cracks. Exactly how badly this will affect the panel will vary depending on the type, but it won’t do it any good.”

                And that’s just one element.

            • islandboy says:

              Pray tell where I have ever claimed that my “views on here regarding solar are” not “necessarily entirely unbiased” or “objective”? I am not, nor can I recall ever having been secretive about my reasons for being enthusiastic about solar energy, PV in particular.

              I have a similar enthusiasm for EVs despite not being interested in ever earning from their manufacture or sale. As a teenager, I really liked bicycles too in addition to learning about cars so I could assist my hopelessly clueless, parents with the regular tune ups and minor maintenance. I might have become an auto-mechanic if it were not seen as a profession for school dropouts rather than people with academic ability.

              In terms of my views on solar being reliable, my instructors at FSEC also stressed the importance of not overselling the technology. They pointed out that making outlandish promises and then failing to deliver, would not only soil your own individual reputation but end up creating an unfavorable view of the technology and all those who work in it or promote it. Maybe that it what has happened with one of the local newspapers here, that never seems to have anything good to say about solar, despite having a 45 kW system on their roof (pictured below). Maybe they were sold a bill of goods that did not deliver on the promises and are bitter as a result?

              I also invested some time and effort in learning about wind technology but not soon enough to stop me from buying an expensive 600 W Vertical Axis Wind Turbine (VAWT). After I had already bought the thing I learned that “small wind” is a bit of a scam, with VAWT even more so. I’m in good company though, since the local grid operator was pushing a hybrid small wind and solar PV set up in a situation where just installing the PV alone would have resulted in a much better ROI! Still they managed to sell the world’s largest wind-solar hybrid generation array! Considering that they started manufacturing in 2011, their installations page seems a bit unimpressive and their “crowning glory”, largest installation still seems to be the one in Jamaica despite the fact that they have been manufacturing in India since June 2015.

              Am I bitter about my experience with wind? A little but, I am not going to bad mouth wind especially in the few specific locations where an excellent wind resource makes utility scale turbines (>1 MW) an extremely profitable proposition.

              Do I need to attach a disclaimer to each of my posts, just so that readers can know that I intend to make a living from the technology (hopefully I can get started seriously this year)? Since my current line of business is very discretionary, do you have any advice as to what my be a good career path for someone with my considerable technical skills, in light of Peak Oil and Global Warming?

          • Fred Magyar says:

            I worked with civil engineers doing the drawings for the permitting process for roof top solar. Simply put, solar panels causing roof damage is a complete non issue. To even bring it up at this juncture tells me that whoever does so hasn’t done any homework on this subject at all!
            No reputable engineer signs off on an install if the roof’s structural integrity is in question.

            Side note: Solar is NOT complex, it is pretty much plug and play at this point. I have very high confidence in the installers we have in Florida and I’m sure it is the same in all 50 states!

            You want complex? Build a nuclear power plant instead…


            • Oldfarmermac says:

              Hi Fred,

              I seldom dispute anything you have to say, because you are so seldom ever wrong about anything.

              And SO LONG as solar panels are mounted on residential roofs in ACCORDANCE with the proper standards, and the work is DONE RIGHT, you are right in this case as well.

              BUT , and this is a BIG ASSED BUT, there is a very real possibility that you will pay for something you don’t get when you are dealing with small contractors, and even big ones, who retire, quit, go bankrupt, etc.

              This is my point. And I have been around long enough to know very well that the guys who sell DAMNED NEAR ANYTHING are usually in a position where making the sale is the paramount consideration, if they want to continue to eat without finding a new line of work.

              As a practical matter, I see no reason to place any greater trust in solar roofing contractors than I place in automobile salesmen, or mechanics, or life insurance salesmen, or even Sunday School teachers. I know one teaching Sunday School right this MINUTE who can quote scripture with the best of them on Sunday, and steal with the best of them from Monday thru Friday.

              I am willing to place a substantial bet that if you and I get together and arrange for a dozen solar contractor salesmen to come to your house , or mine, that the issue of placing panels on an old roof that will soon need replacement will be minimized or deliberately avoided entirely by more than half of the salesmen, and that the issue of the extra cost of taking down and replacing the pv system when the roof MUST EVENTUALLY BE REPLACED will be either minimized or deliberately avoided by more than half the salesmen.

              I tell it like it us, as I see it, no matter what the subject may be.

              CAVEAT EMPTOR.

              The buyer is responsible for making DAMNED SURE the warranty is good, and that he understands the BIG PICTURE.

              I remain as always a firm believer in pushing the growth of the renewable energy industries along as fast as possible.

              As always I’m in the same book as you, almost always in the same chapter, and more often than not on the same page.

              But on this particular detail……… well , as Ronnie R. was noted for saying, if a man agrees with you eighty percent of the time, he’s your friend, and I agree with you ninety nine percent plus of the time. 😉

              • Fred Magyar says:

                BUT , and this is a BIG ASSED BUT, there is a very real possibility that you will pay for something you don’t get when you are dealing with small contractors, and even big ones, who retire, quit, go bankrupt, etc.

                Sure there is always some risk. Though right now the installers have been around for a while and have built up reputations either good or bad over the years. I personally know installers who have been doing this for a decade or more.

                You can go on line and check how long they have been in business, read reviews get word of mouth recommendations etc… You would do the same thing if you were looking for any contractor, plumber, carpenter, electrician, car mechanic, etc…

                I don’t see the risk as being any greater than for any of the above mentioned professionals.

                Bottom line, putting solar panels on your roof is not likely to cause damage to your roof. I know the process and what it takes to get a permit. The first thing that gets checked is the condition of the roof. If it is sub par then it needs to be fixed and no reputable solar contractor will touch it with a ten foot pole.

  75. GoneFishing says:

    A case of throwing out the trash:
    You have been hearing all the claims that El Nino is running the climate and causing the melting in the Arctic. Au contraire, of the last 5 lowest Arctic Ocean sea ice volumes, only one has coincided with an El Nino and that was a weak one. In fact the others coincided with La Nina. The current low ice point has coincided with the transition to La Nina this time. There is nothing but coincidence here and it is in the wrong direction. And during this latest El Nino we did not reach a new low in Arctic Ice. In fact during the peak of the 2015 El Nino, Arctic Ice volume rose above the average line.
    El, Nino’ story is FAKE NEWS. It’s just part of a continuing regional weather cycle that just puts some short term variability in the earth weather system. No climate effects whatsoever.

    • George Kaplan says:

      I don’t know if this paper, from 2012, has been discussed here – it looks for correlation between minimum sea ice extent and carbon dioxide level, ENSO index, PDO index and AO index. Only CO2 shown any correlation and it is quite strong.

      “Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat”

      I know there is a lot of available data for ice extent, but really it is a measure developed for seaman, i.e. stay away where extent is above 15%. It reflects local weather events as much or more than any long-term climate change (of course the weather is influenced stochastically by the climate, so any correlation should eventually show up – unless all the ice had disappeared before the data set got big enough). However, ice volume seems to be a better indicator of overall change, and I think running average annual volume is best as it removes seasonal effects, and maybe averages out weather impacts as well. Since 2007 the ice extent numbers have been increasingly volatile, probably because as the volume decreases and ice thins the weather can have an increasingly non-linear effect from day today and month to month (e.g. from storms or high and low temperature events).

      I tried the same correlation between running annual averages for ice volume from PIOMAS, with CO2, AO, PDO and ENSO index , also on averaged bases (as below). Using a running average means any high frequency impacts will not be seen but climate trends should show. As in the referenced paper only CO2 shows a strong correlation. AO and ENSO are completely disconnected. There is a 25% correlation with PDO, I think this is almost all from 2012 and 2013 when strong ice volume increase coincided with PDO switching from negative to positive. There may be correlation or it may just be a coincidence and an artifact of a small data set. The paper referenced would not have shown this as it happened after publication.

      • GoneFishing says:

        How about a correlation between increasing open water and less volume of ice? May seem silly at first but the water absorbs much of the light hitting it while ice does not.
        It can mean a difference in absorption of 10 w/m2 or more on average. While peak forcing is much higher. Both are higher than the CO2 forcing. Albedo forcing is the predominant forcing in the Arctic Ocean region.

  76. Ezrydermike says:

    a lot of info in this report…

    Expect the Unexpected: The Disruptive Power of Low-carbon Technology

    This report was produced in partnership between Carbon Tracker and the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London. This study analyses the potential for continued cost reductions in solar photovoltaics (PV) and electric vehicle (EV) technologies to displace demand for currently dominant fossil fuels and mitigate CO2 emissions. In doing so, the report reviews the validity of continuing to base corporate strategies on ‘business as usual’ scenarios.


    This study demonstrates the importance of using the latest available data and market trends for technology costs and climate policy in energy modelling. Applying up-to-date solar PV and EV cost projections, along with climate policy effort in line with the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), should now be the starting point for any scenario analysis. This is not a radical disruptive scenario in terms of its inputs, but a reflection of the current state of play. The key findings in this scenario are presented below.

    Low-carbon technologies

    Solar PV (with associated energy storage costs included) could supply 23% of global power generation in 2040 and 29% by 2050, entirely phasing out coal and leaving natural gas with just a 1% market share. ExxonMobil sees all renewables supplying just 11% of global power generation by 2040.
    EVs account for approximately 35% of the road transport market by 2035 – BP put this figure at just 6% in its 2017 energy outlook. By 2050, EVs account for over two-thirds of the road transport market. This growth trajectory sees EVs displace approximately two million barrels of oil per day (mbd) in 2025 and 25mbd in 2050. To put these figures in context, the recent 2014-15 oil price collapse was the result of a two mbd (2%) shift in the supply-demand balance.

    Fossil fuel demand

    Although this study focuses on the decarbonisation of the global power and road transport sectors, which today account for only 51% of global CO2 emissions and fossil fuel demand approximately, this scenario sees:
    – Coal demand peaking in 2020;

    – Oil demand peaking in 2020; and

    – Gas demand growth curtailed.

    Global warming

    Global average temperature rise is limited to between 2.4°C (50% probability) and 2.7°C (66% probability) by 2100 in this scenario – far below the BAU trajectory towards 4°C and beyond used by fossil fuel companies. If climate policy exceeds the pathway prescribed by NDCs, and overall energy demand is lower, cost reductions in solar PV and EVs can help limit global warming to between 2.1°C (50% probability) and 2.3°C (66% probability). Efforts must be made to align with this more carbon-constrained trajectory.

    • JN2 says:

      And for those of you who haven’t heard of Tony Seba’s book:

      “Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation: How Silicon Valley Will Make Oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Electric Utilities and Conventional Cars Obsolete by 2030”

      Video here:

    • GoneFishing says:

      Interesting survey and projections for renewables, possible but I don’t see the inflection point as 2020, a few more years down the road.
      As far as their warming projection, too low, what is happening in the Arctic now will overwhelm any reductions we can make. Everything helps though and there are many very important reasons to get off of fossil fuels besides climate.

    • Caelan MacIntyre says:

      Carbon Tracker could very much be considered

      “…the key stratagem, foundation, glue and more importantly, a veil or even a shield for both the divestment campaign (global in scale), and the so-called carbon ‘budget’. Reports, data and papers released by this foundation-financed think tank are pumped through the channels of power, the result being the legitimization of concepts that have no basis in reality if it were not for the non-profit industrial complex, in tandem with media, ensuring no one states – or even notices – the obvious, that the emperor has no clothes…

      In this instance, the emperor is the oligarchy as a collective, the ministers are the sycophants that comprise the NPIC, and the townsfolk – not wanting to appear stupid or undeserving.

      Reports such as Carbon Tracker’s serve to legitimate, normalize and thus sanction the already capitalist-sanctioned ‘activism’ that deliberately assists in pushing forward particular policies and agendas already conceptualized (years and even decades in advance) by the funders and the elite.”

  77. GoneFishing says:

    Take a look at Arctic News. Soon could be 30C above 1979-2000 temp average in parts of the Arctic.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Holy shit! From that page:

      My Predictions: Near-Term Climate System Mayhem

      With Trump and Bannon in the White House at this particular point in earth’s history what could possibly go wrong?!

      Steve Bannon, is on the cover of this week’s Time magazine, and in the piece it is revealed that Bannon deeply believes in a theory about America’s future laid out in a book called “The Fourth Turning: What Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny.”

      Anyone who is not seriously concerned must be smoking some really good shit!

      • GoneFishing says:

        Here is the lead-in to the above video. Beckwith describes what is going on in the Arctic in more detail with lots of data in images.

        We are no longer in control, only can accelerate or decelerate some. Brakes are gone. Unless we try geo-engineering, which might only work in a sane and unified world, but would probably go horribly wrong anyway.

        • CatMommie says:

          Geoengineering would appear to be the perfect remedy though to get the planetary climate back on its right track while also calming down the maniacal lefties who show the most concern over the subject of climate.

          Consider, for example, how we are aware on a chemical level that the all-natural mechanism created by earth to deal with excess atmospheric CO2 is to have the CO2 react with peridotite (an original rock in earth’s crust) to form CaCO3, aka Limestone. Again, this is our magnificent planet’s solution in self-regulating surplus CO2. The only issue is that the process takes loads of time to complete.

          Now, what if humans, complete with the superior wits and intellect bestowed upon us, entered the picture? The miraculous news is that we are now able to, in that researchers have created a process able to duplicate the CO2–>CaCO3 process. The mechanism works by allowing CO2 to become entombed into ordinary solid rock in large quantity, within a course of a mere three (3) years!

          There are quite a bunch of interesting scientific articles out there about this process. What seems clear from reading several of them is that entrepreneurs and business leaders feel there is a real case to be made for this new technology allowing the world to solve the surplus CO2 problem without the need for draconian measures such as implementing unfair taxes on the fossil fuel industry or other emitters.

          The most recent scientific article I saw that had a good discussion of this geoengineering process was in the National Post. Alas, that article is behind a paywall, but still worth checking out if you can.

          • Yeah, we sure as hell wouldn’t want to be “implementing unfair taxes on the fossil fuel industry”, now would we? I suppose we should just go ahead with the geoengineering now, since we probably wouldn’t fuck up anything, now would we?

            I vote for Turkey 101, that’s how I’m getting “aware on a chemical level”.
            Ya’ll have fun with this one, I’ll sit here and watch.


          • Survivalist says:

            Pure comedy gold Javier. How many pseudonyms you use on here?

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            I have read the basic geology texts that cover the carbon cycle in terms of atmospheric CO2 and carbonate stones.

            The chemistry and the scale of the cycle is well understood, as well as the time frames relevant to it actually occurring. The time frames are best measured in units of millions of years.

            The atmosphere to carbonate stone cycle is irrelevant in terms of nature fixing the CO2 pollution problem for us.

            And the scale of the problem is utterly and totally beyond any hope of our ever being able to speed it up enough to matter barring a miraculous breakthru in the mining field that just isn’t going to happen.

            Mining is a mature industry, and the the processes involved in geoengineering atmospheric CO2 into carbonate rock are straight forward industrial chemistry and mining problems.

            The geoengineering necessarily involves mining the right rock by the hundreds of millions of tons, and grinding it up to a fine powder, and then distributing it all the hell all over the place, by the millions of square kilometers, so as to allow the CO2 in the air to come into contact with the surface of the powdered stone. The REASON it must be powdered and dispersed is to CREATE enough surface area that can come into contact with the atmospheric CO2 for the chemical reactions to take place on a large enough scale.

            This is freshman level chemistry in terms of the science,and freshman level business in terms of the physical operation. Nobody who knows anything about the basic hard sciences and the day to day problems associated with big engineering jobs will dispute what I have said here.

            I have simply repeated what lots of professional engineers and working scientists have said about this problem, there’s nothing original in this comment.

            It ain’t gonna happen, because the doing of it on the necessary scale is out of the question. We don’t have the material resources necessary to the doing of it, or the financial capital to pay for doing it.

        • Duncan Idaho says:

          How many Climate Change Deniers does it take to change a light bulb?

          • HuntingtonBeach says:

            Two Rednecks, a good old boy, a white supremacist, a Republican congress and a so called billionaire president

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        I expected this one, because Trump IS a classic one percenter’s one percenter. The fucking banks have been doing better on average than any other sort of business, or at least as well, and the net result of this move is to fuck working people and enrich the banks even more.

        I remember reading about a court case some years ago when a borrower sued a lender for violating an usury law.

        The lender’s lawyer presented a list of banks that were issuing credit cards with interest rates as high as the one in the disputed loan document.

        Case dismissed.

        The rot is so deep already that we may die of it no matter WHAT we do anyway, but everything Trump is doing is going to make it WORSE.

        In Virginia, and in North Carolina as well, it’s legal to loan money on cars at any rate whatsoever, even up and past one thousand percent.

        The Mafia never treated people so badly, except that Mafia guys used baseball bats to enforce payment, rather than the courts.

        Incidentally one of HRC’s VERY BEST FRIENDS and CLOSEST associates, what’s her name, Wasserman Schultz, the one that had to give up her job running the D party for all intents and purposes, is very closely associated with the car title loan industry.

        The ROT is NOT just an R party problem.

        • GoneFishing says:

          So much for the kinder, friendlier world. Sherlocks, shysters and parasites. We need a spray for them.

    • Javier says:

      Take a look at Arctic News. Soon could be 30C above 1979-2000 temp average in parts of the Arctic.

      Arctic winter temperatures were higher in 1976 than they are now. And the world was significantly cooler in 1976. So what’s the problem? We seem to be dealing with an usual phenomenon that is not caused by 1976-2016 global warming. Alarmism is, as always, unjustified.

  78. Oldfarmermac says:

    The author is very careful to sprinkle mights and maybes in this piece, but nevertheless, it’s based on real research done at a real university.

    So far as I have found out so far, we are basically still dependent on guess work when it comes to predicting the likelihood of CME’s big enough to cause REAL trouble.

  79. Oldfarmermac says:

    Fernando posted this on his personal blog.

    It’s good enough to pass it along. I would have gotten a some great belly laughs out of it, except it rings too true to laugh.

    I interview President Biff Tannen
    Posted: 03 Feb 2017 12:36 AM PST
    Last night I interviewed America´s brand new supreme leader, President Biff Tannen, at his residence in Washington, now known as “Tanner Mansion”. Before I was given access to the waiting room for my audience with the world´s most powerful ruler, I was led to a small theatre where they were showing the new presidential mansion introductory message, starring Clint Eastwood:

    “Ladies and Gentlemen! Welcome to the Biff Tannen Mansion! Dedicated to America´s #1 Citizen. And America’s greatest living folk hero. The one and only Biff Tannen. Of course we’ve all heard the legend, but who is the man? Here you will learn how Biff Tannen became one of the richest and most powerful men in America. Learn the amazing history of the Tannen family, starting with his great-grandfather, Buford ‘Mad Dog’ Tannen, fastest gun in the West. See how an inheritance on his 21st Birthday made him a millionaire overnight.

    Share in the excitement of a fabulous business deal streak that earned him the nickname “The Smartest Man on Earth.” Learn how Biff parlayed that inheritance, and family connections, into a vast empire. Discover how President Tannen has successfully legalized gambling in US Army bases, and will turn US Navy warships into beautiful casino-hotels to be moored at all major world ports.

    Meet some of the women who shared in his passion as he searched for his three true loves, the beautiful Ivana, Marla, and Melania . And relive President Tannen’s happiest moment when in 2016 he realized his life long dream by defeating President Clinton´s sweetheart, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for the presidency.

    Marvel at the newly redecorated Tannen Mansion, the luxurious Albacete marble pillars, Venetian crystal chandeliers, gigantic painted portraits depicting Greek myths, cherub statues, and the new indoor fountain. And now, without further ado, the Greatest Show on Earth!!”

    PresidentTannen´s voice came from speakers up on the celing:

    “I just wanna say one thing! God Bless America!”

    After watching this brief introduction, I was given a booklet describing Tannen Hotel properties I could visit, and a 10 % discount voucher good for a one week stay. Afterwards I was led into the Presiden´t office. The sight was impressive…he was surrounded by a retinue of white folk wearing dark business suits. I recognized Vice President Penco, several Secretaries, and a dark clad unshaven dude who looked like his consigliere.

    President Biff Tannen I didn´t photograph the
    others in the room for my own security

    I decided to move fast, took a close up photograph of President Tannen, and started the interview as I sat down and one of the waiters put a drink in my hand:

    ME: Mr. President, it’s an honor to be here at the Mansion.

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: Thank you very much, Fernando.

    ME: Let me ask you, has the magnitude of this job hit you yet?

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: It hit me alright. And where you really see it is when you’re talking to the generals about sending Special Forces into places like Yemen to blow up people. The business also hits because the — the size of it. It´s huge. Every decision can make or lose tons of money. I was talking with one of the other presidents, great people. And they’re gonna do things for the United States. There’s something very familiar about all this, sometimes I feel like we are filming a sequel to the old movie with Michael Corleone. I´m very powerful.

    ME: What about Congress, are they on board? I heard some of them were muttering about the “emoluments clause”

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: Kid, I own Congress! Besides, they couldn’t match up the cash flows to any of my overseas accounts. That Adelman´s a genius.

    ME: So I hear you had a talk with the Mexican President.

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: I sure did. He bitched about having to pay for the Great Wall. I told him he had better watch it, his suicide will be nice and neat if he doesn´t get onsides, and I warned him that I´m ready to send U.S. troops to stop the bad hombres down there unless the Mexican military does more to control them.

    ME: I also hear you talked to the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull….

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: Hey kid, I had to straighten that turkey out. Turns out that wimp Obama agreed to let a bunch of Pakis he´s keeping in one of his camps into the USA, and the guy insists I got to honor the deal. That guy´s a complete butthead. A loser with a capital “L”. He got riled up when I told him “what are you deaf and stupid? I said NO! You’re supposed to be my ally, you little son of a bitch! Do you know how much perfectly good dough I blow on that no-good country of yours, huh?” So I told him to say hello to his mother for me, and hung up. We’re gonna bring jobs back to America, not a bunch of Muslims, like I promised on the campaign trail.

    ME: Mr. President, I want to start – it´s early in your first term. And your campaign promises. Let´s get back to Mexico. I know today you plan on signing the order to build the wall.


    ME: So, the American taxpayer will pay for the wall at first?

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: All it is, is we’ll be reimbursed at a later date. I´m gonna make them an offer they can´t refuse. That´s why we spend all that money on weapons and stuff. Now, I could wait a year and I could hold off the wall. But I wanna build the wall. We have to build the wall. We have to stop them people from just pouring into our country. We have no idea where they’re from. And I campaigned on the wall. That wall will cost us nothing.

    ME: But Mexico’s president said in recent days that Mexico absolutely will not pay, adding that, “It goes against our dignity as a country and our dignity as Mexicans.” He says….

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: Fernando, he has to say that. He has to say that. But I’m just telling you he´s gonna pay up if I have to send Kelly down to Mexico City to break his goddam legs. And you have to understand what I’m doing is good for the United States. It’s also going to be good for Mexico. If they don´t pay I´ll level them, they´ll be running away to Guatemala (mad laughter). After that the relationship will be better than ever before (more mad laughter)

    ME: Some Americans feel …

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: Buttheads… We’ll be having some really good TV shows to calm down the California crowd within a short period of time. Me with Melania visiting a wind farm and having dinner with Carlos Slim and his wife in Palm Beach.

    ME: I understand other nations´ leaders are a bit concerned over some of your plans. They heard you say you supported torture, killing jihadi´s relatives, and want to squeeze them for tons of cash. Should they be worried?

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: They shouldn’t be very worried. Unless they are Muslim. They shouldn’t be very worried. I do have a big heart. We’re going to take care of everybody, one way or the other. We’re going to have a very strong country. So it´s going to be my way or the highway. We’re gonna have a very solid relationship with all of them, white, brown, yellow, whatever. And I´m surrounded by great people that are here in this room. They have done a good job. We’ll be coming out with policy on the behavior we expect from other nation´s leaders over the next four weeks.

    ME: But Mr. President, will other nations´ leaders be allowed to have a say?

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: I will tell you, we’re looking at this, the whole diplomacy situation, we’re looking at it with great heart. Now we have ambassadors that are here. We have really bad people that are here. Those people have to be worried ’cause they’re getting out of Washington in body bags if they don´t straighten out. We’re gonna get them out. We’re gonna get ’em out fast. General Kelly is — I’ve given that as his number one priority.

    At that point Clint Eastwood walks into President Tannen´s office holding a large coffee mug.

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: Listen up, Eastwood! I aim to shoot somebody today and I’d prefer it’d be an Iranian. But if you can´t get me Pierre Morad Omidyar I guess it’ll just have to be your little Cambodian friend.

    EASTWOOD: [looks at the wall clock, then steps towards the President] It’s not noon yet!

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: It is by my watch! Let’s settle this once and for all! Or ain’t you got the gumption? Is the Iranian in the basement?

    At that point I started to get really worried for my own skin. I looked at my watch as I wondered how to make a quick getaway without getting caught by the Secret Service.

    PRESIDENT TANNEN (staring at me): What are you looking at, butthead?

    ME: Mr President, I´ve taken a lot of your valuable time, I see you´re very busy, so I was wondering if I shouldn´t conclude our interview?

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: Now, Fernando, don’t con me. Are you with me or against me?

    Me: [stammering] I’m sorry, Mr. President. I-I meant I was just thinking I ought to leave.

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: Fine, fine. Just kidding. Don´t piss on the carpet.

    PRESIDENT TANNEN: [to Steve Bannon, this closest advisor ] I’m gonna get that son of a bitch Netanyahu. I can´t believe he´s trying to push the Pentagon to bomb Iran before I say so.

    PRESIDENT TANNEN (to Vice President Penco): What are you lookin’ at, butthead?

    PRESIDENT TANNEN (to me): Say hi to your mom for me. Hasta la bye bye!

  80. Oldfarmermac says:

    Maybe we need to study the behavior of chimps in order to understand what needs to be done dealing with certain troublesome politicians.

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      Well, the Mango Orangutan is certainly (I think he was hoping for a ISIS ‘victory” to do a little chest thumping) in need of some basic military literacy.
      Things went terribly wrong:

      U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

      As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists.

      The Washington Post explains the mission’s purpose:

      The goal of the operation was to detain Yemeni tribal leaders allegedly collaborating with al-Qaeda in Yemen and to gather intelligence about the group. Instead, a massive firefight ensued that brought in U.S. aircraft to strike the fighters and rescue the military team.

      One of the aircraft, an MV-22 Osprey from a U.S. naval ship offshore, lost power and hit the ground hard enough to disable it and wound two service members. The $70 million aircraft was then intentionally destroyed by a U.S. bomb to ensure that it did not fall into militant hands.

  81. Javier says:

    UK Rations Vegetables as Cold European Weather Devastates Crops
    Iceberg lettuces and broccoli rationed as vegetable crisis hits supermarkets

    BBC weather forecaster Nick Miller said the weather was extreme for the time of year where the vegetables were grown.
    “We had snow covering the Greek Islands, we had snow in Italy and we saw that pushing into Spain,” he said.
    The Spanish association of fruit and vegetable producers, FEPEX, said it expected the shortage of leafy vegetables grown outdoors, including lettuce and spinach, to continue until early April.

    Irish consumers set for six weeks of vegetable shortages after freezing temperatures in Europe

    Consumers can now expect shortages of iceberg lettuce, baby spinach, mixed leaves, rocket, lollo rossa, cauliflower, broccoli, peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes, aubergines, courgettes, lemons, and oranges.
    And even shoppers who manage to find their favourite produce on supermarket shelves look set to be affected, as prices increase as a result of the shortfall.
    During the winter months, the majority of vegetables supplied to northern Europe are grown in Spain and Italy, but in recent weeks crops in both regions have been hit frost, snow, and flooding as a result of cold weather.
    Jackie added: “The weather situation all over Europe at the moment is absolutely diabolical.
    “They’ve had snow in the south of Spain as far as Murcia; in Italy, they’ve had snow as far down as Sicily.
    “Plants there aren’t suited to that kind of climate, so if you get snow and freezing temperatures like they have been, it kills them.”

    Severe Vegetable Shortage Deprives Europeans of Spinach, Broccoli

    European consumers have been plunged into crisis by a vegetable shortage caused by severe weather.
    Shops across Europe – and particularly in the UK – have seen the shelves stripped of green produce like lettuce, broccoli and spinach.
    Courgettes (zucchinis, if you’re American), aubergines (eggplant) and peppers have also been badly affected.
    The problems stem from a blast of cold weather which has overtaken large parts of southern Europe.

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      Probably just a Sun Cycle.
      Normal stuff. No worries.
      Watt is my head doing up my ass? Has confirmed it is totally normal, if fact they had a vegetable surplus.
      It is the Vegetable Alarmist that have created this illusion.

      • Javier says:

        Risks to food production from temperature changes are severely skewed towards cold changes.

        • Fred Magyar says:


        • Oldfarmermac says:

          “Risks to food production from temperature changes are severely skewed towards cold changes.”

          This might be true in the abstract. But it’s irrelevant to real world problems compared to the risks associated with HIGH temperature changes.

          In the real world, hot dry weather is a many times larger problem, for established working farmers, and for their CUSTOMERS, than unseasonably cold weather.

          Temperatures WAY below normal during the growing season in moderate latitudes can and do damage crops in the field, and even destroy them, particularly if it drops down to freezing or below.

          In the ordinary course of affairs, late frost means we may have to replant field crops, and early frosts mean we may lose a little production at the tail end of the season. We’re used to dealing with this problem, and adapted our practices to cope with it as far back as we have sure knowledge by way of written records.

          There ARE plenty of documented instances of major crop losses due to unseasonable cold weather of course. I’ve lost my own crops in part many times, and I’ve been wiped out three different times, but that’s the nature of the orchard business. On average, you make it up by way of getting high prices years when you have a good crop locally and the guys in other places come up losers in the weather crap game.

          The same years frost kicked my ass in the orchard, my neighbors growing field crops did just fine, although some of them did have to replant some of their earliest stuff.

          It’s a gamble most growers of vegetables take year after year, planting some acreage early , hoping that their luck will hold weather wise, and that they will be early to market and get a price premium for the first week or two of their harvest.

          I should also mention that when orchardists do have cold weather problems, they are typically the result of UNSEASONABLY WARM weather during the late winter, which causes fruit and nut trees to wake up from their winter sleep TOO SOON, with the result being that a hard frost that falls on or about the usual last frost calendar date takes out the delicate bloom, and THAT’S what means you work that year for nothing.

          Speaking as a hands on orchardist, I can say that orchardists COLD WEATHER problems are arguably positively correlated with warming climates. I haven’t yet looked for documentation, but most growers seem to be convinced that frost is a bigger problem now than it was back when they were young guys.

          The bottom line is that unusually hot weather is VERY often also dryer than usual weather, and this cuts into production many times deeper than unusually cold weather. Anybody that doubts it can ask any working farmer.

          Not much food is grown at high latitudes, except grain, and grain varieties adapted to northern climes generally stand cold very well, and usually produce well even if the spring weather is unseasonably cold, because most of the actual growing occurs during the VERY long days during the late spring, summer, and early autumn. (Spring,summer and autumn in farming lingo mean frost free working and growing weather rather than arbitrary dates on the calendar.)

          So a late spring doesn’t normally cut into far northern production to any real extent, the way it can in the mid latitudes when we’re forced to delay planting due to the weather being too wet or cold. It’s usually soil too wet to work that’s the problem, and cold humid weather really slows down the evaporation of excess moisture left over from earlier rains. Farmers in the mid latitudes need those normal warm and sunny spring days, because our high summer days are not so long as summer days way up north, and hot dry weather quite often puts a hurting on us especially thru the usual hot months. REALLY hot days , in respect to local norms, way up north, just mean the crop grows EVEN better than usual.

          Furthermore , a lot of farmers are already working at the upper end of the temperature range that suits the crops they grow, WHERE they grow them.

          It’s NO ACCIDENT that farmers in the deep American south don’t grow a lot of corn,compared to midwestern farmers, because it grows better and produces better for farmers located farther north.

          I’m located close to the southern end of the temperature range at which apples do well. Growers farther south are invariably located at higher elevations. Cabbage will grow quite well on my place, but it won’t grow worth a hoot twenty miles south and eight hundred feet lower down. It grows even better a few miles north and a few hundred feet higher up than it grows for my nearby neighbors.

          It’s one thing to talk about adapting to changing climate in the abstract. Actually doing it in the real world is going to be one hell of a problem.

          Canada might have to build a wall to keep out migrating American farmers. 😉

          Those who follow the agricultural news know that unseasonable cold weather does occasionally cause some real problems in subtropical and even tropical climes, especially at higher elevations, but for every headline about frost in Florida, or Central America, there are a dozen headlines about unseasonably hot and DRY weather being a problem in the same places. Dry follows along with hot the way a dog on a leash follows it’s owner.The dog may get off the leash, once in a while, but not often.

          BOTTOM LINE:

          The climate science consensus is that we are at several times higher risk of having to deal with hotter weather than we are of having to deal with colder weather.

          Javier believes we should just ignore the precautionary principle in respect to climate problems.

          • Duncan Idaho says:

            Searing heat years too soon for salad growers

            The third heatwave in two months has hit salad growers in Queensland’s south hard, with many farmers battling to harvest 30 per cent of their crop.

            Farmer Clem Hodgman said he has been losing about 50,000 lettuces and 25,000 cauliflowers a week at his property near Toowoomba.

            “The temperatures are so high, crops are burning off in the fields.”

            He said while prices were rising in supermarkets, farmers would not reap the benefit as energy and water costs rose accordingly.

            “We don’t want another summer like this for many, many years,” he said.

            But Rachel Mackenzie from farm lobby group Growcom said the heat could be the new norm.

            She said an industry study into heat impacts on the salad industry did not predict such high temperatures for another 13 years.

            “We were looking at 2030 in terms of when some of these thresholds would be reached,” she said.

            “This could be our new reality. We’ve had three years in a row where we’ve had significant heat, and we need to start saying what can we do to make sure we have the right [ways] to deal with this.”

        • Duncan Idaho says:

          In a paper by Judith Curry Vegetable Exports from Europe to Salinas California reach Record Levels (National Inquirer February 1917) proves cold weather increases vegetable production.

          And the data goes back 10,000 years.

          It is obvious this is related to the number of Pirates:

  82. clueless says:

    I wonder if this is damaging the oceans [heat] as much as the Horizon. For scale, look at the boat.

  83. Duncan Idaho says:

    Minister Of Truth weighs in:

    Sean Spicer is on the job, McClatchy reports:

    This was a very, very well thought out and executed effort,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said. He called it “a successful operation by all standards.”

    “War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.”

    CENTCOM removes al-Qaeda video from DoD website after evidence surfaces video is 10 years old. SEALs recovered video during Yemen raid.

  84. Oldfarmermac says:

    The main part of the story speaks for itself.

    This excerpt is worth a lot of serious thought.

    “In the end, the Trump administration probably has little incentive to prevent misstatements––especially those that are useful for justifying their preferred policies. The American public has very little trust in the institution of the media, and Republicans have even less faith than Democrats do. A Gallup poll from 2016 found a record low in public confidence in mass media’s ability to “report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.” Fifty-one percent of Democrats reported a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media, but only 14 percent of Republicans said the same.”

    It’s somewhat understandable that R types have very little trust in the media, because by and large the media take sides with the D’s in respect to the culture war, and also in respect to environmental issues.

    Culture is all about opinions, because there aren’t any objective measures.One man’s greatest shame is another man’s proudest accomplishment.We can agree if it suits us, and we fight when it doesn’t. The environmental question is of a different kind, there are objective facts, and there are objective truths, and the D’s and liberal faction are holding the high ground, with the R and conservative faction bogged down in the swamp of ignorance and error in this case.

    So understanding R and conservative distrust of the media is as I said already, easily understandable.

    But when HALF of the D and liberal faction have less than a good opinion of the media, well, that’s a very solid indication, as I see it , that there is something grossly WRONG with our media establishment.

    I’m hoping that some of the regulars will chip in with their own particular ideas as to why we D’s and liberals collectively have such a low opinion of the media.

  85. George Kaplan says:

    The PIOMAS Arctic ice daily volume data is out for January and it’s not looking too good. The chart shows running average annual PIOMAS volume. The two highlighted sections at the end show December and January. The value dropped to a new record low in mid January and it doesn’t look like there is anything to stop it keep declining. Daily values have been setting record lows for a couple of months now. Absolute and relative decline rates are not as high as they were for a short time in summer 2010 but the high decline period now has been longer than anything recent.

    From reading some of the other relevant blogs and scientific sites there appear to be new mechanisms to inhibit growth or accelerate ice loss as the ice gets thinner and the sea water stays warm in winter – e.g. increased transport of broken ice through Fram and Nares Straits, more frequent and more damaging storms throughout the year (which break up ice, raise atmospheric temperatures and churn up warmer waters), warm and humid air transported into the arctic via a meandering jet stream, decreasing albedo which keep the peripheral seas warm, and others, less certain, to do with clouds, methane, localized aerosol concentrations etc.

    • George Kaplan says:

      This shows the daily volumes. There are lots of other sites with different and better representations and discussions, but the recent acceleration in what was previously a pretty steady decline can be seen here.

    • GoneFishing says:

      The ice volume has been below the linear trend line (on average) since 2006. Appears to be going non-linear. Looks close to -3.5 X10E3 km3 per decade now for Sept minima. With only three thousand km3 to go to meet ice free conditions, stay tuned.
      Even our uncontrolled geo-engineering has failed to stop this process.

    • wehappyfew says:

      Thickness map for end of January below… most of the thickest ice is about to exit via the Fram strait.

      Short-term trends shouldn’t be extrapolated. They rarely have any predictive power.

      The long term exponential trend looks pretty solid, although I might prefer a Gompertz curve over the exponential. It will take extraordinary weather to prevent record lows in extent, area and volume this summer. The worst effect will be the reduced albedo in late spring and early summer when the sun is shining 24/7.

      Fortunately, we have above average snow cover on land that will offset this somewhat, depending on how resistant the snow is to early melting.

      • George Kaplan says:

        A Gombertz fit doesn’t come out much different than the simple quadratic shown. There is no signal in the existing data that would get the curve to turn over into an S shape before hitting zero, it just gives an ever increasing decline.

    • Javier says:

      And yet the Danish Meteorological Institute shows Arctic sea ice extent about the same as every previous year.

      What will they know about ice, those Danes?

      • Duncan Idaho says:

        They know the data from one point in Northern Iceland.
        However, the Arctic is larger than that.

      • notanoilman says:

        The comment you refer to is about volume not extent thus your comment is irrelevant.


  86. Oldfarmermac says:

    Here’s an example of a basic reason why so many people, including half of the Democrats in the country have such a low opinion of the media. is biased in favor of the status quo Clinton camp. A pro Sanders site would headline the same
    piece of news something along this line , Sanders continues fight to reform Democratic Party.

    Sanders supporters need read only a couple of headlines to decide thehill is no friend of theirs.

    It’s pretty low life for a D insider to continue to refer to Sanders as an outsider,although this is technically true, and pretty fucking STUPID as well,given that he whipped Clinton’s ass in so many communities without a REAL organization or big money donors, while talking about unifying the party, because the younger, better educated,more independent minded D voters went for Sanders by a mile, and the D Party has to get them back. Insulting Sanders, and by extension these voters, is DUMB,STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. The Sanders camp is the FUTURE of the D party, that’s where the kids are.

    The REAL question is whether the party will return to it’s roots or whether it will stay the recent course which is imo best described as Republican Lite.

    The struggle between the Clinton camp, the recent times BAU D party camp, which managed to lose at every level over the last decade, federal, state and local, will determine the future of the D party and the country.

    The R party is riding high at the moment, but it’s at high risk of collapse, due more to demographic trends than for any other reason, and the future belongs to the D’s , if they have sense enough to seize the opportunity to offer the country something DIFFERENT in terms of economic policy.

    Here’s the basic fact, as hammered on by the smartest D of my time, Bill C. It’s the economy, STUPID.

    As James Carville put it recently, EVERYBODY lives in the economy. He didn’t say so specifically, in so many words, but this means blacks, browns, yellows , even oranges like Trump. It means people on welfare and people with successful businesses of their own, and retirees. Teachers, cops, auto workers, farmers, carpenters, house cleaners, nurses, truckers, gays , lesbians, cross dressers, child molesters, rapists, robbers, rubber stamper bureaucrats, we all live in the economy.

    Clinton failed to recognize this basic truth. Trump capitalized on that failure, and won.

    Are these observations facts, or merely my own personal opinions?

    The reader can decide for himself, but I try to avoid the mistake of presenting my opinions as god given facts, and acknowledge that what I write is my interpretation of the facts as I understand them.

    It’s HARD to find any coverage of the news that isn’t slanted in one direction or the other.

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      I think you analysis is right on OFM.
      Of course I’m biased because I do agree with you.
      But we can’t go totally postmodern– reality does matter.

  87. Oldfarmermac says:

    This could be a real game changer, and it could change the game within the next four or five years, maybe even sooner.

    Maybe. It’s easy to see that this process could disrupt the printer and printer ink markets, but not so easy to see how the used paper can be saved, stored, and reused without a lot of hassles.

    • Oldfarmermac says:

      HEY, I ‘m a dumb white guy, and I might STILL get rich. 😉

      Seriously, if we get rid of the dumb rich white guys, yellow and brown varieties will rush in to fill the void.

      We need to be thinking about ways to just get rid of rich guys altogether, past some particular cut off point.

      There are various laws on the books right now that work at least moderately well in this respect, but they work too slowly. Such laws force the break up of excessively large fortunes when the owners die, and ownership passes to the heirs. Twenty, thirty or forty years is too long for a couple of people like the Koch brothers to exercise so much power as individuals.

      The problem is that there are ways around such laws, via the establishment of captive family foundations, etc, which can be used to further the interests of the owning family, but not so efficiently as the family having immediate hands on direct control of the money.

      If the Trumpsters get their way, these laws will be repealed outright, or at least modified to the point they are nearly toothless.

      Large fortunes are not NECESSARILY bad things, assuming they are only SO LARGE, and dispersed rather than concentrated in key industries. Sometimes the only source of money in sufficient quantity to really work on a given problem is a rich guy or woman willing to spend it on a good cause.

      I wish I could get close enough to a super rich guy with his heart in the right place to convince him to set up a factory to produce generic birth control pills and give them away to any woman anywhere who would like to have them. And if I could get him to go even farther, any impoverished woman in any really poor country would get a small loan every year she DOES NOT have a child, due to taking the free pill, the loan to be used to educate herself, or existing children, or to buy the means to start a cottage scale business, such as repairing and or making new clothing. All that’s REALLY necessary to do this is a sewing machine, some scissors, thread, and fabric. Of course a couple of solar panels and a battery sufficient to run a good work light after dark, when it’s cooler, and the outside work is done, would be a BIG help.

  88. Fred Magyar says:
    Climate Change Solutions : What you thought you knew is obsolete. Joe Romm

    • GoneFishing says:

      I have always respected Joe Romm, he has been at the forefront of climate science and it’s environmental effects for a long time. He has not been afraid to speak his mind even in front of Congress.
      Excellent presentation, thanks for bringing this forward.
      I have a few questions for Joe on this presentation, which I will direct toward him.

      Reading between the lines on this presentation, I think he feels there is a tremendous urgency to shift to renewable energy and end fossil fuel burning quickly. It would be nice if that would happen, but there are forces aligned against that in the US and some other places.

      Increasing the efficiency of transportation is not enough. If we moved a billion cars from 25 mpg to 40 mpg average by say 2047 we would be saving only 3.3 billion barrels of gasoline a year. Moving to EV’s would save close to all of the gasoline use which is about 8 billion barrels a year.
      Considering that we might have twice the number of cars (vehicles) by then, efficiency is not the answer. A complete change of paradigm is needed to reduce climate change rate, reduce pollution and most importantly, address the diminishing petroleum problem.

      As far as the low cost of solar electric power, with the new low cost for large commercial systems at 1 dollar a watt installed, it looks possible on a 15 year to 18 year payback term. So the companies are stretching the payback to become very competitive. If they have subsidies, the payback is shortened. So coal and natural gas do not stand a chance in the long run, which is good because of the depletion problem and all the other problems associated with them.
      Heating and cooling in many places will be displaced by heat pumps and efficient buildings. Natural gas for heating will fade away. Power plant coal electric will fade even faster. Just from an economic view.
      The game is afoot and change is happening.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        The game is afoot and change is happening.

        Which to me at least, makes the fact, that the entrenched fossil fuel interests are putting up a massive push back against any change in the current paradigm, completely unsurprising!

        They are going to fight back, with every means at their disposal, like the rabid cornered rats that they are.

        There is absolutely no doubt that in the long run they will lose. The question is, will they take all of us down with them?!

        The more I see Trump in action, the more I’m convinced there is nobody home upstairs, someone else is pulling the strings and he is nothing but an orange haired marionette. What we hear Trump saying, is really the projection of an accomplished ventriloquist who is hiding out of sight behind the curtain.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Don’t worry about the rise of EV’s. Oil will reach depletion stage within the next 10 years, maybe sooner and efficiency gains can only go so far. That is when EV sales will rise quickly. Until then, the companies can keep pushing and developing the technology.
          Or a new battery type with 2 to 5 times the charge density and ICE’s would not stand a chance after that. Would be more a problem of charge points and service than a range problem. ICE’s will be around for another decade or two but will mostly be hybrids after a while, meaning the price of fuel will stay low.
          The company that produces the high charge density batteries will make huge amounts of money, the market is gigantic and growing.

          As far as lithium goes The lithium raw material in a Li-ion battery is only a fraction of one cent per watt, or less than 1 percent of the battery cost. A $10,000 battery for a plug-in hybrid contains less than $100 worth of lithium. Shortages when producing millions of large batteries for vehicles and stationary applications could increase the price, but for now this is not the case.

          • Oldfarmermac says:

            I’m with GF one hundred percent in this case. The lithium question will eventually be more or less forgotten, just as the copper supply question has been more or less forgotten.

            The price of copper went up a few multiples, and we adjusted successfully to the new price, and now we mine copper ores that at one time were considered absolutely WORTHLESS.

            The price of lithium can go up ten or even twenty times, and still not be much of a problem, considering the advantages associated with having powerful, durable batteries suitable for mobile power supply. Twenty times the price right now would hurt, but over the next two or three years, the economies of scale will push the price of batteries down by that much, offsetting the price increase.

            At ten to twenty times the current price, there will be PLENTY of lithium.

            It’s hard to find much about the recycling of lithium batteries, but for now it looks as if it’s not economical to recover the lithium for reuse in new batteries, because ( so far as I can see from my limited reading) it’s hard to nearly impossible to purify the lithium to the extent needed to make a new long life, high capacity battery.

            But the odds of that problem going away are probably good to excellent.Once the price of lithium jumps by an order of magnitude…….. purifying it properly may well be a piece of cake.

            This is the sort of research that is not going to be publicized, if the people doing it can prevent it, because they are want to get it perfected to the extent possible and get to the patent office ahead of other people with the same idea in mind.

            I have read articles recently that say we can’t build solar farms on the grand scale, because we won’t have enough copper.

            But the amount of copper that is needed IN a solar cell is so little as to hardly matter, and it’s NO BIG DEAL to use aluminum as electrical cables, so long as you do it right. Aluminum works FINE so long as you use correctly UP sized wire, and the right sort of connectors, and apply the proper anti oxidation compound at connections during assembly.

            The necessary technology is entirely off the shelf, FULLY commercialized already, when it comes to switching from copper to aluminum as the mainstay conductor for the electricity industry.

        • Oldfarmermac says:

          Hi Fred,

          I am totally surprised , and dismayed, considering that you GET IT as a student of biology, and understand that the rabies virus and rats are only doing their thing, trying to live ( or sort of maybe , live, zombie fashion, in the case of the virus) and reproduce and hold on to their niche in the biosphere.

          Why don’t you stop and think a minute, before you go dragging the good names of rabies and rats thru the mud this way?

          Methinks you ought to post an apology to any rabid rats who might by some means hear you have mentioned them them in the same breath as the owners of the fossil fuel industries, and by implication, Trumpsters.

          I suppose no apology to the rabies virus is necessary, given that there is no consensus concerning whether viruses are living organisms.

          MY sarcasm light is ON, for the benefit of HB.

  89. R Walter says:

    The White House is surrounded by ten-foot high chain link fence and is guarded 24 7 right now.

    Trump is a prisoner at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    The Trump hotel in Washington is circled by police vehicles.

    The only President in Washington D.C. that can be visited up close without having to be screened is Abraham Lincoln.

    • GoneFishing says:

      You mean they think he is important?

      • Oldfarmermac says:

        I think it means that if somebody whacks his ass , the cops and secret service guys are scared they will be among the particular ones blamed for allowing it to happen, and thus triply vigilant these days about looking after the old paycheck and pension money.

        Secret Service people and cops with rank are generally rather well educated and I doubt very many of them are actually FOND of Trump, to put it mildly. It’s almost impossible to imagine ANYBODY with a working understanding of our country and the world approving of Trump based on his policy positions so far, except if they expect to benefit PERSONALLY as the result of those policies being implemented.

        Unfortunately there are a LOT of congress critters and business men who stand to benefit enormously , at least in the short term, if Trump succeeds in implementing his policies.

        But in the longer term, it’s my firm belief that the D’s are going to mop the floor with the R’s for the same reason the R’s mopped the floor with the D’s in congressional elections over the last decade or so. The D’s overreached, and set themselves up for it, by biting off more than they could chew, politically, and choked on it in following elections.

        The R’s are doing the SAME thing right now , in principle. And they are doing it to at least an order of magnitude to a greater extent, maybe two orders of magnitude.

        Furthermore , when the D’s overreached, their mistakes were confined to the political and cultural and economic fronts in the ongoing WAR for control of our country.

        The R’s are mostly smart enough to avoid crossing the line into outright and obvious criminal activities, but Trump is not. He’s arrogant enough to think he can do as he pleases, and his arrogance will be his downfall, almost for dead sure.

        HRC’s arrogance was THE key to her downfall. If she hadn’t had such a high and mighty opinion of herself, and such a low opinion of the people who are the REAL core of the D party, she would have spent a few days campaigning in the Rust Belt, and a few days less collecting millions in speaking fees in the lairs of the banksters, and she would have carried the three states that put Trump in the White HOUSE. She gave working people the figurative middle finger, and they gave it right back, and Trump is the result.

        As the old Greek expressed it, paraphrased , those whom the Gods would destroy, first they raise high.

        Let’s hope the Gods get around to destroying Trump asap. Right now, he’s only the president. If he gets his way, later on he will change the title of the office to something far more grandiose, such as Supreme Commander.

  90. wehappyfew says:

    I think Wipneus’s visualizations are the best way to track the changes in volume. Particularly important are the much steeper decline rates for June and July, and the slightly steeper decline rate for May… compared to the other months.

    This emphasizes the impact of albedo loss due to thinner and less extensive ice in the summer months. Record low extent and volume in September have little effect on the albedo feedback.

  91. HuntingtonBeach says:

    Beached Whale Found With 30 Plastic Bags Crammed In Its Belly

    A rare goose-beaked whale that repeatedly beached on a Norwegian shore was so ill that it had to be euthanized — and experts soon found out why. The 2-ton animal had about 30 plastic bags and other garbage packed in its stomach.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Lislevand said he believes the animal was in serious pain for a long time.

      Whales are highly intelligent, sentient social animals…

  92. Longtimber says:

    MSM coverage of Fukushima?
    “The new radiation level, described by some experts as “unimaginable,” far exceeds 73 sieverts per hour, the previously highest radiation reading monitored in the interior of the reactor.”

    Meanwhile … Brits building THE most expensive man-made object on the planet, expensive now, just wait till they have to switch it off or evacuate areas. One analyst at Liberium Capital described the strike price as ‘economically insane’

  93. Oldfarmermac says:

    I believe every regular ( meaning all the people who post comments on a regular basis) in this forum agrees that Trump is about as bad as bad can get. We knew w all along he that he’s bad news , but hardly anybody seems to have expected him to go rogue in as many ways as he has, or so fast.

    This article in the New Yorker is telling it like it is.

    “Donald Trump is hardly the first President to lie to the American people. Nor is he the first to place ideology before data. But this White House, unlike any other, has already crossed the threshold into a space where facts appear to mean nothing.”

    That’s just the FIRST first sentence.

    Most of the of the R congress critters are working hard to prove they are stupid enough to go along with Trump’s insane policies, but there is at least a slim hope that some of them will find backbone enough to stand with the D’s to put a stop to some of the worst of Trump’s idiotic policies.

    For now, the thing I am most grateful for is that we do have a robust court system, and that although judges may as individuals be inclined to come down on either the leftish or rightish side of any given issue, taken as a whole, judges have customarily shown that they are damned near one hundred percent united when it comes to maintaining and preserving the position of the court system as the arbiter of what’s ok, and what’s not, in terms of the law, at any level , especially the constitutional level.

    So I’m hoping and expecting that Trump will be getting his ass kicked, and kicked hard, in various federal courts before very long.

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      Oh get over Trump would you Big MacR. He is only doing what he said he was going to do. It’s not like he is running his own personal EmailMail server or something. You knew exactly what he was by his twitter account. Don’t act surprised now.

      It was your friends who voted for him, I know mine didn’t.

  94. Javier says:

    Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

    The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

    A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

    The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected.

    But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

    It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

    His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

    In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

    Data published by NOAA, the world’s top climate data agency, claimed global warming was worse than previously thought. The information was published to coincide with the Paris climate change conference in 2015, where world leaders agreed that…

    $100bn be given every year in extra ‘climate-related’ aid to the developing world by rich nations

    2 degrees C be set as the limit for maximum temperature rise above pre-industrial times

    40% of CO2 emissions would be cut across the EU by 2030

    £320bn… what the UK’s pledges will cost our economy by 2030

    NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.

    Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

    The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

    The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.

    A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.

    Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

    Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.

    The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.

    The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.

    Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’

    ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’

    Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

    The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

    NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

    Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.NOAA declined to comment.

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      Come now my reality challenged friend, data and observation are Satan!
      There was no pause

      Recurring post: Heard scientists push the needle to make warming increase? Results are opposite: we reduce warming seen in raw data.

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      “Gold Medal award for the U.S. Department of Commerce”

      Well, we know where Bates revenue stream is coming from.

      Bob (er Javier), do you have a moral compass?

    • Fred Magyar says:

      This needs an updated No Bullshit sign to a NO STEAMING HOT BULLSHIT!, The Daily Co is not now nor has it ever been a reputable source of scientific information, it is worse than your average supermarket tabloid rag! The ships releasing heat bullshit has already been thoroughly debunked! The Fossil fuel lobby and Xavier must be getting really desperate!

    • islandboy says:

      Another fun, “fact filled” post, brought to you with the kind support of the happy billionaires!

      It is very important for us to acknowledge their “support for the science”.

    • Nathanael says:

      Ron, Dennis, GET RID OF THIS GUY. He’s ruining the discussions by shitting all over them with these reprinted lies.

    • Javier says:

      How much fun to see the reaction to a post that is simply a link and an extracted copy-paste from a newspaper article. They are even asking for my head for such outrageous behavior. The censorship is reaching levels that the Spanish Inquisition could only dream. How does he dare to link to such article? This is intolerable. LOL

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Yeah, a ton of fun, so glad you are amused. But you are still a liar and a merchant of doubt! As are Bates and Rose. You all deserve to be thrown in jail for slander! You are manufacturers of fake news and alternative facts. Hopefully one day you will be get your just deserts! You and your ilk are scumbags of the lowest sort. But more and more people are on to you and sooner or later your lies will catch up to you!

        The scientific community is outraged, and response has been swift. Zeke Hausfather, climate scientist and energy systems analyst at Berkeley Earth, who worked on providing independent verification of the data Rose attacks, writes at CarbonBrief:

        What [Rose] fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.

        … Rose’s claim that NOAA’s results “can never be verified” is patently incorrect, as we just published a paper independently verifying the most important part of NOAA’s results.

        …Rose’s article presents a deeply misleading graph where he shows an arbitrary offset between NOAA’s data and the Hadley land/ocean dataset. This is an artifact of the use of different baselines…This comparison ends up being spurious, because each record uses a different baseline period to define their temperature anomaly.
        Peter Thorne, climate scientist for the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, writes:

        I have been involved in and am a co-author upon all relevant underlying papers to Karl et al., 2015.

        The ‘whistle blower’ is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work… John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.
        Victor Venema, climate scientist who studies climate variability for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), writes today:

        The [global warming] “pause” is based on bad statistics and cherry-picking a specific period, which is bad “science”. With good statistics, there is no evidence of any trend change.

        Rose gets some suggestive quotes from an apparently disgruntled retired NOAA employee. The quotes themselves seem to be likely inconsequential procedural complaints, the corresponding insinuations seem to come from Rose.

        I thought journalism had a rule that claims by a source need to be confirmed by at least a second source. I am missing any confirmation.

        … It sounds as if he made a set of procedures for his climate satellite data, which he really liked, and wanted other groups in NOAA to use it as well. Was frustrated when others did not prioritize enough updating their existing procedures to his.
        Each of the above scientists then proceeds to patiently and factually rebut Rose’s and Bates’ claims, point by point, graph by graph. I encourage you to check out the links to see what the debate is about.

        But there seems little point in the general public debating the scientific details. And it’s probably not the priority. Scientists were also refuting Bates’ claims in detail on climate change contrarian Judith Curry’s blog, where Bates personally posted his arguments. But commenter “cerescokid” broke through in frustration and summarized the dark magnitude of the situation perfectly… and ominously:

        Forget Rose… The story is not about what Rose may or may not have said right or wrong. And it is not about the particulars of what Bates said properly or not.

        The public can’t understand the details. And they don’t want to get into the weeds.

        The story and the 2nd and 3rd derivative of the story is that a whistleblower, from the inside and not just any whistleblower but one fro the epicenter of the climate establishment. This has more significance, not scientifically, but public perception wise than anything that Judith or Pielke or Lindzencan say. Bates is from the government.

        This is going to be a seminal moment because of the headline value. Every skeptic, politician or otherwise, will get their 15 minutes of fame, again not because of the actual issues surrounding what Bates has said but rather who has come out from the shadows. The original story will get lost. The future stories will be the great divergence between what the climate establishment really knows versus what they they think they know. And that is Judith’s uncertainty monster.

        Anyone who thinks this is about Rose or about the specifics of Bates statements doesn’t understand the dynamics that will overtake what is being discussed here. Talk about chaos theory.
        I agree, this is a seminal moment. How appropriate it comes to us via the Daily Mail, which pull-no-punches RationalWiki describes as “a reactionary, neo-fascist tabloid rag masquerading as “traditional values.”

        David Rose has a long history of writing discredited articles for the Daily Mail for years attacking climate scientists. The UK National Weather Service has been forced to repeatedly debunk his claims. Columbia Journalism Review describes Rose’s work as “outrageous” “pseudoscience.” Rose is so known for this garbage that Discover Magazine dubbed an award for bad science reporting the “David Rose Award, thanks to his “flawed and distorted climate reporting.” In 2013, Media Matters named the Daily Mail “Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year,” noting that its claims had been repeated by U.S. Congressmen and dozens of U.S. news outlets.

  95. Duncan Idaho says:

    Greenland Ice Sheet Melting 600 Percent Faster Than Predicted by Current Models

    (Of course, there is a very small section of Northern Iceland that has had normal Ice Cover– the rest of the Arctic is in collapse)
    Note: I’m sure Baghdad Bob will link to it:

  96. Survivalist says:

    Mexico has a federal election November 2018. It’ll be interesting to see how perceived Trump insults to the nation impact the campaign. Issues regarding national pride, poverty and corruption may contribute to a left wing populist victory.

    • Duncan Idaho says:

      Lopez Obrador probably won in his first election, but got the “Florida and Ohio” tricks applied to him.
      Unless there id fraud on a massive scale, he should win over the current soap opera star not running this mess.
      I’m currently living in Jalisco (PV) Mexico.

  97. Survivalist says:

    Record-busting heat in eastern Australia as climate warming goes extreme

  98. Survivalist says:

    Fossil fuel people want to “short” the clean energy side of things

    “If these groups can artificially depress the price of “Clean New Energy”, either by dropping the price of fossil fuel (i.e. increasing the volume of current sales) or by making it look like there is higher potentially accessible reserves (making the Clean Energy promoters feel like this is going to be a very long haul) – they can create an environment where they can buy low. Once they are all invested, the price of both “New Clean Energy” and “Old Dirty Energy” will rise rapidly causing all manner of suffering but these guys don’t care about any of that.”

  99. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    No Soil & Water Before 100% Renewable Energy

    “Many say we can have 100% renewable energy by 2050. This is factually incorrect.

    We can have 100% renewable electricity production by 2050.

    But electricity production is only 18% of total world energy demand.

    82% of total world energy demand is NOT electricity production.

    The other 82% of the world’s energy is used to extract minerals to make roads, cement, bricks, glass, steel and grow food so we can eat and sleep. Solar panels and wind turbines will not be making cement or steel anytime soon. Why? Do you really want to know? Here we go…

    Solar and wind power are an energy trap.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Solar panels and wind turbines will not be making cement or steel anytime soon.

      What a profoundly ignorant statement!

      Assuming that in the future we even want to continue making cement by converting limestone into lime, which is in and of itself a separate discussion, as there are other radically different avenues to pursue. (you can do your own google research on that one…but as usual, you never do any original thinking or research of your own. Now assuming we did want to make traditional cement there are ways we could potentially do that with say Solar Thermal Electrochemical Production.
      Solar thermal process produces cement with no carbon dioxide emissions

      The problem with ignorant luddites who do not understand basic science, physics, chemistry, biology, and systems thinking is that they are unable to connect the dots and think outside of the glass icosahedron, (as opposed to simple boxes which only have six regular polygons for sides), in which their miniscule unimaginative minds are trapped…

      As a consequence they are unaware that we can mimic natural processes of organisms such as coral.

      As for making steel using wind and solar, I’m not even going to bother to provide a single link. Making steel requires electricity… do your own research on whether or not solar and wind can produce electricity.

      Now whether or not humanity will survive and if it can or can not successfully transition to a 100% renewables based industrial civilization is a question that time will answer but that has nothing to do with the answer to question of whether or not it is physically and chemically possible to make cement or steel without emitting CO2 by using alternative energy and alternative processes.

      And there is nothing written in stone (or cement for that matter) that says we need to continue making our structures exclusively out of steel and concrete. Again, that is another discussion for another day.

      • GoneFishing says:

        “And there is nothing written in stone ”

        I got a blank response from a fundamentalist Christian when I brought up the fact that the history of the earth and the evolution of life is written in stone. :-).

      • Caelan MacIntyre says: