Open Thread Non- Petroleum, May 9, 2017

Comments not related to petroleum in this thread please.

I am having difficulty coming up with posts, I could use some help with posts, either petroleum or non-petroleum.

Contact me at peakoilbarrel@gmail.com with your idea, before you spend a lot of time writing something up.  Or you can write something and e-mail it in a Word document form.  Thanks in advance for any help.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to Open Thread Non- Petroleum, May 9, 2017

  1. Hightrekker says:

    Walking on Lava

    http://paulkingsnorth.net/2017/04/10/walking-on-lava/

    (well worth the listen-IMHO)

  2. Coffeeguyzz says:

    Dennis

    There seems to be a slackening in tempo on several of the petroleum related sites I check out so, you are not alone in your situation.
    A somewhat effective ploy can always be an “Open Thread”, one petroleum focused and one not.
    Interesting threads can arise within those spacious parameters.

    • Caelan MacIntyre says:

      Hey there little guy… Whatcha doin’ on the non-petroleum thread? …Are ya lost? …Are ya thirsty? Here, have a coffee… What? Your folks told you not to accept coffee from strangers? …Well what about from corporations? They’re people too…

      Somewhat more seriously, though, and since we have you wandering about over here, what do you think might be the reason(s) for the apparent slackening of tempo? Is the industry increasingly ashamed about losing its reason for being or something?

      By the way, while I normally drink tea, sometimes I ‘press the tea reset button to cleanse the pallet’ and hit the coffee, which is coincidentally what I just sat down with before reading your comment. Just Us brand Mocha Java, Turkish grind, hot-milk-brewed (no water). I might have a Just Us Sumatra next if I feel like the reset button has less of a discernible click to it.

      That said, incidentally, did anyone ever ask you how you like your coffee? So? How do you?

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Coffeguyzz,

      Yes without some submissions, that may be what we get, so far no takers except maybe Caelan.

      These do not have to be large tomes. A chart or two (if you like that sort of thing) and maybe 50 to 250 words would be fine.

      Or several news links of interest with a brief excerpt from each link (like the “Drumbeat” at TOD).

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        The news-links is a good idea, Dennis, especially where they are strong.

  3. Survivalist says:

    Emissions from thawing permafrost are now outpacing the uptake of carbon dioxide during the growing season, a new study suggests

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08052017/arctic-permafrost-thawing-alaska-temperatures-co2-emissions

    • George Kaplan says:

      Year-round measurements of CO2 emissions from permafrost have been sparse up to now, and some widely cited studies suggested that rising emissions from thawing permafrost were offset by increased uptake from Arctic forests. But according to the new research, those calculations need to be revised.

      That is really bad news – and it only uses data from 2012 to 2014: we are seeing things really take off in the last twelve months, and especially in the Autumn months as they predicted. And no reason to think the same thing isn’t happening through Siberia.

      • GoneFishing says:

        There has been 769,000 km2 of forest lost in Brazil since 1970. That is just Brazil.

        Since 1950 Indonesia has lost 53% of it’s forest cover (84.9 Mha gone).
        ———
        “No growth stimulation of Canada’s boreal forest under half-century of combined warming and CO2 fertilization”

        Limited knowledge about the mechanistic drivers of forest growth and responses to environmental changes creates uncertainties about the future role of circumpolar boreal forests in the global carbon cycle. Here, we use newly acquired tree-ring data from Canada’s National Forest Inventory to determine the growth response of the boreal forest to environmental changes. We find no consistent boreal-wide growth response over the past 60 y across Canada. However, some southwestern and southeastern forests experienced a growth enhancement, and some regions such as the northwestern and maritime areas experienced a growth depression. Growth–climate relationships bring evidence of an intensification of the impacts of hydroclimatic variability on growth late in the 20th century, in parallel with the rapid rise of summer temperature.

        http://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/E8406.full

        • George Kaplan says:

          From somewhere or other I got the slide below, which shows the high risk climate trip points. The Arctic ice loss, West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse look inevitable, possibly to be joined by the ENSO amplification and Amazon forest loss. I think those four are likely to lead to Greenland ice cap melt and changes in the monsoon as well.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Since the system is interlinked and interlocked, I think a domino effect is more likely as large factors “trip”. Just a matter of timing and inertia at that point, but the energy will have multiple effects.
            The methane output from tundra, ponds, lakes and ocean is not included. With an instantaneous 100X CO2 effect, the persistence and growth of methane in the atmosphere will have a very strong effect over a long period of time.
            I liken it to placing a lid on a heated frying pan. The temperature then increases rapidly without additional energy input since methane has absorbance in clear electromagnetic windows and is nowhere near saturation.

            Another effect is as the cereal regions warm, food production could drop significantly from temperature change, temperature variability and from changes in precipitation. That is highly likely.

            The poles act as a cooling system, but as that changes so does everything else.

            • Raymond Sloop says:

              An argument I’ve had with myself for ages now holds that climate change is merely a constant in this world. In fact, neither I -or anybody else- here can prove or disprove the effect of humanity on global climate. Therefore we have no way of understanding what the natural world would have provided in the absence of any inputs from man.

              Further we can note (in a general sense) that Krakatoa caused a significant decrease in global temperatures. This decrease lasted for multiple years. My sense is those who try so hard to beat drums these days about anthropogenic climate change could be made to admit to themselves that the return to the global temperatures observed before the Krakatoa eruption is -in fact- the process they are now referring to as global warming.

              Lastly it’s not terribly difficult to point out (by various means) that should one wish to find out which world most contemporary science comes from, the only thing one needs to do is “follow those Benjamin’s.”

              • Lloyd says:

                This is a dialogue pair: a canned response pretending to respond to the line of argument when in fact it is merely spreading conservative talking points irrelevant to the topic.

                Ignore him.

                • islandboy says:

                  I would ignore him except for his last sentence which I will quote with a slight modification: “Lastly it’s not terribly difficult to point out (by various means) that should one wish to find out which world most contemporary sciencetrolls comes from, the only thing one needs to do is “follow those Benjamin’s.”

                  It amazes me how these jerks think this line of reasoning is going to convince anybody that is not already on their side. Climate scientists, most of whom have a net worth that is a mere fraction of the net worth of celebrity scientists like Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson are supposed to be feeding of some mythical trough while the poor, suffering likes of the Koch brothers, et al are supposed to be hapless victims. Yeah right!

                  As I always like to point out, another “insightful” post brought to us with the kind support of the happy billionaires!

                  • Max Gervis says:

                    There’s a huge difference between the two though. The Koch Brothers make their money on Wall Street, but government scientists make their money on Main Street, since their salaries come from taxpayer money. It shouldn’t be a big surprise how more people will resent having their taxes going to fund jobs versus having Wall Street Investors do it.

                  • Survivalist says:

                    I’m sure the K brothers care less than the square root of fuck all about you Max. The scientists, much to your chagrin, have your better interests in mind. If taxes are your concern you might wish to address military spending. Doubt you will though. You’re just another random drive by sock puppet.

                  • George Kaplan says:

                    “It’s a rule worth having in mind. Income almost always flows along the same axis as power but in the opposite direction.”

                    “People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing compared with that of the rich.”

                    John Kenneth Galbraith (The Age of Uncertainty)

                  • islandboy says:

                    Hey Max, maybe you know more than me but, I thought the lion’s share of the Koch’s money is not made on Wall St. but, by extracting fossil fuels, processing them and selling them for use in generating electricity and as transportation fuels, among other uses. As such, they have a huge stake in any efforts to reduce carbon emissions and would probably find it in their best interests to stymie any such efforts.

                    It’s no surprise then that, Charles Koch is on record as having played a major role in the founding of “institutes” dedicated to spreading (alternative) facts about the science of climate change like The Heartland Institute and The Institute for Energy Research. If (when) the effects of global warming get really bad, people like them should be tried for crimes against humanity!

                    I was going to add links to Heartland and IER but, no doubt you and you and your friends who are blessing us with your presence here are intimately familiar with their Koch supported talking points.

                  • Bob Frisky says:

                    David Koch funds a significant number of art and cultural programs through his David H. Koch Charitable Foundation. Many of the shows on PBS feature his name on them.

                  • Nick G says:

                    David Koch funds a significant number of art and cultural program

                    Yes, his family has been funding some good things for a while. And, of course, they’re well aware of how black their reputation is, so they have an incentive to do this from that point of view as well. They even fund science programs…

                    It doesn’t begin to make up for the *enormous* damage they’ve done, both to democratic institutions and to the effort to transition away from fossil fuels!

                • islandboy says:

                  Lloyd could you please remind me why these jerks find it so important to come here and spout their bullshit to an audience that is mostly aware of their game and largely hostile. If you have linked to the explanation in the past, I should have read it but, didn’t. Would you mind posting the link again if that’s the case.

                  • Lloyd says:

                    Hi Islandboy.
                    I’ve lost track of most of my Coach Lloyd comments. My primary reference for what is a shady business is: “I Was a Paid Internet Shill: How Shadowy Groups Manipulate Internet Opinion and Debate (“http://consciouslifenews.com/paid-internet-shill-shadowy-groups-manipulate-internet-opinion-debate/1147073/) I had some more respectable, but less comprehensive, references that I can’t find now.

                    I don’t think changing the minds of the regular posters is the point. What they are trying to do is:

                    1. Make it look like the positions we support are contested: they are playing to whatever audience we have here- those 12 million page views. I also think that in some circles, our more celebrated commenters and posters have more weight than that 12 million page views suggests.

                    2. Interfere with actual communication: when we are responding to them, we can’t actually communicate anything worthwhile to each other. News is drowned out by rehashing topics that we consider decided.

                    They aren’t necessarily paid: there are right-wing bloggers who tell their readers that it is a right-winger’s duty to respond -for free- to any article that suggests Climate Change exists with charges of bad science and political motivation. (sorry-lost my reference.) I think that the drive-by morons aren’t necessarily paid, but the people who encourage them certainly are.

                    I don’t know how effective we are judged to be, or how much it’s worth to someone to try to interfere with us. It’s hard to judge the effectiveness of PR and advertising, and you judge the effectiveness of what is essentially a broad-based smear campaign (because it would not target just us, but all media that says Climate change is real) at the ballot box and the legislature. We might be collateral damage from zealous righties working for free, or the side effect of a really good PR salesman who convinced somebody that they had to get small media too.

                    I do think corporate interests are at play here. Oil, travel, cars, etc., form a big piece of the economy: the amounts of money involved are so large that it becomes practical to pay people to go against us. And if they’re winning, it makes sense to spend as much-or more- going forward: the reason for this is because, as with all advertising and PR, you don’t know precisely why you won (or lost.) I suspect that overkill is the preferred method.

                    -Lloyd

                • alimbiquated says:

                  And by “conservative” you mean “Republican”. There’s nothing conservative about this garbage.

              • GoneFishing says:

                You describe your own understanding of the subjects, not anyone else’s understanding.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                In fact, neither I -or anybody else- here can prove or disprove the effect of humanity on global climate.

                Oh boy! You are a fucking moron/troll!

              • George Kaplan says:

                Raymond – I think the wrong person won your internal argument, I’d ask for a recount (in a general sense of course) – further one could note, the chap (presumably the victor) who came up with that Krakatoa tripe is a self deluding idiot.

              • Hightrekker says:

                Yep-

  4. Ralph says:

    Trump is sailing close to the wind today. Do you think there will be deep throat this time, or is journalism dead?

    • twocats says:

      the reporting on trump hasn’t been entirely bad. and the amount of leaks is just astounding. articles citing 7 sources is very common. i saw one article that had 21 confirming sources. we are definitely reaching “peak leak”.

      but the republican media (fox, rush, et al) will continue to support trump until?? he shoots someone on 5th ave? hard to say.

    • Survivalist says:

      “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”.
      Winston Churchill

      A Russian stooge elected on the basis of racism and antiabortionism. Suckers.

      • Nick G says:

        “The best argument FOR democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average billionaire”.

        That’s my quote, and I think it’s true. I’ve talked to quite a few wealthy people in unguarded moments, and their grasp of reality is…scary. The stuff on Fox News is generally consistent with what the wealthy want to believe, and so they actually believe it. It’s very, very scary.

        You can’t leave government up to oligarchs. The average voter may not know more, but at least they have some small chance at advocating for their self interest – e.g., historically the average voter is far, far less interested in sending their children off to war.

        More importantly, democracy isn’t necessarily about involving the average voter – much of the point of democracy is opening up government to somewhat wider range of circles: Non-Governmental Organizations, professionals, middle class intellectuals, etc.

        Government by a small group of people is almost always going to be badly sub-optimal.

        • Survivalist says:

          The economic elites (much as people love to hate them) are usually the most mentally agile people in the society. They can see stuff coming that ordinary people cannot. They can see that a deleveraging is coming and the scale of the deleveraging is massive.

          Democracy works better when most voters aren’t down in the dirt dumb.

          • Boomer II says:

            I think the big problem now is that the wealthy don’t really need the masses. Their labor is less essential and their buying power isn’t a factor for many wealthy.

            While I don’t think conservatives are necessarily intentionally promoting policies to kill off the masses, if that is the net result, I doubt it would effect the wealthy very much.

          • Gerry says:

            You should look into that stuff psychologists call “survivorship bias” and “halo effect”.

            And considering the “see stuff coming”:
            Bill Gates didn’t see the Internet coming right up to the point it almost ran over his company. He was still advertising his closed and proprietary “The Microsoft Network” even though early adopters were rapidly flocking to the anarchic and open Internet.

            And to quote the insanely rich Steve Ballmer (at that time head of Microsoft) about the iPhone: “It doesn’t appeal to business customers because it doesn’t have a keyboard”. [1]

            Yeah, very “prescient” those to rich dudes!

            [1]
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U

            • Survivalist says:

              And yet they’re still in the lead.
              Bill Gates falling behind Steve Jobs is hardly a solid example of economic elites not being mentally agile. It’s just one competing against another. There’s a reason why smart people make more money. And smarter people make even more.
              Trump is a good example of an idiot who pissed away an inheritance because he thought he was smart. I doubt he’s worth as much as he says he is. Hence no tax returns. If you take what Trump owns and subtract what he owes to mobbed up Russians he’s probably broke, again.

              • Nick G says:

                The wealthy may be a little smarter, on average, but that doesn’t mean that they have better information & ideas; or that they have other people’s welfare in mind.

                The Bay of Pigs is a classic example: JFK was smart, born of wealth, and had a circle of smart people, and yet they failed badly due to a decision making process that was narrowly confined to a small group.

                The smartest people in the world can’t do as well as a group with a wide variety of information and backgrounds that simply has better information.

                The Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch have done enormous damage to our democracies. They have bad ideas, and they’re determined to promote narrow interests that are harmful to the vast majority of people.

                • alimbiquated says:

                  Can’t wait til modern medicine figures out how to let billionaires live forever.

                  There used to be a popular explanation for the Fermi Paradox (that there are no aliens) which claimed that an alien race that advanced far enough to discover nukes would soon disappear from history.

                  We survived the Cold War, but will we survive the undying reactionary oligarchs? Or will they destroy all life on the planet to keep themselves chugging along in their fantasy world?

    • Lloyd says:

      So….there was no wrong doing around Clinton’s email server, and all the people yelling “Jail her!” were uninformed buffoons. Including Trump. Including you.

      Where’s the apology?

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        Because of a little dirt on my sceen, for a second, I thought you wrote €linton’s like that.

        In any case, the dirt is bottomless. Why bother?

        “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” ~ Henry David Thoreau

        • Lloyd says:

          In any case, the dirt is bottomless. Why bother?
          Without admission, there can be no change.

          Without an apology, the stink of the bullshit lingers on…and no, I’m not actually expecting an apology from anybody, because the Trump side won’t change. The only possibility is for the Republicans to realize that the Trump contingent will destroy anyone and anything, and has no loyalty to anyone or anything.

          It is in the hands of the congressional Republicans, and considering their recent record, I have no confidence that they will do the right thing.

          -Lloyd

      • HuntingtonBeach says:

        Hello Lloyd,

        Well the firing of Comey yesterday must have pushed you over the edge. From health care to the travel ban to trade to taxes, every move Trump makes is just another arrow in the heart of democracy and the American world empire. The white supremacy racist Republican party is the gift that just keeps on giving to Putin’s world order.

        OFM talks about HRC as being Republican lite. But the truth is, the Republican party is Russian authoritarian lite and Fox News is a cancer of the poorly educated. We are witnessing a train wreck of never seen proportions before.

        From Benghazi to Neil Gorsuch, I too have no confidence in the Republican congress to do the right thing. The only thing that could motivate them is a fear of a 2018 Democrat wave election.

        Let me apology for my failure to get the point across to OFM of how damaging it is to have someone day after day trash someones reputation. I would have thought after nearly 6 months and him having to have to change is screen name. He would realize and understood what has been done to HRC for the last 25 years. Well, I guess that didn’t work. Now I’m on to phase 2, just minimize and isolate his impact. The two of us are already pretty much become radioactive here.

        Sure, he may have never changed any votes here. But the millions of others who played his same game across the internet, did set the tone and caused the Trump win. One of his true loves is posting his nonsense here. Sooner or later, he will realize he lost on November 8.

        I agree with you, OldMacDonald aka KGB Trumpster needs to apologize.

        • Lloyd says:

          Hey, Beach.
          I have been cautious about my general support for your position, because dealing with OFM would require all of my time. I like to craft and hone my comments, and I don’t like to start something I can’t finish. Just parsing the screeds of someone who can produce 5000 words in a few hours (much of it anecdotal, redundant, and off topic) is painful.

          Let me apology for my failure to get the point across to OFM
          I have to thank you for keeping him occupied…I knew that there was someone writing one-liners that would lead to thousand-word inanities that no one would read, and that seemed to be …well, not happy, but duty-bound, to do so.

          While I still have no faith in the Republican Congresspeople reflexively doing the right thing, I am taking solace in the ongoing evidence that the Trump White House is incapable of doing anything but shooting themselves in the foot. This crisis is not Nixonian; in fact, calling Trump Nixonian does Nixon a disservice. Nixon cracked the whip, used professionals (mostly), and manged to spend years riding his administration into the ground. As far as competence goes, Trump’s political skill is more akin to Hitler’s skill at waging global war: ultimately flawed and over-reaching, but leaving a path of destruction that we spent decades dealing with. Gorsuch is where this metaphor leads…the longer Trump is in, the worse it will get. Pence would probably be worse on the domestic front, but Trump is the trump as far as geopolitical risk goes. There are no visible good answers for the next 18 months.

          There is still a chance for a Deep Throat to come to the surface. There are people in the FBI whose career paths are going to be messed up, and, dare I say it, some who may feel morally and ethically unable to obey the administration. Carl Bernstein pushes for this every time he’s on CNN, pointing out that a Republican house brought down Nixon.

          Of course, Felt might not have done what he did if he been made head of the FBI…

          -Lloyd

          • OFM says:

            Hi Lloyd, Lap Doggie,

            I have been running a long term experiment here, in several different respects, as well as pursuing some political goals, collecting useful links, learning a few things and so forth.

            One of the experiments has been to determine whether technically literate people, such as the majority of the ones who post comments here in the non petroleum thread, are willing to admit incontestable facts that they find to be unpleasant for personal reasons, such as having made mistakes in choosing who they support politically.

            At least a dozen times, I posted a challenge for ANYBODY to present even ONE argument, in mathematical terms, proving that HRC is not a scumbag politician, as evidenced by her Cattle Gate scam, etc. It can’t be done of course.

            I have searched far and wide for any mathematician who has defended her, in this respect, putting his or her professional reputation on the line. ZERO results.

            EVERY mathematically literate person must conclude that the only possible explanation for her supposed success is that the purchase and sell orders were selected to make her come out as a big winner, against odds of many millions of one against. Of course the truly careful ones sometimes say it was POSSIBLE that she did the equivalent of buying just one ticket and hitting the big powerball payoff.

            OK, I have my proof that tribalism is more important than facts and honesty among at least all the technically literate people who populate this forum, and who represent themselves as big D Democrats.

            And to take it to the next level, once you have proven something mathematically ONCE , you don’t need to prove it AGAIN. One proof is sufficient, after that, in dealing with people, the question is who you believe, or do not believe, in terms of questionable behaviors.

            I pointed out many times that while I thought Clinton would win, most days, there were days when I wasn’t sure, and I pointed out many times that Sanders didn’t have the baggage train, REAL OR IMAGINED.

            ETC ETC

            Now I strongly suspect that a great many people who supported HRC wish like hell now they had paid a little attention to the actual polls, and to the incontestable facts about the dirty politics she played in rigging the primaries, mishandling party money, being so stupid as to badmouth the future leadership of the party, etc.

            I find it hilarious that a lot of idiots who blamed Comey for her losing instead of HER for being so stupid as to have the secret email system in the first place are now Comey fans, lol.

            Apologize to clowns for pointing out the truth?

            The day it snows in Hell will come sooner.

            Pretty soon, with a little luck, we will be rid of Trump as well as Clinton. But there are plenty of people here quite willing to point out the truth concerning Trump and his friends, so I leave that field mostly to them, other than posting some links, if I see them sooner.

            With a little more luck, real Democrats ( rather than Republican Lite Democrats) will hopefully regain control of the Democratic Party.

            You morons don’t seem to have brains enough to understand that Clinton lost to Trump because she was the ONLY FUCKING Democrat in the country INEPT enough to lose to the worst R ever to run for president, one who only got the nomination by hijacking the R party machinery, whereas Clinton got the D nomination by OWNING the D machinery, old time machine politician style, and by allying herself with the banksters.

            You don’t seem to have brains enough to understand that when you lose, you look to your own mistakes, rather than blaming other people, most especially people who pointed out your mistakes soon enough that you could have done differently.

            I won’t be posting much political stuff here any more, except maybe to point out when the remnants of the Clinton machine play dirty in failing to support D party candidates with a shot at winning, because they are allied with the Sanders movement.

            Links excepted. If I see a good one pointing out some Trump foolishness, or criminal activity, I will post it , unless somebody else posts it sooner.

            I always said Trump would be worse. He’s proven to be even worse than I expected, by a substantial margin.

            From here on out, I will be working on helping get rid of him, but I will be directing my efforts into other forums, and into organizing at the local level, on behalf of the Sanders movement.

            Anybody who is incapable of recognizing that Clinton’s loss is a SIGN that the Democratic Party lost its way when it went the R Lite party route is politically naive. All that’s necessary to see it is to look at what has happened politically for the last couple of decades.

            The D party at the very highest level, the presidential level, has hung on, but only at the price of the R’s mopping the floors with D’s at all the lower electoral levels.

            More of the same D Lite type stuff isn’t going to fix the country.

            • HuntingtonBeach says:

              OldMacDonald aka KGB Trumpster says-

              “I won’t be posting much political stuff here any more”

              Promises made, need to be promises keep, Thank you and don’t let the blog hit you in the ass on the way out.

              Hasta la vista, baby

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q73gUUr8Zlw

              • alimbiquated says:

                Mac has been making real conversation difficult to impossible for months on this forum by flooding it with irrelevant verbiage.

                Unfortunately there is no ignore option here.

            • Lloyd says:

              Lordy!
              I’ve seen the light!
              Nothing is worse than bad IT choices.

              Give me a lying, self-dealing, justice-obstructing, FBI-Chief-threatening, sexual assault bragging, conflict of interest laden imbecile who surrounds himself with perjurers and incompetents and, if the smoke turns out to have fire, has sold his country out to the Russians.

              Because everybody knows that Trump is too stupid to make his own IT choices.

    • twocats says:

      trump also cited comey’s crackdown on immigrants, abuse of black communities, I’m sorry, I can’t come up with an excuse more ridiculous sounding than the official one given, so let’s go with that.

  5. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    “I am having difficulty coming up with posts, I could use some help with posts, either petroleum or non-petroleum.” ~ Dennis Coyne

    Wow, really? Peak Peak Oil Barrel?

    What about I write something about Permaea? Maybe clean up the manifesto and send it along?

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Hi Caelan,

      Send me the brief outline of what you have in mind at the peakoilbarrel@gmail.com address and I will let you know.

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        Ok Dennis, no guarantees just yet, but I’ll see what I can do.

        • Hightrekker says:

          Athens: Anarchists Attack Business Known for Preying on the Poor

          http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/05/athens-anarchists-attack-business-known-for-preying-on-the-poor/

          Things are simple and one target must remain clear: we must protect our homes in any way possible from small and big predators . Participate in solidarity committees, community networks, be present at court. In short, show your solidarity through action and support as many people as possible.

          For all the reasons outlined above, we came to the office of Perfect Clean, which we took care of accordingly. Our choice is nothing more than a minimum response of what this company deserves for its role in cases such as the ones described earlier. According to complaints the company is now looking to take advantage of the situation in order to get its hands on the entire building. Against these practices, we say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! If you have no respect for us, the time has come for you to fear us.

  6. islandboy says:

    Report: Wind energy sets 8-year record as installations swell in Q1

    Dive Insight:

    Wind energy continues to boom thanks to the 11th hour extension of the wind PTC in late 2015, according to the latest market report from the wind trade group American Wind Energy Association.

    Touting job growth and a burst in projects in the past couple of years, wind energy stakeholders expects the growth to hold steady.

    “We switched on more megawatts in the first quarter than in the first three quarters of last year combined,” said Tom Kiernan, CEO of AWEA, in a statement. “Each new modern wind turbine supports 44 years of full-time employment over its lifespan, so the turbines we installed in just these three months represent nearly 40,000 job years for American workers.”

    The article contains a link to the following article:

    U.S. Wind Energy Installations Surge: A New Turbine Rises Every 2.4 Hours

    I also went over to the American Wind Energy Association to see what their press release had to say:

    American wind power reports best first quarter since 2009

    Their story contained the following tit-bit which I find very interesting:

    “Horace Pritchard, one of nearly 60 landowners associated with the North Carolina project explained what it means to him and his neighbors, “Farms have been growing corn, soybeans, and wheat for a long time here, and the wind farm revenue means a lot of families are protected from pricing swings, floods or droughts going forward. We’re just adding another locally-grown crop to our fields, with very little ground taken out of production, and the improved roads really help with access. So it’s a great fit here.”

    Expanding wind farms continue to benefit rural America, since over 99 percent of wind farms are built in rural communities. According to AWEA’s recently released 2016 Annual Market Report, wind now pays over $245 million per year in land-lease payments to local landowners, many of them farmers and ranchers.”

    How do these land lease payments compare with payments land owners receive when oil is extracted on their land?

    • GoneFishing says:

      Growth rate is definitely flattening out. First ten years grew by 10X. Last ten years grew by 4X.

      • Dennis Coyne says:

        Hi Gone fishing,

        If we consider the electricity generated by wind rather than capacity, using BP data from 1996 to 2005 the growth rate was 27.5% per year and from 2006 to 2015 and it was about 21% per year. So growth has slowed but a little less than one would get by looking at cumulative capacity because capacity factors have changed.

        • GoneFishing says:

          There is no question about the growth continuing, however the early predictions of exponential growth have to be cut back, the actual growth is emulating a sawtooth pattern, Strange, but there must be some reasons for the erratic nature of wind capacity growth.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Gone fishing,

            I was using data for the World rather than just the US, so the results would be a little different for the US. In the US, changes in policy have affected Wind growth rates. Again using BP Statistical Review 2016 data for 1996-2015 and dividing in two 10 year periods, if we consider the electricity produced (and consumed) that came from wind power in terawatt-hours per year, the US wind growth rate from 1996 to 2005 averaged 21%/year and the US wind growth rate from 2006 to 2015 was 22% per year. These average growth rates were found by fitting a linear trend to the natural log of TWhr/year of wind power consumed over the consecutive 10 year periods.

            Over the most recent 5 years (2011-2015) the US growth rate has slowed considerably to 12%/year, compared to 33% per year from 2006 to 2010.

            I agree that 30% growth rates are unlikely to continue especially after 2020 when tax credits expire in the US. A lot of this variation is due to distortions in the market caused by changing tax policy.

            Using EIA data for net generation from wind (annual totals) from 2007 to 2016 the average growth rate was 19%/year, with 30%/year growth from 2007-2011 and 11%/year growth from 2012 to 2016.

            https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/xls/table_1_01_a.xlsx

            If the 11% growth rate can be maintained until 2030, then Wind power generation will increase by a factor of 4 above 2016 levels and wind power generation would be 24% of total electricity generation at utility scale facilities in 2016. If the growth continued at 11%/year until 2044, then wind would produce over 100% of 2016 net electricity generation. Also note that US net generation has been decreasing from 2007 to 2016.

            https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/xls/table_1_01.xlsx

            • Dennis Coyne says:

              Hi Gone fishing,

              Looking at utility scale photovoltaic net generation in the US, the growth has been astounding. From 2007 to 2013 it was 100% per year and from 2014-2016 it slowed to 39% per year. If we assume the growth rate slows by 2% each year until reaching an 11%/year growth rate and then remains at that 11%/year level until demand is satisfied and further assuming that efficiency improvements offset growing demand from EVs and heat pumps so that overall demand for electricity is flat in the US and that all other electricity sources except wind, solar, coal, and natural gas remain flat at 2016 levels (to simplify the analysis).

              Then under the combined wind (11%/year growth) and solar scenarios (outlined above), all coal net generation can be replaced by 2028, and all coal and natural gas by 2035. Other sources such as petroleum liquids, petroleum coke, other gas, etc could also be quickly replaced (total for these is small) and if society deems it desirable then nuclear power could also be replaced by 2038. This is for US only, Europe could likely make similar progress as could Japan, South Korea, and Russia.

              At that point rapid progess could also be made in China, India and the rest of the World so that most fossil fuel consumption might be eliminated by 2050 (probably 95%) and completely eliminated as a fuel source by 2060. Economies of scale will make wind and solar much cheaper relative to fossil fuel, and EVs and electric rail will take care of most land transport. Air and sea may require nuclear and wind hybrids on the ocean (or biofuels) and biofuel battery hybrids for air travel which will be expensive and limited to the ultra rich.

              • Nick G says:

                under the combined wind (11%/year growth) and solar scenarios (outlined above)

                Hey, that’s 11 years – our recent WAG of 10 years to eliminate coal was pretty good. And 11% growth really isn’t very aggressive – we could do better if we wanted.

                Air and sea may require nuclear and wind hybrids on the ocean (or biofuels)…

                A small quibble: I seriously doubt nuclear will ever be optimal for ocean transportation. Synthetic fuels (H2, diesel, ammonia, methanol, etc., etc) would be much cheaper and more convenient. Biofuels are ok, but I think everyone agrees that it would be harmful to scale them up much more.

                and biofuel battery hybrids for air travel which will be expensive and limited to the ultra rich

                Air travel can be made much more efficient. Even now, fuel is only 1/3 of the cost of air travel, so tripling the cost of liquid fuel (which is the maximum impact of going to synthetic liquid fuels) would only double the cost of air travel – that wouldn’t limit it to the ultra rich. More likely aviation fuel efficiency will double, and the cost of fuel will double, leaving the net cost of fuel the same as now.

                Roughly the same cost analysis applies to water transportation.

            • GoneFishing says:

              From GWEC
              yearly global growth rate of wind power
              2009-10 24.4%
              2010-11 20.0%
              2011-12 18.0%
              2012-13 12.6%
              2013-14 16.1%
              2014-15 16.9%

              average growth over the period 18.0%

    • alimbiquated says:

      When the oil runs out, the payments stop. When the wind runs out, they stop too I guess.

  7. Survivalist says:

    It’s not hard for an empire to swallow Afghanistan. It’s keeping it down that’s the problem.

    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2017/05/taliban-parades-large-convoy-in-sangin.php

  8. wharf rat says:

    Black Dog, from the Oil Drum, just bit Spencer and Christy on their butts.

    A Comparative Analysis of Data Derived from Orbiting MSU/AMSU Instruments
    R. Eric Swanson
    Warrensville, North Carolina
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1
    =
    More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists’ temperature estimates

    A new study suggests there are remaining biases in the oft-corrected University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric temperature estimates

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates%5Dtheguardian.com%5B

    • HuntingtonBeach says:

      Electric cars are finally taking off in Europe, according to a recent report.

      Consumers on the Old Continent have been slow to adopt battery-electric vehicles. For a long time, new car shoppers adamently believed diesel-powered cars were the ideal alternative to gasoline-burning models, which used more fuel and generally cost more to fill up. However, Europe’s collective mindset is beginning to change.

      Bloomberg reports sales of battery-powered cars grew by 38 percent in the first quarter of this year. 32,627 cars were registered in the European Union countries, Norway, and Switzerland, compared to 23,703 in the first quarter of last year.

      http://www.leftlanenews.com/electric-car-sales-soar-in-europe-95888.html

      • Ralph says:

        This is purely anecdotal, but I now see about 5 full electric cars each day on my 6 mile (one way) bicycle commute, not including my own. Last week I saw 3 in a row in the daily two mile tailback as I cycled past them . (Nissan, Renault, Tesla). There may be more, not all are so easy to spot.

        • notanoilman says:

          Approximately where in the world was this? Would help get an idea of where things are happening.

          NAOM

          • Ralph says:

            Cambridge, UK

            Probably the greenest city in the UK, although Bristol and Brighton have more green voters.

      • alimbiquated says:

        It has less to do with adamant beliefs and more to do with tax incentives. Diesel costs about 80 cents less a gallon where I live.

        Battery powered delivery vans and municipal utility vehicles are leading the charge however.

        Smaller battery powered devices are rapidly taking over. Electric chainsaws and lawnmowers are all the rage, and power tools are going cordless.

        And electric bike sales a really booming: 600K were sold in Germany in 2016.

        https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/152721/umfrage/absatz-von-e-bikes-in-deutschland/

        • notanoilman says:

          I looked at a couple of electric(mains) weed whackers yesterday, seemed pretty solid and would suit my needs. As for electric chain saws, one of the local education establishments uses them for ice carving classes. Think electricity, cables on floor, ice, tropical heat – no, no hazard at all!!!

          Working on plans for electric bike/trike.

          NAOM

          • scrub puller says:

            Yair . . .

            Move on man . . . corded weed whackers are a pain go battery.

            Cheers.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            What scrub puller said! Go battery, man.
            Even for the chain saw.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgc5H94Ql04
            EGO Power+ 56 Volt Brushless 14″ Chain Saw Review and Demonstration
            ICEs are soooo last century!

          • notanoilman says:

            Limited area, limited use sums up how I will be using the whacker plus I haven’t seen any battery ones around, important for spares and service. Keeping the batteries fresh would be an issue. A quick whirr out the front and in the garden every fortnight in the rainy season just about sums it up. Fred you know well how fast stuff grows in this climate. I don’t want a gas engine so mains is probably the best option for how I will be using it, less complications. Covering a larger, more remote area or moving around then battery may well be better.

            Battery chainsaws were my thought for the school, beats getting zapped by a frayed cable. I might have to hire a gas one to take some palms down though 🙁 they are taking over the garden and destroying stuff.

            NAOM

  9. Survivalist says:

    An interesting piece of data.

    https://www.usanpn.org/data/phenology_maps

  10. clueless says:

    Since there are so many futurist experts here, maybe someone can comment.

    In the not too distant future, many project Uber cars to increase to such an extent that many will use them to commute to work, etc. But, at about the time that that might happen, driverless cars are projected to take over. So, no Uber drivers needed. But, if there are no Uber drivers, who is going to purchase and own the driverless car?

    • piptee doop tay badoo pap says:

      The AI robots that will be going to work.

      Uber Is Doomed

    • Boomer II says:

      I assume that companies would still run fleets of driverless cars that can be hired on demand. No need for lots of families to own their own driverless cars.

      If anything, it would be more economical for companies to switch from paying drivers to just owning the driverless cars. Lots of labor costs eliminated.

      • Boomer II says:

        The advantage if a company owned the cars and they ran 24 hours a day, the cars would be used far more than if a family owned a car and it was driven very little. On the other hand, if the car was an EV and was used as much as an energy storage system as a transportation vehicle, having the car sit for hours at a time and absorbing and then putting energy back into the system might serve that purpose.

      • Boomer II says:

        I haven’t closely followed developments on driverless cars.

        However, I would expect that if they significantly reduced traffic accidents, they will be embraced by at least some legal authorities. There will, of course, be lobbying against them by any group displaced by them, but if it turns out a driverless car introduces less risk into the system than human drivers, that will be a good thing for most people. Insurance companies, if insuring driverless cars is more profitable than insuring people-driven cars, will likely be in favor of them too.

        Air travel, drones, robots, etc., have already been used for years without constant human input, so it isn’t as if driverless cars are popping out of nothing. I imagine it’s a matter of complexity and rapidly shifting conditions which might set driverless cars apart from other mobile devices, but the technology apparently is ready or near-ready as far as the developers are concerned.

        • clueless says:

          Boomer – If you were investing in a company that owned driverless cars – could users smoke in them? How about smoking cigars? How about smoking marijuana? I do know for an absolute fact that if you had a car with 3 people smoking in it and my wife got into it 2 weeks later, she would absolutely get right out – unless you spent hundreds of dollars fumigating it like hotels currently do with violaters of the non-smoking rooms.

          And, really the most hilarious thing – were you ever a teenager? Maybe not. But, this would be an absolute gift to teenagers. No need to risk soiling daddy’s car (or your own). And he may even have a GPS in it. So either a couple, or a group gets together and “apps” a self driving vehicle. Preferably a big SUV [verify that with Bill Clinton]. No need to “rent a room.” No tracks, no worries. But, who is going to clean out all of the body fluids from that teenage escapade?

          And, how will law enforcement deal with minute by minute rentals? You want someone dead. So, all you need is a stolen credit card. Use the vehicle to take some one out. By that , I mean really out, as in kill them. Leave the car and there are no witnesses, no clues, except the purloined credit card number. It would be kind of like drug dealers who today buy the Trac Phones.

          If I spent more than 60 seconds thinking about it, I am sure that I could pose other questions that would need to be addressed. And, do not say that the interior will be monitored by some kind of camera system. Too many people (married) would want to use them to take out a “date.” A video record of who the date was – that is a nonstarter. And with no camera, any difficulty that a cheating spouse currently has would be eliminated. You both meet at a church, app a vehicle and, well, you can fill in the rest.

          • Boomer II says:

            The problems you raise are already being dealt with in car sharing companies, car rentals, taxis, Uber, etc. People are already using services where they don’t own the cars. The fact that it doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

            Similarly B2B is very popular, both for people renting places to stay and for people renting out their rooms and property.

            You don’t have to invest in these companies, but others do invest in them.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            If I spent more than 60 seconds thinking about it, I am sure that I could pose other questions that would need to be addressed. And, do not say that the interior will be monitored by some kind of camera system.

            Guess you’ve never slept in a 5+ star hotel room, eh?

            Sometimes they have to change the furniture and replace the carpets because the blood stains can’t be cleaned up.
            I know because I’ve done the estimates for such repairs at some very high end franchises. Places where a single room for one night might start around $1,700.00

            I’ve seen clean up and repair costs at upwards of 35K for a single room. These places include it in the price of doing business. No one even bats an eye!

            For the record I find your objections rather ridiculous and unfounded, maybe you need to get out in the real world a bit more!

            Who knows, you might even end up being a little less clueless…

            Cheers!

  11. HuntingtonBeach says:

    155 businesses and industry groups send letter of support for California LCFS in current and possibly more stringent future forms

    As California policymakers consider options to extend the state’s landmark climate change laws to 2030 and beyond, 155 businesses and industry groups sent a letter to California Governor Jerry Brown, Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon in support of the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)—in its current form and also in its potentially more stringent future state.

    Approved in 2009 and first implemented in 2011, the LCFS requires California fuel providers to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels at least 10% by 2020, by phasing in less carbon-intensive fuel technologies. In five years—2011 to 2016—the LCFS helped encourage a 57% uptick in the use of clean fuels in California.

    We strongly support the LCFS, which will reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels ten percent by 2020, and even more by 2030. The LCFS gives us the incentives we need to invest in early-commercial vehicle and fuel technologies today in order to bring down the costs for all Californians in the future.

    —Letter of support

    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05/155-businesses-and-industry-groups-send-letter-of-support-for-california-lcfs-in-current-and-possibly-more-stringent-future-f.html

    California Energy Commission awards more than $36M to clean transportation projects

    The California Energy Commission awarded more than $24 million in grants today for clean energy freight transportation projects in Los Angeles and Long Beach and more than $12 million for other clean transportation projects.

    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05/20170511-calenergy.html

    We Have Two Options: Stabilize The Arctic Or Destabilize Our Planet

    As the Arctic Council convenes in Fairbanks, it is a good time to remind ourselves that, unlike Las Vegas, what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic.

    The Arctic – its sea ice, terrestrial ice sheets, glaciers and permafrost – has significant influence on the planet’s weather patterns. Ocean currents, sea levels and rainfall patterns are all affected by what’s happening in the Arctic.

    All life on Earth has adapted for millions of years with a relatively stable Artic. That’s no longer the case. Today our generation is presiding over the dismantling of the Arctic and its stabilizing systems just when we need them the most.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stabilize-the-arctic-or-destabilize-our-planet_us_591468eae4b002274b946a1d?section=us_green

    • George Kaplan says:

      From the article: “We cannot stabilize the world’s climate and its oceans without stabilizing the Arctic.” – it looks to me like the Arctic can only exist stably in one of two states: mostly ice covered all year, giving a continental type climate; or mostly ice free all year, giving a maritime type climate. It can’t be stabilized half way between the two. Currently it is in rapid transition. Things happen all the time now that nobody there has ever experienced before. The next ten days might see some record ice loss the way the weather is forecast and how thin, and dispersed to the south and east, the ice is.

      • GoneFishing says:

        I am not surprised at the changes in Antarctica since it and the surrounding ocean are at an energetic maximum solar input due to orbital variations, the minimum having passed 11,000 years ago. However, the Arctic is at a minimum solar input, the maximum having been 11,000 years ago. Logically, the Arctic Ocean should be a frozen wasteland, building ice at this point and northern glaciers should be on the increase. Just the opposite is happening.
        So either our understanding of the earth system is wrong on a large scale or the increases in CO2 and other GHG’s are enough to counteract the 45 watt/m2 loss of light input in the northern regions. That is probably part of the picture, but unless the sensitivity to CO2 is much higher than expected, other factors must be coming into play to cause the rapid heating and melting going on in the Arctic regions, an area with a large energy input loss.

        This experiment we are running, causing massive amounts of carbon to enter the atmosphere in a short time and then very probably drop out that artificial input in even less time, is complicated by the fact earth systems are not only complex but interdependent. Will we merely have been the starter motor for a larger set of inputs to engage or will the system not amplify the initial conditions and the problem fade out over a few millennia? The Arctic says amplification is a fact.
        For a species that has had civilization for about 10 millennia and could look at another 10 millennia of civilization, to radically alter the planetary climate and ecosystem is one dangerous experiment for all humans and all species.
        In a world made far less mysterious than it used to be, the biggest and most important mysteries seem to be looming over us despite all our accomplishments. In fact because of our accomplishments. We seem ill prepared to cope with global emergencies. But then again, we are just human.

        • Boomer II says:

          When do you suppose flooding on the coastal US cities will be so evident that even anti-global warming folks will have to concede something is happening?

          I’ve seen illustrations of what the US coasts will look like at some point in the future, and major areas will be permanently underwater, but the projections are for a date beyond my expected lifetime.

          I’d like to know if major disruptions will happen relatively soon.

          • Hickory says:

            “anti-global warming folks will have to concede something is happening?”
            2047. [ or maybe never since we are dealing with a belief system and indoctrination].

            • Boomer II says:

              Well, yes, they could blame the cause on God’s wrath or whatever.

              I meant, when do you suppose the flooding will be so pronounced that the coastal areas will be vacated because there is unstoppable flooding of streets and basements, and beaches disappear?

              I know that flooding is becoming a problem in some areas already, and people and businesses are trying to adjust rather than just move away, but I’m wondering when the melting of the polar caps will raise ocean levels to a point where buildings need to be abandoned.

              • GoneFishing says:

                Sea level rise is unpredictable at this point, timewise, since we do not have enough knowledge to predict rates.

                However, increased ocean/atmosphere energy means increases in storm violence and larger tidal surges along with heavy rains. Coastal cities have large rivers and also face the ocean meaning they get the problem from both sides and major flooding will be the problem.
                If they build tidal and flood protection systems it will just mean that other areas will be sacrificed in some cases as the water must go somewhere.

  12. HuntingtonBeach says:

    Bill McKibben, Platform Ambassador and Co-Founder of 350.org: “Everybody knows that we will get to using renewable energy sources simply because they are free, but we have to get there so very fast if we have any hope of catching up with the effects of climate change”.

    The Platform’s work will be guided by its principles that all new investments into energy systems have to be 100% renewable energy based, and that decentralized and people-centered approaches are the best and fastest way to transform societies.

    https://www.evwind.es/2017/05/11/global-100-renewable-energy-platform-launched/59788

  13. notanoilman says:

    Well off topic.

    Was in Wallymart yesterday. They had their mothers’ day stands up, lots of pretty stuff – ok, fitness gear – hmm, mummy might like to keep fit, punch bags – WTF!!!???!!!

    NAOM

  14. clueless says:

    http://www.domegaia.com/air-crete1.html

    Low cost sustainability. Habitat for Humanity should check this out.

    • Boomer II says:

      It makes so much sense. China not only gets to lead the world in EV technology, it addresses its pollution problem.

      The US can cling to the past, and also concede dominance in the EV and renewable markets.

      Having EVs move into developing countries is a lot like cellphone adoption. Why try to duplicate the infrastructure that is required to support older technologies? If you are going to put in new infrastructure, do the next generation of infrastructure. Electric power generation and ICES are basically linked to infrastructure that was appropriate in the early 1900s. There are better options now.

      The US is hampered by trying to support legacy systems. Other countries can start with a cleaner slate and build in efficiencies from the start.

    • Boomer II says:

      Behind China’s $1 Trillion Plan to Shake Up the Economic Order – The New York Times: “Mr. Xi is rolling out a more audacious version of the Marshall Plan, America’s postwar reconstruction effort. Back then, the United States extended vast amounts of aid to secure alliances in Europe. China is deploying hundreds of billions of dollars of state-backed loans in the hope of winning new friends around the world, this time without requiring military obligations.”

  15. Boomer II says:

    I don’t follow developments in self-driving cars very closely. However, I do believe driving patterns and vehicle ownership may change far quicker some folks here think. And if transportation patterns change, gasoline consumption will also likely change.

    Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars – The New York Times: “Waymo has pursued its own partnerships. It is working with Fiat Chrysler on a fleet of minivans and is in talks with Honda about a possible deal that would put Waymo technology in Honda test vehicles. Waymo also recently introduced a pilot program in Phoenix in which consumers can apply to hail self-driving Chrysler minivans and Lexuses for free rides around the city. The company has said it hopes to find new ways through such partnerships to bring its self-driving technology to the general public after nearly a decade of development.”

    “The partnership indicates that Waymo believes its self-driving-car technology has moved past the research stage and is ready to be applied commercially. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, spun Waymo out of Google’s X project lab in December after more than eight years of research. The vehicles have been tested on closed tracks and open roads in Arizona, California, Texas and Washington, where state law allows the testing of autonomous vehicles. Waymo has said the vehicles have logged more than three million miles of real-world testing.”

  16. Survivalist says:

    Sorry. I just can’t help myself.

    “Over April and so far May, global average temperatures have been trending down, despite no Niña in sight. The world is still cooling after the last strong El Niño. So far it looks 2017 will be no close to record warm year and we will have more Arctic sea ice in September than ten years ago in 2007. Mother nature is calling liars to a lot of people that live out of spreading climate alarmism. We are having a cool spring, and we’ve got blocking conditions over the North Atlantic pretty late in the season. Weather and climate are, as always, changing, and nobody knows how they will be a few years from now.” – Javier

    http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-176/#comment-28996

    Fail! Lol

    http://climate.copernicus.eu/resources/data-analysis/average-surface-air-temperature-analysis/monthly-maps/april-2017

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/piomas-may-2017.html

    http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_map_thick_LA_EN_20170513.png

    Pure comedy gold. The dudes living in an alternate universe!

    • GoneFishing says:

      It’s a con game. Humans have found huge ways to profit by lies and false schemes. Humans found out they could con other humans and take their money and make them servile. However, physical realities cannot be lied away. They exist despite the blatherings of con men.

      If bees lied to each other they would cause hive failures. When humans lie to each other and con each other they cause global failures after short term “profits”.

  17. Doug Leighton says:

    AMAZON RIVER CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS NEARLY BALANCE TERRESTRIAL UPTAKE

    “New research in Brazil has found that rivers in the Amazon emit far more carbon dioxide (CO2) than previously estimated, suggesting that the Amazon Basin is closer to net carbon neutral. The results increase the most recent global estimates of CO2 emissions from rivers and lakes by almost 50 percent, with potentially huge implications for global climate policy.”

    “…we typically ignore the lower reaches of rivers that become influenced by tides because they are highly complex; in the case of the Amazon this represents a 1000 km reach of the river that has been ignored in global carbon budgets…”

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170510174912.htm

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Things are even worse if you allow for the CO2 and CH4 emissions from decomposing vegetation at the bottom of flooded areas behind the hydroelectric dams that are being built in the Brazilian Amazon. The corrupt Temer regime is almost as bad as Trump and Scott Pruitt’s anti science and supposedly pro business anti regulatory stance.

      http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124019

      Abstract
      Brazil plans to meet the majority of its growing electricity demand with new hydropower plants located in the Amazon basin. However, large hydropower plants located in tropical forested regions may lead to significant carbon dioxide and methane emission. Currently, no predictive models exist to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions before the reservoir is built. This paper presents two different approaches to investigate the future carbon balance of eighteen new reservoirs in the Amazon. The first approach is based on a degradation model of flooded carbon stock, while the second approach is based on flux data measured in Amazonian rivers and reservoirs. The models rely on a Monte Carlo simulation framework to represent the balance of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that results when land and river are converted into a reservoir. Further, we investigate the role of the residence time/stratification in the carbon emissions estimate. Our results imply that two factors contribute to reducing overall emissions from these reservoirs: high energy densities reservoirs, i.e., the ratio between the installed capacity and flooded area, and vegetation clearing. While the models’ uncertainties are high, we show that a robust treatment of uncertainty can effectively indicate whether a reservoir in the Amazon will result in larger greenhouse gas emissions when compared to other electricity sources.

  18. GoneFishing says:

    When they say vegetation clearing, I assume burning. Seems to be a lot of that going on in the Amazon basin.

  19. wharf rat says:

    Renewables peak at 2/3 of California demand

    As has happened many times in Germany, a week of high wind and solar demand coincided with a spring weekend day, and the result was record penetration of renewable energy

    Saturday May 13 did not hit a record for raw output in either solar or wind, but a combination of lower weekend demand and strong solar and wind production meant that total renewable energy generation excluding large hydro rose above 14 GW in during the afternoon, and shortly before 3 PM met 67% of all demand.

    This included solar PV, which peaked at 8.7 GW ten minutes earlier, as well as concentrating solar power (CSP), which reached 494 MW around noon. The combination of these two resources and wind output pushed net power demand down to roughly 9 GW around 3 PM.

    https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/05/16/renewables-peak-at-23-of-california-demand/

    Add maybe another 12% from hydro.

Comments are closed.