174 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, June 11, 2020”

  1. Focusing on the energy transition that is gathering steam, estimates are that the equivalent of 32 full size nuclear generating plants will come on-line by 2025, except that they will require no radioactive fuel, and they will have no moving parts.
    This is because they will be Photovoltaic Energy.
    [projected 113GW with CF of 25.1% average vs nuclear 32 GW with CF of 90% average estimate]

    “Longer term, it’s now projected that 113 GW will be installed between 2020 and 2025”- Wood McKenzie

      1. Funny.
        Let the world know when you’ve got a good method to use for factoring in social instability, and pandemics. You could get famous for it.

    2. Hickory,

      To be clear, if the CF is 25%, does that mean on average it is expected that and average annual output of 28.25 Gb is expected or have you taken nameplate capacity and divided by 4 already?

      1. This 25.1% CF is derived by actual average annual output of 548 sites. representing 97% of the utility scale PV facilities operating in the USA in 2017-
        Summary- https://emp.lbl.gov/pv-capacity-factors
        Full report- https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl-1004374.pdf

        “To calculate the capacity factor, take the total amount of energy the plant produced during a period of time and divide by the amount of energy the plant would have produced at 100% theoretical full capacity.”

        Capacity Factor tales into account time of operation and the relative shortfall of production relative to the theoretical maximum output for that generator.
        Solar nameplate on the earth surface gets multiplied by 50% for nightime, and a certain amount for clouds, shading, dust or snow, or imperfect orientation to the sun, (among other factors) for example. Also, PV gradually degrades, losing 10-15% output over 25 years typically. So based on that alone, the CF would decline by that percentage over the period.
        Nuclear nameplate capacity gets diminished by any time down for maintenance/inspection/fuel rod replacement/repair, for example. Nuclear CF (average of all operating plants) in the USA since yr 2000 has ranged from 86-93%.

        1. Hickory,

          The 113 GW estimate seems conservative, I would expect about 163 GW cumulative nameplate capacity to be installed over the 2020-2025 period and about 1048 GW from 2020 to 2035. So by 2035 we would have about 262 GW average annual solar output (assuming 25% capacity factor) and about 2295 TWh of annual solar output for my scenario. Note that capacity factors will increase as more utility scale solar will use tracking which may bump the average capacity factor up to 28%. That assumption bumps solar output up to 2571 TWh annual solar output in 2035.

          Note that in 2018 net utility scale generation of electricity in the US was about 4178 TWh with about 1372 TWh from nuclear, hydropower and wind power, from 2008 to 2018 the level bounced around from 3950 to 4178 TWh with an average annual increase for the linear trend of 0.1% per year annual growth in electricity production. So about 2806 TWh of solar would replace most of the other energy sources (besides wind, hydro, and nuclear) if 2018 levels of those sources were unchanged. The 2571 TWh scenario takes care of 92% of this by 2035. Such a large solar output would need power to natural gas or power to hydrogen production during the summer and other high output periods when output was more than demand, the “green fuel” produced could be burned during low output periods (night and winter). Natural gas would probably be simpler because the storage and transport infrastucture already exists, though hydrogen might be more efficient and less environmentally damaging.

          1. I don’t think you’d transport hydrogen for this application. I’d guess that the low cost option would be to have HVDC transmission to electrolysis plants sited next to good salt caverns for H2 storage. You’d also site the generation in the same location, in the form of gas turbines (less expensive than fuel cells).

            Synthetic CH4 (aka natural gas) would be easy to use in existing infrastructure, but it would be significantly more expensive, as it would require carbon capture for the C input in order to be carbon neutral.

            1. Nick

              The HVDC tranmission would need to be built. For the most part it does not exist at present. Natural gas infrastructure already exists.

            2. NG transmission was deregulated in the70’s. With the current North American cluster of laws would Interstate HVDC be FERC/Washington DC free? Texas may overtake all other states in RE deployment since there is no FREC to deal with since no AC power crosses the Texas state line.

          2. “The 113 GW estimate seems conservative, I would expect about 163 GW cumulative nameplate capacity to be installed over the 2020-2025”

            I hope so. Depends how quickly the economy recovers from Covid. So many state, city and corporate budgets are truly screwed. “As Many as 25,000 U.S. Stores May Close in 2020, Mostly in Malls”-Bloomberg.

            And secondly, it depends greatly upon the policy choices of the next administration.

            “So by 2035 we would have about 262 GW average annual solar output ”
            Output should be in TWh or GWh.

            The existing Nat Gas infrastructure will serve as the predominant grid stabilizer/backup for the next couple decades.

            1. Hickory,

              I agree, the coming recession/depression, might make the lower capacity increase more realistic, I did not account for that, but I did assume the rate of capacity increase slows each year, 28%, 26%, …, 12%, 10% and then holds at 10% per year. Wind power may also continue to grow, I did not model that separately. Any scenario will likely be incorrect, but the rate of increase in solar and wind output has been quite fast so far, cheaper costs may well accelerate the process, or at least slow the rate of decrease in growth to less than my scenario.
              Power output can be quoted as an average for the year, there are 8760 hours per year (for 365 day years). So 262 GW of average annual power output would be 8760*262/1000=2295.12 TWh.

              Yes Natural gas will serve as backup, but the amount of natural gas should be reduced as wind and solar output increase. At times there will be excess wind and solar output, that excess energy will eventually be utilized to produce either natural gas, hydrogen, or possibly ammonia which will be stored for times when wind and solar output cannot meet demand.

              At first natural gas would be the cheapest choice because existing natural gas pipelines, underground storage facilities, and natural gas power plants already exist. There may come a time when hydrogen might make more sense, but a lot of infrastructure would need to be built. I have not seen any cost benefit analyses of which path minimizes costs including the external costs of environmental damage.

            2. power output can be quoted as an average for the year

              Personally, I find that more intuitive. It’s easy to remember that the average power consumption for the US is about 450GW. So when someone says solar might have an average of 262GW, I can see immediately that it’s more than 50%.

              The same is true when thinking about other areas or countries: it’s easy to remember that Germany has an average in the area of 63GW. TWh’s, not so much.

              At first natural gas would be the cheapest choice

              You’re talking about synthetic CH4, right? Again, you’d have to get the carbon from somewhere, so that’s not necessarily the cheapest. I suspect hydrogen would be significantly cheaper, all told.

            3. Nick, you are confusing the size of the engine vs power it actually produces in a year.
              EIA- “In 2019, about 4,118 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States.”

              Refer to the chart- units in Billion KWh

            4. Well, divide 4,118 gigawatt-hours per year by 8,760 hours per year and you get 470 gigawatts, on average. Power x time = energy, and energy divided by time = power.

              So, we’re talking about the same thing in different terms.

            5. Nick,

              I am talking about systemwide. For Hydrogen, we need new power plants, new pipeline infrastructure, and new storage facilities. There is plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere, that would be the source of carbon fro creating synthetic methane. Yes if we ignore the infrastructure needed for a hydrogen system, it is cheaper, but I am considering the big picture, eventually the hydrogen infrastructure can be built and it would be cheaper once that has occurred, in the meantime we need to find a path from point a to point b.

            6. Well, yes, you’d probably need new generation: I’d guess that gas turbines designed for methane won’t be easily adapted for H2.

              But, I don’t think you’d need pipelines or storage. Instead, I’d guess that you’d convert NG storage caverns to H2, and use at least some of the transmission now used by NG generation.

              The most important difference is the carbon capture. This is very doable, but CO2 is indeed a “trace gas” in the atmosphere (seawater has a higher concentration, so it might actually be a better source). Carbon capture has a significant expense when using the flue gas of fossil fuel generation, and capture from the atmosphere is going to involve a lot of air handling.

              Overbuilding will create a substantial surplus of cheap power, and I’d guess that other costs will become as or more important than the energy costs: carbon capture is a big one.

              Now, transition is an interesting question: the above discussion is somewhat long-term. As we’ve seen in a recent study, we can get to a 90% low-carbon grid using existing NG as a filler.

            7. Dennis “Power output can be quoted as an average for the year, there are 8760 hours per year (for 365 day years). So 262 GW of average annual power output would be 8760*262/1000=2295.12 TWh.”

              Its important to get these things right, and I am trying to do so.
              As an example- If you have a 1 MW nameplate powerstation operating at 100% max output for 8760 hrs, you have 8760 MWh/yr.
              However no plant operates at 100% all yr, and that is where CF comes in.
              If the CF=25.1% (average utility scale USA PV), then the 8760 MWh theoretical gets reduced to 2198 MWh annual output.
              Solar arrays placed in less perfect conditions will have a lower CF. Mine is just over 20% for the first 2 yr period (38 degree north with clouds enough to get about 25 inches rain).

            8. Hickory,

              I took nameplate capacity and multiplies by either a 25% or 28% capacity factor to get average power output.

              Read my first comment. I had 1048 GW of nameplate PV cumulative capacity installed from 2020 to 2035 in my scenario.

              Then 1048*0.28=293 GW average annual power output from PV. Then 8760 hours per year times 293 GW=0.293 TW average power output for the year=2567 TWh. Here I have assumed 28% capacity factor due to greater use of tracking and a focus on high solar resource areas in the southern US and some parts of the Rocky mountains and Western US.

              The 25% capacity factor assumption would be
              1048*0.25/1000*8760=2295 TWh=262 GW average annual power output from PV.

              It can be done either way, in my home I use 600 kWh per month, for a 31 day month that is 744 hours so average power use per month is about 600/744=0.806 kW or 806 Watts of average power use. Roughly half of this is for charging the EV. About 20,000 miles per year.

            9. I really don’t follow your and Nicks reluctance to discuss electrical production in the standard terms (such as MWh).
              1KWh= 3.6MJoule

              Consider the same exact 1 MW nameplate PV array placed at Yuma AZ vs Seattle WA
              Yuma – 2,540 MWh/yr
              Seattle- 1,139 MWh/yr

              It is just false to portray 1 MW solar as equivalent to 1 MW hydro, or nuclear, or coal, etc.

              This is basic stuff guys. Here is a better source of explanation than I have been able to convey (apparently)-

              Energy Education 101-
              “Understanding energy capacity and capacity factor”
              Capacity is the maximum electric output a generator can produce under specific conditions. Each power plant or generating facility has a “nameplate capacity” which indicates the maximum output that generator can produce. For example, if XYZ Power Plant has a nameplate capacity of 500 megawatts, it means the plant is capable of producing 500 megawatts operating at continuous full power.

              Capacity Factor [CF] is the ratio between what a generation unit is capable of generating at maximum output versus the unit’s actual generation output over a period of time. These two variables can be significantly different.

              Many generators do not operate at their full capacity all the time. A generator’s output may vary based on maintenance issues, weather conditions such as wind and sun availability, fuel costs and/or as instructed by the electric power grid operator.
              http://www.nmppenergy.org/feature/capacity_factor

            10. Sure, we understand, really.

              Let’s take a simple example. If we have a 10kW residential system with a CF of 20%, we’ll get an average output of 2kW. That will generate 48kWhs in a day, and about 17.5 MWhs in a year.

              So, we can describe it as an average of 2kW, or 17,520kWhs in a year – it’s the same thing, but I find the 2kW average output intuitively easier to understand.

            11. Hickory,

              In every example I have given I have multiplied nameplate capacity by capacity factor. Note that capacity factor is not fixed, over time it has tended to increase as utility scale solar is mostly installed in areas with better solar resources and more facilities are using tracking which increases capacity factor.

              So an assumption that capacity factor will remain 25% is a poor one, it will tend to increase over time.

              In my examples I used 25% CF and 28% CF (which I assume will be the PV utility fleet average by 2035.)

              So 1000 MW nameplate would be 250 MW of annual average power output or 2190 GWh of annual output (250*8760/1000).

              Obviously if one puts a solar array in a cloudy place output will be lower, you gave a 25% capacity factor as a US average. My guess is there would be more utility scale solar in AZ than WA.

              In 2019 capacity factor for solar PV in the US was 24.5%, from 2013 to 2019 the annual CF has ranged from 24.5 to 25.6%, with no clear trend, so a 25% estimate is probably a best guess for now.

              https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b

            12. Note that capacity factor is not fixed (for) …utility scale solar

              And the same is true for wind power: CF is increasing over time.

      2. Gb above should have been GW (average annual power output). Multiply by 8.76 for TWh.

    3. they will require no radioactive fuel

      Yeah – the power comes from a fusion power plant: very low maintenance, and 93M miles away. Dropping 100,000 terawatts of high quality energy on Earth, 24×7. Human energy production is very roughly around 15 terawatts.

      1. “Human energy production” if Carbon-based = a % of available energy extracted …. from Mother Earth finite storage.

        1. Yeah.

          And Mother Earth’s finite storage of fossil fuel energy is mighty tiny – only about one month’s worth of Earth’s sunshine. It was an extremely inefficient conversion and storage process…

    4. Just to clarify, this is the estimation for the U.S. alone.

      World will be about 5x-10x (roughly) bigger based on current installations, but of course dependent on policy/economy.
      Last year total installed in the world came to nearly 600 GW.
      https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/04/06/world-now-has-583-5-gw-of-operational-pv/
      US total installed now around 81 GW.
      https://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight

      It’s interesting to compare with the pipeline of fission reactors:
      https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

      If one takes 1.2 GW as average size (“Over 100 power reactors with a total gross capacity of about 120,000 MWe are on order or planned,” from above link), and counts the new nukes per year, it turns out that PV is currently adding more power than fission.
      e.g. 2020 PV will be about 100 GWp, at 20% capacity factor (CF), 20 GW continuous.
      9 reactors in 2020 x 1.2 GW = 10.8 GW, at 90% CF, 9.7 GW continuous.

      The highest number of new nukes is 13 for 2021.
      13 * 1.2 GW = 15.6 GW, at 90% CF, 14 GW continuous, less than current PV install rates.

        1. I know a little something about nukes. I worked in half a dozen or so of them, as a tradesman.
          Instead of getting cheaper to build as more were built, they kept on getting to be more expensive, for a variety of reasons, the biggest being a lack of standardization of design, permitting issues, delays in construction, union labor troubles, and accidents leading to public opposition. Yes, I kept up with the politics as well as the actual work, and was at one point even thinking about having myself an ordinary CAREER in nukes, rather than just dabbling in one line of work after another. (I’m thinking I may be THE world champ, unrecognized of course, when it comes to being a jack ass of all trades, lol. )

          Wind and solar power, on the other hand, are getting cheaper every year, and the public by and large supports both industries.
          Wind and solar farms go up fast, there are seldom any major delays, no design issues, no in the middle of the job changes in the rules, no union strangle hold on the labor market, no risk of catastrophic accidents, no spent fuel storage issue,etc.

          There’s EVERY reason to believe that wind and solar power production will grow as fast as the economy can adapt to using intermittently produced electricity, which will involve building long distance transmission lines and storage capacity, etc.

          And there’s another issue involved that’s going to be lighting a fire under the wind and solar industries, world wide, within the next few years.
          That’s national security.

          When the next fossil fuel supply crisis hits, and it WILL, because depletion never sleeps, various governments are going to start taking more proactive steps to insulate themselves from economic blackmail, or outright collapse, when the tankers and colliers are on the bottom of the sea, or in port, under close guard to prevent sabotage.
          Power mad politicians don’t sleep much either, lol.

          Keeping hard earned foreign exchange HOME, to be used to purchase stuff that CAN’T be produced at home, is going to be more important than ever as overshoot bites harder than ever. Electricity can be produced at home.

          Basically what I’m saying is that a time is coming when domestic wind and solar industries are going to be considered as part of many countries military industrial base.

          Look how much a typical country spends on tanks and planes, which are only POTENTIALLY needed in case of a hot fight. Wind and solar farms will actually pay their own way, lol.

          Barring economic collapse, wind and solar power production will grow steadily for at least a couple of generations, until the market for the juice is pretty well saturated.

          And we may find ways to make good use of ample supplies of cheap juice that haven’t even been mentioned yet.

          If we could manufacture glass and aluminum at low enough cost, we could move half or more of my own industry under roof, into gigantic greenhouses big enough for mechanized production.

          Nitrates would be cheap, and we could afford to recapture phosphorus and potassium from sewage…….

          The possibilities are endless….. and engineers are another bunch that don’t sleep much.

          Desalinization would be dirt cheap.

          Building pumping stations and canals to carry water into dry areas otherwise well suited for crops would be a piece of cake. The machinery will be autonomous within the next decade or two.

          This kind of thing can happen ……… and will happen ……….. if electricity ever gets cheap enough and we can delay collapse by luck or pluck long enough for it to happen.

  2. EV Sales Set To Crash In 2020
    “BloombergNEF, the primary research service for Bloomberg, is forecasting an 18% drop in electric vehicle (EV) sales this year due to disruptions to battery metals supply chains from the COVID-19 pandemic.

    It has lowered its forecast for EV sales this year to 1.7 million vehicles, a 27% drop from its earlier forecast.”
    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/EV-Sales-Set-To-Crash-In-2020.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+oilpricecom+(Oil+Price.com+Daily+News+Update)
    We shall see—-

    1. Its not just EV-

      “Over the course of last week, Ford, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Subaru, Toyota, Volkswagen and others all announced that they would be suspending production at their plants in the U.S., and for some, in North America. ”

      Steep drops are being seen across the industry; Toyota’s sales fell 55.7 percent and Subaru’s dove 46.6 percent.

      Analysts are expecting for April sales to hit lows not seen in decades. Cox Automotive estimated that sales will dip to 620,000 new vehicles, which is down 53 percent from April of last year and down 37 percent compared to last month. Edmunds forecasted that sales would dip to 633,260, a year-over-year decrease of 52.5 percent and a month-over-month decrease of 36.6 percent.

      “The U.S. is projected to lead the global decline with a 26.6% fall in domestic vehicle sales. “

      1. A long time friend in the used car business says he is having a hell of a time finding cars to sell. Used car prices are going UP, apparently because a lot of people who would ordinarily buy a new car are holding onto their old one, or buying used, if they must have another car, so as to reduce the size of the loan.

  3. A study recently published sets an aggressive goal for de-carbonizing the USA electrical supply- 90% by 2035. Perhaps a little too optimistic , but it does lay out the path. It all depends on policy (and who you vote for), not any technological or price breakthroughs- we are already there.

    One important point they make regards Nat Gas and the need for electricity storage during times of darkness or calm winds. The existing Nat Gas capacity can be maintained for use during times of need. This existing capacity, along with current hydro and nuclear capacity, can serve as the backstop – in effect equivalent to what a huge battery capacity would provide.
    Overall the Nat Gas consumption drops to about 1/3rd of current use, and the coal consumption is extinguished, in their “90% Clean” pathway.
    Worth a look at the write-up.

    https://reneweconomy.com.au/cheap-renewables-could-deliver-90pct-clean-grid-in-us-by-2035-and-cut-costs-10451/

    1. As I see things, one of the biggest problems we have, as environmental advocates, is that so many of us get religious about practical matters.
      It’s utterly stupid to refuse to even consider maintaining enough back up fossil fuel generating capacity to be SURE the lights will stay on, at maybe half the cost or less, while doing away with ninety percent or more of the air pollution.

      I don’t mind quoting the Russians and commies once in a while, even at the risk of being called trumpster.

      “Better is the enemy of good enough.”

      Good sense and good politics take practical considerations into account.
      There’s no need at all to go around inadvertently or even deliberately making any more enemies than necessary.

      I can talk to a bunch of redneck Republican trump voters about wind and solar power without looking like an idiot, up until the dingaling environmentalist religious nut case do away with fossil fuels arguments are drug into the argument by one or another of the rednecks. They take such arguments literally, just as liberals take the ‘evils of guns” literally.

      I’ve never heard a liberal make an intellectually HONEST antigun argument. They NEVER EVER EVER bother to say that SIXTY PERCENT of the gun deaths they piss and moan about are suicides, lol. That wouldn’t scare poorly informed people into voting D, lol.

      They don’t ever acknowledge that people who live in the boonies, all over the country, as I do,are lucky to get a cop, firetruck, or ambulance to their home within an hour.

      It’s not just the right wing that preaches the politics of hatred and division. Get on the net and you can quickly find thousands of people who insist I’m as dangerous as any madman because I own a few guns….. most of them actually being family heirlooms, with enormous sentimental value.

      It’s such a rare event when a liberal openly says that young men who grew up in cutthroat societies, who know from they day they start walking that the police are the enemy, and that you do unto others FIRST, before they do unto you……….. will continue to practice their gangland way of life.

      I don’t mind admitting that some people I know personally, who were born here, and grew up in that sort of environment, are just as bad, or worse. A couple of them are not so distant relatives, residing in the Graybar Hotel for years to come. A couple more OUGHT to be in the same cells with them.

      None of this is to say that a kid born into such circumstances is doomed to grow up as a gangster, far from it….. but failure to acknowledge such realities on the part of the liberal wing means the right wing will forever hold the left in contempt.

      We’re all apparently in the same sort of hole, left or right, and both sides keep on digging themselves in deeper.

      But I see some reason to hope things will get better,eventually, because the hard core right wingers are mostly old, and the hard core left wingers are mostly young.

      The left wingers have the facts on their side, far more often than not.
      And demographic reality dictates that they will own the American political power structure within a decade, or maybe two decades, unless they shoot their own feet of by way of religious rhetoric.

      I don’t really know the answers…… but at least I recognize the problems, and know a few ways to at least get STARTED on solving them.

      They actually LIKE the idea, because they’ve heard about the construction jobs, and the high rents wind and solar farms pay for long term land leases. They like the idea of local tax collections, and local control of their electricity.

      I’m not saying we shouldn’t work toward doing away with fossil fuels. I am saying it’s dumb as shit, at this time in history, considering our political situation, to be religious about it.

      We shouldn’t be shooting our own feet off, talking about defunding police departments, because to a scared conservative, that sounds just about like saying the DEMOCRATS are actually in favor of looting and rioting, home invasions and rape, etc. All such a politically naive high school drop out hears is that the Democrats want to do away with EVERY cop, when the R sound bite machine chows down on such stupid rhetoric.

      In politics, if you’re EXPLAINING, you’re almost for sure LOSING.

      Let’s hope like hell Biden has sense enough to go duck hunting or at least trap shooting a couple of times this summer. Let’s hope the D’s realize that the gun control issue is not going to win them as many NEW votes as it’s going to cost them in terms of pissing off the opposition, getting more R types to the polls. They own the liberal/ urban vote, so they don’t NEED to come down hard on this particular issue. Lighten up on that. This could easily be the difference between who represents a swing state like NC in the Senate, a redneck trumpster or a halfway decent Democrat.

      The old rednecks who oppose the guv’ mint telling Detroit how to build cars don’t REALLY want to go back to the days of carburetors any more, because being the rednecks they are, they have finally come to own up to the fact they would rather own a modern car than an antique muscle car, because the modern car lasts three times as long and goes three times as far on a gallon of gas and FASTER on the drag strip. Yep, granny’s v6 Toyota or Honda will stay right with a muscle car on the drag strip.

      And yep, they’ve pretty much forgotten about dim rats taking away their old light bulbs, because they’ve switched to led’s and so long as you don’t mention R’s and D’s they’ll tell you it takes an idiot to use an old style bulb, cause they burn out and get hot and suck juice, where as their led’s hardly ever fail, and don’t cause the AC to kick on, and the power bill went down ten bucks the month their meat head Archie Bunker son in law threw out the old bulbs and put in led’s so he wouldn’t be dragging a step ladder along when he visits to change light bulbs. Naturally Archie doesn’t own a ladder, lol.

      Now if I were a politician, myself, one of my SIGNATURE arguments would be that phone companies WOULD find ways to eliminate spam calls. I would get the rednecks and every body who’s computer literate on my side by advocating that every car would come with a CD or memory stick, in open source, that will also run in a PC or Mac, that lays out in DETAIL what every last wire and little black box does, where it is, what color it is, what happens when it fails, etc.

      Anybody who says a manufacturer can’t easily afford to do this has his head up his ass so far he’ll never see daylight.

      I know a dozen people at least who could have and would have kept their landline phone except for spam calls. Even the cheapest cell phones these days allow you to block spam numbers in about two seconds. We’re supposed to believe the phone company that took forty bucks or more a month from us for our entire lives can’t figure this out?

      1. OFM —

        I agree with most of what you, especially about the “religious” component of green arguments, firearms and the police. However, if I were an American I’d hate to think I had to be Democrat or a Republican on ALL issues. Maybe it isn’t practical but perhaps if there were more Independents in power, people who could/would vote for practical solutions (and the wishes of their constituents, God forbid) rather than always following the party line, things MIGHT be better. The same applies to Canada of course, IMHO though we have several parties to choose from. Or, maybe I’m just naive.

        When in Grade 1, we had to fill out a form that included the question, are you a Protestant or a Catholic. This bewildered me (being neither, and having never even gone to Sunday School). I was hauled off to see the principal who said: everyone is a Protestant or a Catholic so ask your parents who laughed and said: just tick off Protestant because you are certainly not a Catholic. It seems to me that you Yanks are in an analogous boat with politics.

        1. Yep–
          Pepsi Pepsi Lite
          We can’t get beyond that very small capitalist ideology.
          I guess we just have small minds and imagination.

          1. Or expressed differently: “What do you want to drink, Coke or Pepsi?” 😉

          2. I know you guys are likely pure white, but just tell a minority person (or a woman) there is no difference between republican and democrat-

            Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965
            Freedom of Choice (for women).
            Separation of Church and State.

            Night and Day on many big issues.

            Regardless, I too would like a third party, although I’m not too sure it would result in more effective policy? Partisanship kills effective policy making.

            1. I never suggested there is no difference between republicans and democrats. What I suggested was ANY party will have good ideas on occasion and you should feel free to to support them when you agree and not be precluded from support simply because you are fundamentally associated with a different party. Having “independents” might facilitate this.

            2. Agree Doug.
              My comment was directed to the pepsi/pepsi lite comment.

              There is a reason that a strong majority of Asians, Jews, Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics vote Democratic- Its about the huge difference between the parties in human/civil rights. There would be no Hate Crime Law if was up to republicans, for example.

              Women and college educated also break strongly for the Democrats.

              You care about climate, energy policy and related issues- take a look at the kind of plan the Democrats are developing- Jay Enslee Gov of WA state
              https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/7/30/20731958/jay-inslee-for-president-climate-change-justice-plan-green-new-deal
              you won’t find the republicans at this table.

              It might have sounded cool to think of the Dem and Rep as similar in 1971, but even then the concept was just a slogan without substance on the a wide array of important issues. The gap has only grown.

      2. OFM,

        The goal is to eventually eliminate carbon emissions from anthropogenic sources.

        Nothing really religious about it, recent climate science pointed out by Doug below, suggests clouds may react to warming as a positive feedback making climate sensitivity as high as 5 C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from the pre-industrial estimate of about 280 ppm, the most recent IPCC estimate from 2014 had the mean estimate for climate sensitivity of about 3 C (range of 1.5 to 4.5C for 95% confidence interval). The upcoming IPCC report may report something very different.

        1. Yeah, we really want to stabilize and then reduce CO2 levels in the air and sea. The easiest and cheapest way to do that is to stop emitting CO2. If you find yourself in a hole, what do you do first?

          Stop digging.

        2. Hi Dennis,

          You’re absolutely correct that there’s nothing religious about the SCIENCE involved in climate discussion, and hopefully, actions taken.

          Maybe I didn’t make my point as clearly as I should have.
          I’m talking about individuals, and non governmental environmental organizations, ACTING as if the fossil fuel question is religious question. An absolute, like murder, or atheism, or slavery. Guns. ALL bad all the way.

          The partisans on both sides of a lot of issues act the same way. The right wing gun nuts insist that the left wing absolutely and literally does intend to confiscate their grandfather’s old break action single shot twelve gauge, and subsidize the wholesale murder of unborn babies, lol.

          Some hard core liberal types insist on talking in absolute terms about such issues. This is what I mean by GETTING RELIGIOUS.

          Science and engineering, as practical matters, ALWAYS involve compromises and trade offs.

          Environmentalists are making a mistake, politically, when they talk about DOING AWAY with fossil fuels. Bubba literally takes this to mean he won’t be able to get gasoline for his muscle car and diesel fuel for his eight thousand pound beer fetcher four by four TON rated truck disguised and advertised as a PICKUP.

          Progressive people in favor of police reform are making a huge mistake when they talk about DEFUNDING the police……. the opposition is making hay wholesale out of this argument by telling scared voters defunding police means NO POLICE, instead of the reform of corrupt police departments. They should be talking about improving, upgrading, reforming police work.

          The people who wrote classical plays and novels understood all these arguments and divisions among people intuitively, and demonstrated this understanding starting thousands of years ago.

          Psychology as a field has only really started taking this seriously within the last thirty or forty years ago.

          The key to understanding it is that we instinctively live together in groups. You’re either a MEMBER in good standing, or an OUTSIDER, and therefore either an enemy or at best a neutral to be dealt with carefully.

          Just about everybody would rather go along to get along, and maintain his or her status as a member in good standing of his or her IN group.

          You can bet your last can of beans that I don’t talk a whole lot about evolution at the nearest country store where every body gathers up on rainy days to chow down on the excellent deli sandwiches and miserable coffee.. not that I’m going there to do the same now, with CV19 running free. I made the decision to retire on the farm, rather than in a college town, lol. I therefore need to be in good standing with the local community that simply does NOT believe in evolution. You’re either with Jesus or with the Devil, to put it bluntly.

          Doug nailed it, both sides have some good ideas. Both sides promote some policies I see as good. Both sides as I see it have some miserable ideas and push some seriously flawed solutions to various problems.

          In politics, if you’re explaining, you’re losing. Bubba only hears the sound bites.

          If you want to convince the typical man or woman on the street that renewable electricity is a GOOD thing, for fucking Jesus’s sake DO NOT MENTION doing away with fossil fuels.

          Just talk about the advantages. Local tax collections, local jobs, lower long term cost of electricity due to not having to buy fuel, cleaner air, better public health outcomes, etc.

          THEN when your potential new D voter asks you about the storage problem, you say we have ample existing fossil fuel capacity to take care of any shortages, already built, already in service, most likely already paid for, and that we can maintain as much of it as we need, but that we will gradually be able to retire some of it, as we won’t always need all of it.

          You catch a hell of lot more flies with sugar than with vinegar.

          Focus on the positive to the extent you can, as a practical matter.

      3. Mac- “I’ve never heard a liberal make an intellectually HONEST antigun argument.”

        I have two words for you- Sandy Hook

        “Murder of Nancy Lanza-
        Some time before 9:30 a.m. EST on Friday, December 14, 2012, Lanza shot and killed his mother Nancy Lanza, aged 52, at their Newtown home.[35] Investigators later found her body clad in pajamas, in her bed, with four gunshot wounds to her head.[36] Lanza then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School in his mother’s car.[35][37]

        Mass shooting begins-
        Shortly after 9:35 a.m., armed with his mother’s Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle and ten magazines with 30 rounds each,[5][6][7][8][9] Lanza shot his way through a glass panel next to the locked front entrance doors of the school.

        Immediate aftermath-
        Authorities determined that Lanza reloaded frequently during the shootings, sometimes firing only 15 rounds from a 30-round magazine.[80] He shot all but two of his victims multiple times.[81][82] Most of the shooting took place in two first-grade classrooms near the entrance of the school.[83] The students among the victims totaled eight boys and twelve girls, all either six or seven years old,[84] and the six adults were all women who worked at the school. Bullets were also found in at least three cars parked outside the school, leading police to believe that he fired at a teacher who was standing near a window.[50][80] When police interviewed survivors, a teacher recalled hearing Lanza curse several times, as well as say such things as, “Look at me!” and “Come over here!” and “Look at them!

        “Shooter’s suicide-
        The police heard the final shot at 9:40:03 a.m.; they believe that it was Lanza shooting himself in the lower rear portion of his head with the Glock 20SF in classroom 10.”

        List of Sandy Hook casualties
        Killed:
        Perpetrator’s mother
        Nancy Lanza, 52 (shot at home)[26]
        School personnel
        Rachel D’Avino, 29, behavior therapist [27]
        Dawn Hochsprung, 47, principal
        Anne Marie Murphy, 52, special education teacher[28]
        Lauren Rousseau, 30, teacher
        Mary Sherlach, 56, school psychologist
        Victoria Leigh Soto, 27, teacher
        Students
        Charlotte Bacon, 6[29]
        Daniel Barden, 7
        Olivia Engel, 6
        Josephine Gay, 7
        Dylan Hockley, 6
        Madeleine Hsu, 6
        Catherine Hubbard, 6
        Chase Kowalski, 7
        Jesse Lewis, 6
        Ana Márquez-Greene, 6
        James Mattioli, 6
        Grace McDonnell, 7
        Emilie Parker, 6
        Jack Pinto, 6
        Noah Pozner, 6
        Caroline Previdi, 6[30]
        Jessica Rekos, 6
        Avielle Richman, 6
        Benjamin Wheeler, 6
        Allison Wyatt, 6
        Perpetrator
        Adam Lanza, 20 (suicide)
        Wounded:
        Natalie Hammond, 40, lead teacher
        Deborah Pisani[31]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

        Mac- “They don’t ever acknowledge that people who live in the boonies, all over the country, as I do,are lucky to get a cop, firetruck, or ambulance to their home within an hour.”

        That’s not a justification for Americans to own a military style Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle.

        “They NEVER EVER EVER bother to say that SIXTY PERCENT of the gun deaths they piss and moan about are suicides, lol.”

        If “SIXTY PERCENT of the gun deaths” are suicides. That would mean it’s more dangerous to own a gun than to not own a gun. There will always be small unknown percentage of Americans who are not qualified to safely own a gun. The more guns in the publics hands. The more needless innocent death there will be in society.

        1. Yeah, I have to agree with HuntingtonBeach on this one: Sandy Hook!

          Mac wrote: Let’s hope the D’s realize that the gun control issue is not going to win them as many NEW votes as it’s going to cost them in terms of pissing off the opposition, getting more R types to the polls.

          Nope, those days have past Mac. The latest Fox News Arizona Senate Poll has gunslinger Martha McSally trailing gun control advocate Mark Kelly by 13 points.
          Arizona Polls

          And that poll is by Fox News, who usually has a hard right-wing bias. Also, Arizona is usually a Red State, voting Republican most of the time. Trump and Biden are now running neck and neck in Arizona. Trump won the state in 2016. But the gun control issue is making a huge difference for Mark Kelly.

          1. Firearms are the main weapon of murder in the US.
            Guns make it too easy and allow too many mistakes.

            Murder in the US – number of victims by weapon 2018

            1. When ever things get personal and up close, the murder rate goes down.
              Look at oil derricks from the UK— killing someone by hand reduces the rate.

          2. Sorry folks I stuck my chin out on that one. Sandy hook is an example, rather than a generalized argument, but still perfectly valid. Sometimes I ought to drink some coffee instead of more er, ahem, taking too much FLU medicine, lol.

            The point I’m trying to make is that the liberal faction already OWNS the gun control argument/ issue so they don’t need to heavily emphasize this in terms of winning elections.

            It’s most definitely an issue that keeps the solid read south and mostly red mid west RED.

            Personally I’m all in favor of reasonable gun control laws, such as the ones that are recently or currently advocated by Democrats in the Democratic Party mainstream.

            But getting religious about it, talking about banning gun ownership is a political mistake. Everything involves trade offs as a practical matter in politics.

            1. But getting religious about it, talking about banning gun ownership is a political mistake.

              Mac, no one is talking about banning gun ownership except the Republicans who are accusing the Democrats of wanting to do that. And that is just a big fat lie. No Democrat in the Senate or House wants to ban gun ownership. They want to ban military-style weapons, weapons that were designed only to kill human beings.

              The lying Trumpites keep saying that the Democrats want to repeal the 2nd Amemendant. That is just another damn Trumpite lie. That is the part I do not understand, why do they think they must lie to make their case?

            2. why do they think they must lie to make their case?

              How else are they going to get working class voters to elect politicians that only help corporations and the wealthy??

              Mac is absolutely right: language matters. Unfortunately, he doesn’t get the fact that the right wing media puts words in the mouths of “liberals”. No matter what “liberals” say, Fox News and the rest will take it out of context or just make stuff up. So, yes, democrats should use words carefully, but it’s not going to help that much: right wing propaganda will still accuse them of doing all the terrible things that motivate republican voters.

            3. Ron,

              The lies are because there is no logical case for the NRA position that most Republicans (and a few moderate Democrats) support. Repeat the lie often and loudly and the weak minded start to believe the lie is the truth.

              Unfortunate that lies seem to work and the news media does a terrible job calling out the lies of the Republicans.

            4. OFM,

              Most don’t argue for no gun ownership, just gun registration and keeping assault style weapons in the military where they belong. Rifles for hunting, no problem, hand guns with a background check (close family sales and gun show loopholes), also ok, possibly with a 48 hour wait period to stop husbands and wives from getting in an argument, going to walmart to buy a gun and killing the spouse and perhaps kids. This last example probably does not happen often, no idea on the statistics.

            5. Dennis, maybe more often than you might realize. Gun reform is personal to me.

              Nine years ago my brother-in-law was given his father’s 30 aught 6 after his death by his mother. Two months later on a Saturday morning he marched down to the local Big 5 and purchased a box of bullets. A few hours later they were both dead. Murder/Suicide

            6. Yeah, guns are way too fast and easy.

              You’d think those roughly 20,000 suicides per year by gun would matter…

            7. Exactly, and it affects a lot more people than just the deceased. Starting with the kids and mothers.

        2. If you want to defend your home, wouldn’t you just want a good dog?

          Maybe you’d need a shotgun as well, but I had an experienced cop tell me once that he’d never seen a burglary or home invasion of a house with a dog. He said it didn’t matter what kind, either, just the presence of a dog of some sort was enough.

          I suppose in remote areas big would be good, and in the city, you might want loud.

          1. I’ve had a few dogs over the years. My fav was a Rhodesian Ridgeback x Golden Retriever cross. My second fav was a Jack Russel Terrier. My attitude as of late is- I don’t really need a big dog… just a wake-up call, so a terrier is just fine. They eat less too. I don’t call 911; burglars will be offered free food and Proletarian literature.

        3. HB, beautiful thread you’ve started. I own two critter guns, and I’m so sick of the gun fetish in the US that I don’t even shoot critters around the farm anymore. Just handling a gun makes me kind of sick now.

          1. I’d also like to point out that police officers in this country do face a very difficult situation knowing that they can come up against people with military weaponry, behind any door. Its puts them on a hair trigger stance.
            In countries where weaponry is more tightly controlled (no automatic weapons for example), the police can also be armed at a lower level.
            Of course this doesn’t change the racism issue, but down-scaling the grade of weaponry so widespread in this country can help to de-escalate the whole tense situation we have.

  5. BRAZILIAN AMAZON DEFORESTATION HITS NEW RECORD IN MAY

    A total of 829 square kilometres (320 square miles) in the Brazilian Amazon, 14 times the area of Manhattan, was lost to deforestation in May, according to satellite data from Brazil’s National Space Research Institute. That was a 12-percent increase from last year, and the worst May since record keeping began in August 2015. That is all the more worrying given that the most destructive months are still ahead — the dry season, from around June to October, when forest fires accelerate the deforestation caused by illegal loggers, miners and farmers.

    “We are facing a scenario of total catastrophe for the Amazon,” Mariana Napolitano, scientific director at the World Wildlife Fund’s Brazil office, said in a statement.

    https://phys.org/news/2020-06-brazilian-amazon-deforestation.html

      1. We had a couple record low nights, in May, in Michigan.

        Regards,
        Ralph
        Cass Tech ’64

        1. Wow! A couple record low nights!

          Alert the presses, people. Global warming has been debunked.

      2. This is the third spring in a row in Maine with NO rain. This follows record drought for the year 2016.

      3. From Jan 1 2020 to June 13 2020
        the worlds nations experienced-
        54 Record High National Temperatures for the date, and
        1 Record Low National Temperature for the date.

        And it is not yet summer.

        1. Is it correlated to the much decreased number of airplanes flying around *(fewer chemtrails)?

    2. Amazon news is very sad. But recall that what is now the Amazon forest was apparently widely cultivated and urbanised until the Spanish gave them all a pox, they died off, the forest regrew to what it was 20 years ago, CO2 levels fell due to the carbon uptake and Europe had its mini ice age (nice bit of karma there) Now, of course, the Amazonian carbon if fueling killer heat waves in the very countries whose demand for Amazon produce is causing the burnoffs. Nature has her way of balancing things out – and greedy capitalists and their farmer lackeys will come and go.

      1. “…the Amazon forest was apparently widely cultivated and urbanised until the Spanish gave them all a pox…”

        Really? What’s the source?

      2. Amazon news is very sad. But recall that what is now the Amazon forest was apparently widely cultivated and urbanised until the Spanish gave them all a pox, they died off, the forest regrew to what it was 20 years ago…

        That is about the dumbest thing I have ever read. No, the Amazon was not widely cultivated.. ever! And the Spanish did not give the indigenous people of the Amazon the pox. And the Amazon was anything but urbanized. There was not an urban area in the entire Amazon rain forest back then. You are probably thinking of the Inca in Peru. But the Inca were Andean people, far removed from the deep Amazon rain forest.

        But to confuse the Peruvian Andes with the deep Amazon rain forest in Brazil is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

        1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

          “Spanish explorer Francisco de Orellana was the first European to traverse the Amazon River in the 16th century. He reported densely populated regions extending hundreds of kilometres along the river, suggesting population levels exceeding even those of today. Orellana may have exaggerated the level of development, although that is disputed. The evidence to support his claim comes from the discovery of geoglyphs dating between 0–1250 CE and from terra preta.[17][18]”

          1. Difficult to know how seriously to take this.

            Most research agrees that indigenous populations concentrated along rivers and farmed “terra preta” soil, maintained with fire and fertilizer. At the mouth of the Amazon River in Brazil, Anna Roosevelt was one of the first to discover ancient Amazon inhabitation. Elsewhere, remains have been found along the Xingu River, the Andes, and in the Bolivian Beni region. Debate continues on the exact numbers of population, as some contend that intensive land use was restricted and that interior forest areas were lightly impacted.

            https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/history-amazon-settlement

            There does seem agreement that peoples settled along the river, but that isn’t the same as “the Amazon forest was apparently widely cultivated and urbanised”.

          2. Thanks Sunnny n Gerry. That supports my point that the Amazon’s biota has the ability to rebound from human devastation, and that karma is kinda cute. The related climate research on the Amazon regeneration period showed that free regrowth due to human depopulation can usefully and rapidly draw useful amounts of surplus carbon from the atmosphere. For example:
            https://phys.org/news/2011-10-team-european-ice-age-due.html

            2. It is a stretch to believe that 3.2% of the Amazon was cultivated in those times. The indigenous people of the Amazon were hunter-gatherers, not farmers.

      3. Amazon basin and Brazil was not colonised by the Spanish. It was the Portuguese. And the idea of vast native civilisations and urban settlemtnt in the Amazon prior to the Portuguese is nonsense.

  6. Maybe every cloud doesn’t have a silver lining after all.

    CLIMATE WORST-CASE SCENARIOS MAY NOT GO FAR ENOUGH

    Worst-case global heating scenarios may need to be revised upwards in light of a better understanding of the role of clouds. Recent modelling data suggests the climate is considerably more sensitive to carbon emissions than previously believed, and experts said the projections had the potential to be “incredibly alarming”, though they stressed further research would be needed to validate the new numbers…

    Clouds will determine humanity’s fate – whether climate is an existential threat or an inconvenience that we will learn to live with. Most recent models suggest clouds will make matters worse.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/13/climate-worst-case-scenarios-clouds-scientists-global-heating

    1. Back in March 2016 I said:
      “One of the most powerful feedbacks, yet often ignored because we are just beginning to understand it, is cloud forcing. Just for the example below we are talking about a 25 w/m2 increase in radiation for large areas of the planet. The atmosphere controls about 70 percent of the energy and the land/ocean about 30 percent. Until we start focusing on the atmosphere and what it really does, no one is going to have a clue how much and how quickly global warming”(will occur)

      And from the paper listed in that comment “The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling. Hence, small changes in the cloud-radiative forcing fields can play a significant role as a climate feedback mechanism.”

      http://peakoilbarrel.com/coal-shock-model/#comment-562639

      Then again that December I said:
      “And to throw the big wrench in the works, the atmosphere controls 70 percent of the radiation into and out of the planet. A change in clouds and haze can overwhelm the effects of GHG gases in either direction.”

      Cloud changes might explain some of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events.

      1. In my professional opinion, there is no such thing as a feedback by the means you describe, because you are using physics violating language to stroke your ego.

        Keeping in mind the definition of “feedback” from the Climate Change: The Official Manual (Revised 23rd Edition).

        Noun
        A feedback is a specific type of forcing employed by Climate that overcomes the physical limitations of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics by creating additional usable energy. Feedbacks come in various subcategories, e.g. thermal, climate, hydrostatic, radiative, etc. This falls under Settled Science.

          1. Gone fishing,

            I agree, the non scientists claiming that geophysicists don’t understand physics doesn’t pass the smell test.

            1. “Cleanup needeed. Nonsense spill on aisle 13.”

              This comment as a reply “doesn’t pass the smell test” of a “geophysicists”, more like a grocery clerk who can’t back up their own words.

              As a non scientist myself, GoFish’s reply discounts his original statement and turns this comment into a childish nonsense attack.

            3. Here is the Yale version of the discussion.
              “The debate about clouds and climate change is part of a larger concern about feedbacks in warming the world.
              —–
              Others soon followed. Last month, American and British researchers, led by Zelinka, reported that 10 of 27 models they had surveyed now reckoned warming from doubling CO2 could exceed 4.5 degrees C, with some showing results up to 5.6 degrees. The average warming projected by the suite of models was 3.9 degrees C (7 degrees F), a 30-percent increase on the old IPCC consensus.

              French scientists at the National Center for Scientific Research concluded that the new models predicted that rapid economic growth driven by fossil fuels would deliver temperature rises averaging 6 to 7 degrees C (10.8 to 12.6 degrees F) by the end of the century. They warned that keeping warming below 2 degrees C was all but impossible.”

              https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming

            4. Yes, the news is grim. Climate scientists are EXTREMELY RELUCTANT to be negative about our prospects for change but:

              “Recently a series of scientific papers have come out and stated that we have a 5 percent chance of limiting warming to 2°C, and only one chance in a hundred of keeping man-made global warming to 1.5°C, the aspirational goal of the 2015 Paris United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference. Additionally, recent research shows that we may have already locked in 1.5°C of warming even if we magically reduced our carbon footprint to zero today.”

              https://theconversation.com/why-is-climate-changes-2-degrees-celsius-of-warming-limit-so-important-82058

            6. Indeed, from your post: “We have gazed into the computational abyss before us, and seen how machine learning may offer ways to adapt to what today’s machines do best, which is statistical machine learning. It is a transition in our approach to predicting the Earth system that is potentially as far-reaching as that of von Neumann and Charney, algorithms that learn rather than do what they’re told. How this will unfold is yet to be seen.”

            7. This is one quote I like from the paper:

              “One conceives of meteorology as a science, where everything can be derived from the first principles of classical fluid mechanics. A second approach is oriented specifically toward the goal of predicting the future evolution of the system (weather forecasts) and success is measured by forecast skill, by any means necessary. This could for instance be by creating approximate analogues to the current state of the circulation and relying on similar past trajectories to make an educated guess of future weather. One can have understanding of the system without the ability to predict; one can have skilful predictions innocent of any understanding“

              Note the emphasis. The huge increase in computational power implies that somewhere in a calculation a pattern is identified, yet they can’t backtrack to a complete understanding of how or why it came about. That’s machine learning for you.

            8. Paul,

              Great piece. This type of analysis would be great for someone with a deep understanding of physics, computer science, mathematics, and probability theory. Right up your alley.

              Thanks.

          2. I agree with GF, Doug, and Dennis. A perfect example of positive (reinforcing) feedback is global warming release methane from the permafrost. This methane adds to the greenhouse gasses causing more global warming.

            Anyone who fails to understand this kind of feedback simply cannot understand shit.

            Noun
            A feedback is a specific type of forcing employed by Climate that overcomes the physical limitations of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics by creating additional usable energy.

            Tran, you need to post links when you are supposedly quoting something. Otherwise, how do we know you just did not make it up?

            Climate Feedback Definition

            A climate feedback is a process that will either amplify or reduce climate forcing.

            Climate forcing, also known as radiative forcing, refers to changes in net irradiance between the different layers of the atmosphere.

            These changes in irradiance (the power of electromagnetic radiation per unit area) will either cause a cooling or warming effect.
            Positive Feedback Loops
            There are many positive feedback loops that will accelerate global warming.

            For example, as more ice melts due to global warming, there will be less sunlight reflected away (see albedo) and consequently, surface temperatures will increase.

            Also, global warming will cause more wild fires which will release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which will in turn cause even more warming via the greenhouse effect.

            Yet another example, as global warming melts permafrost in both Northern Canada and Siberia, huge amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, will be released into the atmosphere.

            1. Of course Tran made that up, it’s utter nonsense and the supposed reference does not exist.

        3. Tran –

          Sorry but your definition of (climate) feedback is gibberish. In climate change, a feedback loop is something that speeds up or slows down a warming trend. A positive feedback accelerates a temperature rise, a negative feedback slows it down.

        4. “Keeping in mind the definition of “feedback” from the Climate Change: The Official Manual (Revised 23rd Edition).”

          A little googling shows this definition is an invented product of a web site that believes climate change is a conspiracy. Not a surprise i suppose.

          The same site uses the word ‘magikal’ a lot.

        1. Thanks Dennis, I placed a comment there. Unfortunately, the moderation policy on that blog is so strict that you don’t know when the comment will go through.

          1. only one comment approved so far, seems they don’t like discussion these days.

          2. Paul, it is not nearly as strict as you seem to believe. Actually only four or five comments per week wind up in the “pending” file, awaiting approval. And unless they are advertising spam or clearly phony posts, they always get approved.

            1. Ron,

              Paul is talking about Real Climate, they don’t seem to let comments through at that blog.

    1. Yes, 92% of 5.0 degrees is 4.6 C if historically constrained over a limited period.
      Still much smaller rate of change than ice sheet records indicate.

      1. Gonefishing,

        Lots going on from LGM to 1750, particularly a massive change on the albedo of the planet as the Northern hemisphere ice sheets melted. The earth system sensitivity was about 5.5 C over the 22 kY BP to 1750 CE period (atmospheric CO2 concentration increased from about 180 ppm to 280 ppm.) Roughly half of this increase was due to earth system changes as ice sheets melted and vegatation grew aver the 22000 year period. Currently the lack of large ice sheets (relative to the LGM) makes the mid-Pliocene a better analog to today. Studies of that period using proxy data and paleoclimate models suggest 0.4 to 5.1 K for ECS with a mean of about 2.4 K.

        A combination of constraints looking at both LGM and mPWP gives a 2.6K estimate for ECS with a 1.1 to 3.9K 90% confidence interval.

        See https://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2019-162/cp-2019-162.pdf

        1. Dennis, I too liked things the way they were. Though that was stupid, because the beginning of the most massive human blunder in history was my birthright. I have learned since my youth, I will not play the discount game that ignores the massive and long term forces in the climate system.

        2. Honestly Dennis, with sea level 25m higher than today and temperatures 2 to 3C higher, “Currently the lack of large ice sheets (relative to the LGM) makes the mid-Pliocene a better analog to today. ” that comparison might be good for a future Earth but not now.

          Maybe you can tell me how CO2 increased in the atmosphere as the glaciers receded. Plant life would have bloomed across that warming, ice free landscape, absorbing a lot of it.

          1. Gonefishing,

            I cannot explain any more than the current science explains, the reason for the decreases and increases in atmospheric CO2 during the glacial-interglacial cycles is not well understood. It is thought to be an oceanic process with carbon stored and released from the deep ocean.

            On older paper looks at this

            https://climatehomes.unibe.ch/~joos/papers/menviel12qsr.pdf

            also pages 399-401 of link below

            https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf

            There is likely newer research that I have not read.

            1. There are simple physical principles that describe the equilibrium shift of GHG gases from a body of water toward the atmosphere, as it is warmed. The reverse is also true.

              Also, it is well known that as frozen ground is thawed, bacterial action occurs producing GHG from stored organic materials in the soil.
              Both of these processes are in action currently.

        3. Maybe a climate change primer is needed.
          Back 50 million years ago or so, global temperature was significantly higher than now, at least 10C. There was no permanent ice, tropics extended to 40 north latitude. Of course, atmospheric GHG concentration was also much higher. A rather unique period of high mountain building occurred after that causing much rock to be exposed to the atmosphere. Over millions of years the rock slowly absorbed the atmospheric CO2, about 80 percent of it. Temperatures dropped, chilling the land and ocean, causing ice sheets to start forming at the poles and the tropics moved southward.
          A point was reaches where the orbital variations, meaning solar input variations, took over and became the dominant factor as permanent ice enlarged and large glaciations could now occur.
          CO2 dropped to low levels as did atmospheric water vapor. The oceans became chilled.
          Lately, the last and one of the largest glaciations, CO2 dropped to about 180 then quite abruptly rose to about 260 ppm.
          About 10,000 years ago, the solar insolation in the high latitudes of the north started a long reduction. Also, the orbital node and elliptical shape gives warmer northern winters and cooler northern summers. About a 6 percent variation. Normally this would have started at least a small glaciation event and CO2 would have steadily reduced. But Northern Canada or Northern Russia/Europe were not covered in glaciers.
          8000 years of clearing forests and agriculture slowed the descent of CO2 to a crawl. Then a few hundred years ago fossil fuel burn started, and we know the rest.
          Instead of a solid Arctic Ocean Ice sheet, it is disappearing, Greenland and Antarctica are melting and glaciers are in severe retreat.
          Once the noise (AMOC, PDO, sun cycles) are removed, it is obvious the Earth system is headed toward another warm period. Warming oceans, land and melting permafrost, plus shallow sea methane releases will increase the GHG load, glaciers will disappear and snow will recede to the mountain tops and far north as the tropics once again rise toward where New York City is located now.
          For those born lately, it is probable they will see places like Miami go underwater, then the start of a major retreat from the current shoreline.
          To those who discount the potential 200 meter rise in ocean level, I say the rocks and the stored carbon disagree.

            2. Nick, here is the original paper, you can look up later work. Enjoy.

              THE ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE ERA
              BEGAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO
              Abstract. The anthropogenic era is generally thought to have begun 150 to 200 years ago, when
              the industrial revolution began producing CO2 and CH4 at rates sufficient to alter their compositions
              in the atmosphere. A different hypothesis is posed here: anthropogenic emissions of these gases
              first altered atmospheric concentrations thousands of years ago. This hypothesis is based on three
              arguments. (1) Cyclic variations in CO2 and CH4 driven by Earth-orbital changes during the last
              350,000 years predict decreases throughout the Holocene, but the CO2 trend began an anomalous
              increase 8000 years ago, and the CH4 trend did so 5000 years ago. (2) Published explanations for
              these mid- to late-Holocene gas increases based on natural forcing can be rejected based on paleoclimatic evidence. (3) A wide array of archeological, cultural, historical and geologic evidence points
              to viable explanations tied to anthropogenic changes resulting from early agriculture in Eurasia,
              including the start of forest clearance by 8000 years ago and of rice irrigation by 5000 years ago. In
              recent millennia, the estimated warming caused by these early gas emissions reached a global-mean
              value of ∼0.8 ◦C and roughly 2 ◦C at high latitudes, large enough to have stopped a glaciation of
              northeastern Canada predicted by two kinds of climatic models. CO2 oscillations of ∼10 ppm in the
              last 1000 years are too large to be explained by external (solar-volcanic) forcing, but they can be
              explained by outbreaks of bubonic plague that caused historically documented farm abandonment
              in western Eurasia. Forest regrowth on abandoned farms sequestered enough carbon to account for
              the observed CO2 decreases. Plague-driven CO2 changes were also a significant causal factor in
              temperature changes during the Little Ice Age (1300–1900 AD).

              https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf

            4. Interesting.

              From the introduction… rather than the ‘anthropocene’ beginning in the 1800s…,

              The hypothesis advanced here is that the Anthropocene actually began thousands
              of years ago as a result of the discovery of agriculture and subsequent
              technological innovations in the practice of farming. This alternate view….”

              This is a 2003 paper, and I can’t find any reviews or comments on it.

              I’ve never heard this put forward before, and suspect it is not a mainstream viewpoint.

              Edit: Found another paper by Ruddman from 2007,
              https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006RG000207

              Again, though, this “early anthropogenic hypothesis” doesn’t seem to be widely accepted, unless i’m missing something…

              Edit2: From the wikipedia page on Ruddman,
              Ruddiman claims that an incipient ice age would probably have begun several thousand years ago, but the arrival of that scheduled ice age was forestalled by the activities of early farmers. The overdue-glaciation hypothesis has been challenged on the grounds that alternative explanations are sufficient to account for the current warm anomaly without recourse to human activity, but Ruddiman challenges the methodology of his critics

  8. On the topic of feedbacks (and gaps in our knowledge)

    NITROGEN IN PERMAFROST SOILS MAY EXERT GREAT FEEDBACKS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

    Nitrogen is a constituent part of nitrous oxide — an often overlooked greenhouse gas, and there is a vast amount of nitrogen stored in permafrost soils. But little is known about N2O emissions from permafrost soils and until recently, it was assumed that releases had to be fairly minimal because of the cold climate.

    “In contrast to the huge volumes of research into permafrost carbon climate feedbacks, research into permafrost nitrogen climate feedbacks is lagging behind terribly. We urgently need to better understand what is happening to nitrogen in these soils, especially as the world warms and permafrost thaws.”

    https://phys.org/news/2020-06-nitrogen-permafrost-soils-exert-great.html

      1. Sure it’s listed as an important GHG gas, but for some reason it is highly discounted in the AGGI index.

    1. Yeah, Trump was elected to get the job done and he has failed miserably at doing that. He was supposed to clear the swamp but has only made the swamp much deeper. He is by far and away the worst president to ever occupy te Oval Office. And history will reflect that very fact.

      Today’s Morning Consult Poll has Trump’s approval at 37% and his disapproval at 58%, a 21% difference. I am sure glad that the majority of the nation has better sense than ignorant Trump supporters.

    2. HE WAS ELECTED, TO GET THE JOB DONE!

      Back to English class, Boris. You need to work on your punctuation.

    3. Late stage capitalism was never going to be fun, but this is ridiculous.
      Is humanity really this stupid?

      1. Have you read The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, by Gustave Le Bon?

    1. Object permanence is the understanding that objects continue to exist even when they cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled or sensed in any way.
      ( this is something humans usually learn at about 18 months of age.) The president hasn’t reached that stage yet:

      Trump: If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any

        1. He will slip up and speak the truth and design a tax break for it.

          1. Oh, he’s already accidentally speaking the truth. Did you catch him talking about how helping people to be able to vote will kill Republicans?

    2. Ron The elite have so totally lost touch with the general populace that the first politician to convince them that he is one of us and against the elite was the only viable choice compared to any of the other elitist Republican nominees or evil Hillary. Trump and team have such an easy job persuading the people because all their political opponents are all about protecting their power and instead of fighting for us against the bankers and big corporations.

      The elitist disgust that Hillary and even you, are guilty of expressing towards simple folk is sure to cause more explosive reactions rather than helpful building.

      1. Yeah, Trump is very good at persuading simple folk that he’s on their side.

        The astonishing thing is that simple folk haven’t noticed that it was all a con job. Instead of helping working folk he’s hurt them every way he can. He’s made them poorer by attacking basic things like minimum wages, overtime pay, and health insurance, he’s cut taxes for the rich, and on and on. He’s protected those big banks from regulation intended to help simple folks. He’s pro-pollution (pollution hits poor folks much harder), and hates regulations that make life less expensive for simple folks, like energy efficiency. He’s happy to appoint ultra conservative judges because those judges are close friends to big business. The fact that simple folk think those judges are great is a wonderful bonus.

        And simple folk just keep watching Fox News and don’t notice a thing.

        Wow.

      2. Farmlad, I am simple folk. My dad was a sharecropper for the first seven years of my life. Then he managed to borrow enough money to buy his own 45-acre farm. We were then shitting in high cotton, we were no longer sharecroppers. But it was still back-breaking labor. That was before the days of mechanical cotton pickers, corn pickers or even hay balers. I worked that damn cotton farm until I enlisted in the Navy at age 18.

        That was in North Alabama where I was born and raised, a deep red state now. The South in those days were solid democratic. Then Kennedy ordered the integration of the University of Alabama and soon after that Lyndon Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act. That did it, the South turned on a dime, it went from solidly Democratic to solid Republican.

        So you see Farmlad, this Trump shit has not one thing to do with simple folk, it is all about White Supremacy. So don’t give me this simple folk bullshit, I know the real reason you, and your so-called simple folk, love Trump so much.

        1. Just to be clear; I can honestly say, I have never supported Trump which is not saying much as there are very few politicians that have ever gained much respect from me . I voted for Andrew Yang in the primary and Tulsi Gabbard was the only other candidate I even considered. Biden will not get my vote. He is just as despicable as Trump. They are both from the same elite scum.

          I was appalled at Trump’s character since the time he came on the political scene and could hardly believe it as he took the republicans by storm. I continued to assume that conservative people would see right through him any day but to this day I continue to be proved wrong so I have to accept it and try to figure out what is at play. When I put on my tin foil hat while trying to prepare for the future my guess is that the S&P will be heading towards 4,000 within the next several months and Trump will be in for the next 4 years. The elites like it this way. This would ensure more divide and control by creating more division along racial and political lines.

          I detest the elite and their totally manipulated debt based, fiat monetary system that rewards the powerful and rich while enslaving the rest of humanity on this planet. But all the elites need to do to deflect the attention from their crimes is to point at the Taliban or Russia or covid or police brutality or racial injustice etc.

          As the real economy continues to collapse and especially now that so many jobs have gone extinct, this income will need to be replaced, Otherwise a lot more rioting and destruction in the cities should be expected. This is where things could get out of hand really quick and no telling what the mobs will do. Wonder how many people will be fleeing the cities and heading into the countryside in the next few years, hoping to find some help from none other than some deplorables.

          1. Biden will not get my vote. He is just as despicable as Trump.

            That just means you are even dumber than Trump if that is possible. I watched Biden while he was in the Senate and for eight years in the White House. He is an honorable man who roots for the underdog or common folk as you call them.

            So that only leaves two options as to why you would say such a thing. The first is that you don’t know shit about what you are talking about or you have an ulterior motive which I mentioned in my first reply to you. I suspect both.

          2. Farmlad- “They are both from the same elite scum”

            Sorry to say, but I get the sense you use the the term elite in a reckless manner.

            By elite- do you mean coastal, or urban, or rich, or active in policy making, or perhaps a farmer who owns 500 plus acres?
            Or the ultimate elite criteria- someone who is Christian, or white?
            Or perhaps someone who gets involved in local issues and makes it on the city counsel.
            Or perhaps someone who owns their home in full, or has a second home?
            Or has a their own Winnebago, or even a boat with a motor.
            Or maybe an American citizenship card.
            Or maybe owns their own pickup truck.
            Eats meat everyday.
            Has extra shoes.
            Plays golf.
            Has a bit money to bet with.
            Always has a toilet to crap in.
            Or someone who uses gasoline as if it were an unlimited resource? For recreation, no less.

            Or, are you talking about those with a net worth over , say, 10 million?
            Or those who hire someone else to change out the garbage disposal, or mow the yard, or clean out the gutters?

            Careful with demonizing and pigeon-holing people. You will always get it wrong, and may very well find yourself on the wrong side of the line sometime.

            1. Hickory As you point out so clearly. there are many degrees and flavors of elitists. Trump and Biden are both close to the top of a, cruel and out of touch, power hierarchy.

      3. “convinced them he is one of us against…”

        Farmlad, when people have a very strong need to believe they are very easily convinced. So when economic stagnation can be explained in terms of foreigners, Mexicans, Muslims or the evil liberal educated coastal elites instead of automation and shifting industrial regions they have their enemy personified. After that they have someone to blame and will follow their authoritarian leader off a cliff as he cuts sideways before the edge.
        Helpful building requires unity and Trumps white populist schtick sows division.

        I have recently moved to the rural South and the disconnect isn’t between coastal elites and general populace. The general populace is where the majority of people are which are urban areas. Urban Nashville has more in common with urban Seattle than it does where I am in the boonies. There is definitely a disconnect between tv reality and rural reality.

      4. Farmlad- “lost touch with the general populace ”

        Trump has never done a day of work in his life.
        Never used a shovel, never changed a tire, never earned a wage for even an hours work.
        Never had a bone spur to earn the draft deferment, never could find a home-grown American wife who would be willing to take the job.
        Never was a volunteer fireman, never volunteered for anything.
        Never played football. Never played on any team.
        Never believed in the underdog, never trusted a non-white.
        Never believed in free speech, or one-man one-vote.

        [Never leave a female member of your family alone with him, even for a minute]

        He only thinks the common man is good for one thing- to be used by him, for him.
        Pay him money or give him a vote.
        Otherwise he sees them as trash. Poor trash.

        What ignorance , who would be so easily fooled by this cruel-hearted and selfish sad excuse for a man.

        1. Trump hates his base. He’d rather be rubbing elbows with Hollywood Stars. It’s easy to see. His Presidency is an Ego PR stunt gone horribly wrong. For him too I think.

        2. Down here there’s an excellent hometown AM station playing best hits music from the the 60’s to the 80’s. On Sunday morn they play the syndicated Christian program American Family Radio. In 2015 I was listening and it was something to hear people during the call in saying exactly what farmlad presents. “He’s not my kind of Christian but he’s saying what people are thinking”. Trump is their voice. He connects like the guy who sells Shamwow and the Vegamatic.

        3. I doubt he’s ever hiked, or camped, or spent any time in nature either. He obviously sees no value in the natural world; only resources to be exploited.

        4. I agree; That’s a fairly good description of Trump. It also has the feel of a good description of most politicians in DC.

          I voted for Andrew Yang in the primaries due to his flagship proposal of a UBI paid by a VAT. A VAT that would help to claw back some of the lost tax revenue from the Global corporations and from the bigger consumers. This is a good example of a politician that is working for the people but the MSM and the democrat party did everything in their power to belittle and ignore Andrew Yang.
          If a UBI of $1000 per month would have been in place for some time I seriously doubt we would be seeing near this level of anger violence and destruction that looks to only get worse with time. Over half of Americans live from hand to mouth and if their income is reduced by lockdowns they are not prepared and angry people should be expected.

          1. Farmlad,

            Who does Andrew Yang support now?

            I agree UBI and VAT are good ideas.

            2. With a 10% VAT and UBI of $1,000 per month. Every one spending less than 10,000 per month would be a net recipient and everyone spending more would receive less than the tax they pay. A VAT can also be reduced or eliminated on essential goods and increased for luxury goods.

              Amazon once again, paid $0 in federal taxes and that is just plain wrong. This is a massive transfer of wealth from us to them and it kills local competition that pays city state and federal taxes at much higher rates.

              I agree A VAT is regressive but the UBI would be even more stimulative; so net stimulative.

              A VAT is also quite difficult to evade whereas a wealth tax is extremely difficult and costly to enforce with lots of gray areas and incentives to create shell companies and other tax evading book keeping.

            3. I’m really puzzled by the math.

              The economy was around $17T before COVID-19. If you give $12k per adult, that’s 12k x 250M =$3T, or about 15% of the overall economy. How could a 10% tax on a portion of sales generate enough?

            4. Nick g I’m not the expert here; But also factor in that most of this $12,000 would be going into the pockets of folks that will spend it immediately so more sales to tax. Another part of Andrew Yangs proposal would be to require people to drop a number of current welfare benefits such as food stamps etc if they want the UBI.

            5. Farmlad,

              That respending effect is real, but it mostly applies when the economy is under-utilized and you want to expand it. Most of the time (we hope) the economy won’t be in deep recession.

              The idea of eliminating current programs is troubling: you’d eliminate targeted programs (that also have specific things aimed at the needy, like counseling) and replace it with money largely going to people who don’t need it.

              Another problem: if you pay people for not working, you’ll have a lot of people sitting around bored. I think a large part of why we got Trump is retirees and people on SSDI who were bored and wanted someone who’d make trouble, just to make things interesting.

              A lot of unemployed people (even with income) is a big recipe for trouble. Better to give them makework, like WPA art projects.

          2. Farmlad, you make a number of good points. Though, I am not sure that reducing insurrection is a good way to change an entrenched system, owned and run by a powerful minority.
            The only way that the worker got respect in this country was violence and forming power groups. People died in the streets and suffered greatly to gain the advantages and respect that has been drained away over the last few decades.
            Now people face permanent job loss through growing automation and developing AI. They also face horrible changes due to limits to growth, eco-destruction and climate change (just a 10 mph increase in hurricane winds can double the damage potential).
            The time for many changes is at hand, but without societal backstops the system will collapse and many will suffer/perish.
            The current horrendous dawdling in monetary support to those in need due to governmental edict is appalling. With only a vote to cause minor change in a dysfunctional political system, people are taking other routes.

            1. Gonefishing Great points.

              Insurrections are not only negative but also have their positive effects. But I don’t see how destroying 500 million dollars worth in Minneapolis alone was worth it. That’s 1000 brand new John Deere combines worth of property destroyed.

              I also struggle to find a clear reason to care what happens since I feel quite confident that extreme amounts of pain is already baked in for a lot of life on this planet including almost all humans. So I say, the passengers on the titanic would have been wise to live it up and throw a party and drink all of the most expensive wine right up until they plunged into the ice cold waves.

            2. Having been intimately acquainted with the riots of the late 60’s, this is a normal reaction to suppression, inequality (economic and social), and police brutality.
              Check out the 1919 Chicago riot for a clearer view into the roots of these long term societal and economic problems. The rioting goes further back than that.

  11. Another “greater than expected” bit of news.

    STOCKS OF VULNERABLE CARBON TWICE AS HIGH WHERE PERMAFROST SUBSIDENCE IS FACTORED IN

    “New research from a team at Northern Arizona University suggests that subsidence, gradually sinking terrain caused by the loss of ice and soil mass in permafrost, is causing deeper thaw than previously thought and making vulnerable twice as much carbon as estimates that don’t account for this shifting ground. These findings, published this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, suggest traditional methods of permafrost thaw measurement underestimate the amount of previously-frozen carbon unlocked from warming permafrost by over 100 percent.”

    https://phys.org/news/2020-06-stocks-vulnerable-carbon-high-permafrost.html

    1. Doug, good one. Reference and controls are mandatory in measurements. When they are not possible, increased diligence and knowledge of the process is strictly necessary.

      Subsidence also causes increased ponding which produces methane instead of carbon dioxide. Methane is powerful, then it converts to carbon dioxide anyway.

  12. Gonefishing, Nick G, Gerry F,

    I’ve known Bill Ruddiman for years as a colleague. I built an upper-division college course on the explanation given here, using a book he published: Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum. I used the revised edition. In that edition Ruddiman included responses from the professional literature to his published papers, mostly critical and not all opposed, and then his own responses to them. I liked this because the members of the classes who took the course got to see how the natural sciences actually work.

    Ruddiman is highly respected professionally, and is not at all susceptible to enthusiasms.

    If you want to dive into the history of climate on Earth then head for Earth’s Climate, Past and Future, also by Ruddiman. Last I looked it was in its third edition. I built an upper-division college course on that one too and the first day it met I pointed out that it would be a good idea to quit your job and give away the kids for a quarter if you’re serious about the course. It’s challenging and written as a textbook, but it has no equal in my opinion and I’m known for my very humble opinion on Port–whoops–on Quaternary palaeoclimatology.

    1. Synapsid:

      I didn’t think Rudmann was a flake or anything. Just curious why i hadn’t heard of this before.

      It might just be that climate researchers are more focused on the modern era. I don’t know enough to know.

    2. Thanks Synapsid, I really enjoy reading Ruddiman’s papers. I will pursue his books when I get time.

      Methane production from massive rice fields and terracing was probably a big factor in changing the climate.

  14. For those interested in electric chainsaws/pruning saws, and perhaps those too who feel that a pile of firewood is “money in the bank” (It’s a good workout too, but I understand Musk is working on that problem).

    I picked up a Stihl MSA 220 electric saw. As my retreat is up in the Bonners Ferry area I have ample supplies of macro-hydro courtesy of the Libby Dam. I’m still running a Husq 372 (ICE) for bigger falling jobs, but the Stihl will be great for delimbing and bucking for sure, and will likely be just fine for most small to medium falling jobs. I compared Husqvarna to Stihl for electrics, and I much prefer the Stihl. My neighbor has a Makita electric saw. He loves it.
    So far I really like the much reduced noise and vibration of the electric saw, and no petrol off course. We’ll see how it lasts.

    1. I’ve got one and an electric Stihl pole saw too. Love ’em. Lots of live oaks and cedar (ash juniper) on my properties. I too have a Husq but rarely use it now as well as an ICE Stihl. Two chargers and 3 batteries. And a line trimmer. I used to put off using any of them because it was always an ordeal to mix fuel – either needed oil or gas which required a 20 mile round trip to town. Bought a EGO battery mower (push with on demand assist) and rarely use the John Deere. All of the power last longer than I want to work!

  15. The Makita cuts almost as good as the stihl pro log saws. I’ve gone thru several. there are a lot of tiny parts to break. buy a saw spare for parts.

    1. Thanks LT, good advice. I’m gonna pick up an electric splitter too. It’ll be plug in so I’ll run it outside my workshop area as a firewood processing stand. In the past I’ve turned a few jerry cans of mixed gas and a bit of chain oil into a winters worth of wood. Good processing gain I had always felt. I’m pleased to be trying the electrics.

  17. It’s almost more about the chain than the saw. Find out where the loggers’ source chains, there are choices for each job. Find good sharpening jigs and watch several pros sharpen. Wear caps and face protection.

Comments are closed.