382 Responses to Open Thread Non-Petroleum, September 6, 2017

  1. wharf rat says:

    From last thread…

    Ignored says:
    09/06/2017 AT 4:35 AM
    “Hansen hasn’t been right about a thing in his life.”

    No, little one; the problem lies with you. The question was, “”When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2.”

    You might not know this, but time doesn’t trap heat. The important part was “with doubled CO2.” CO2 is only up about 40%, so there’s a long way to go.
    Bob Reiss said this in 2001:

    “While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

    Examining Hansen’s prediction about the West Side Highway


    • Javier says:

      It means Hansen was wrong both on CO2 and temperatures. That’s not a plus, but a minus. He was right on emissions though. A reminder on how climate catastrophism tends to get multiple things wrong.

      • wharf rat says:

        “It means Hansen was wrong both on CO2 and temperatures. ”
        (I laughed so hard I almost peed in my pants)

      • Dennis coyne says:


        Nobody can predict future emissions accurately due to unknown future resources, prices, and changes in technology.

        Hansen’s 1988 prediction was pretty good considering the unknowns over 30 years.

        Also his model used an ECS of 4 C which has since been revised by GISS to about 3 C.

        The models get revised based on the evidence and despite claims to the contrary much has been learned in the past 29 years.

        • Javier says:

          Hi Dennis,

          Nobody can predict future emissions accurately

          Predicting is hard, specially about the future. Emissions have followed until recently the worst case scenario, while climate effects haven’t. They have followed the best case scenario.

          Emissions changed trend about 3 years ago. This is a trend change that despite being so short can be supported because it is politically correct. There is active discrimination against politically incorrect trend changes like the one in Arctic sea ice. The bias is so strong that people doing the discrimination don’t notice. Based on this year’s hurricanes they can talk about hurricanes trends when there wasn’t any major hurricane since 2005.

          Hansen predicted 30 years ago that in 40 years some streets of New York would be under water, and trees and birds would be different. It is difficult to think that he could have been any wronger. He based that prediction on his temperature models that have also failed, and in his assumptions of sea level rise that have also failed. There is no way to go around that. He proposed three paths, and emissions have followed the worst one while temperatures have followed the best one. That’s the definition of failure. If he used an ECS of 4, he was also wrong on that. The Charney report already established an ECS range of 1.5 to 6. He could have chosen a lower ECS, but he is a catastrophist so he picked a high value and got it wrong.

          • Dennis coyne says:


            You are wrong.

            Hansen was asked what would NYC look like in 40 years if CO2 had doubled by that time.

            It was that specific question that he was answering. And he was speculating about what things might look like with doubled CO2.

            It was not a prediction it was the answer to a hypothetical question.

            A very big difference.

            A claim otherwise is a lie pure and simple.

            • Javier says:

              Sorry Dennis,
              The question according to Bob Reiss was “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true…”, not about doubling of CO2, so that means that what Hansen was saying was not true. Exactly my point. But we all know that what Hansen was saying wasn’t true, because it hasn’t happened, has it?

              • Dennis Coyne says:


                Read the pieces linked above.

                You have taken things out of context.

                You are not worth listening to if you are going to lie.

                From the skeptical science piece linked above:

                The book The Coming Storm and the salon.com article are different.  In The Coming Storm the question includes the conditions of doubled CO2 and 40 years, while the salon.com article which is quoted by skeptics does not mention doubled CO2, and involves only 20 years. 
                To understand the discrepancy between these two published accounts, it helps to look at the timeline of events.  The original conversation was in 1988.  Ten years later, referring to his notes, Bob Reiss recounted the conversation in his book The Coming Storm.  James Hansen confirmed the conversation and said he would not change a thing he said.  After the book was published, Bob Reiss was talking to a journalist at salon.com about it.  As he puts it,
                “although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.”
                We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels).  In the meantime, we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming.

                • Javier says:


                  Hansen and the rest of catastrophic-climate advocates were expecting CO2 to double by around 2060, because they hugely miscalculated the size and evolution of carbon sinks.

                  But the reasons that made the prediction fail are irrelevant. A prediction is not good if the predicted effect doesn’t take place. Finding the reasons why the prediction didn’t take place doesn’t make the prediction any better.

                  Most predictions today consider an ECS of 3. If in 10 years we find ECS is only 1.5 all those predictions will be wrong. Then why should we believe any of them if we don’t know the real value of ECS?

          • Dennis coyne says:

            Emissions are not the only thing, there are other things that vary such as aerosols and solar output and there are widely different model outputs.

            Temperature in the past has varied above and below model output.

            This will continue in the future. So far the models have been pretty good in my opinion.

          • Dennis Coyne says:

            Hi Javier,

            Emissions were between his Case B and Case C, the sea level rise was based on doubled CO2 within 40 years (case A) and an answer to the question of what might things look like if Scenario A was followed.

            Nobody knew future emissions in 1988, case A assumed the emissions path from 1958 to 1988 was followed in the future, it was a worst case scenario, with case C being a best case scenario with far slower increases in emissions. The 1988 paper by Hansen et al considered Scenario B as the most likely case and they were slightly too pessimistic.

      • Survivalist says:

        Javier, all your predictions are total failures. Not one of them has been correct. You know this. You are an embarrassment to science.

      • wharf rat says:

        It’s been 13 days since a major hurricane hit the US.

  2. islandboy says:

    Not looking good for the USVI or BVI.

    Image courtesy of: Weather Underground Wundermap

  3. Doug Leighton says:

    Totally off topic but:


    “An engineless glider has been flown at a record altitude of 52,172ft (15.9km). The aircraft’s two pilots achieved the feat in the skies above Argentina’s Patagonia region. The height represented a 3% gain over a record set in 2006 by other members of the same Perlan Project team. The adventurers took advantage of polar winds to help lift their carbon fibre-based vehicle high into the stratosphere. However, their ultimate goal is to surpass 90,000ft.”

    At low altitudes, Perlan 2 has a glide ratio of about 40 to 1. IOW it moves forward 40 miles for every mile of altitude lost, a lower performance than typical competition gliders, which have ratios of 60 to 1, but as it climbs it gains performance. At 60,000 feet, just above the tropopause where the stratospheric wave is at its weakest, the glider’s wings have maximum efficiency. My Dad and I owned and flew a sailplane for awhile so I find this stuff fascinating: sailing in three dimensions!


    • Doug Leighton says:

      Even farther off topic, I guess:


      “Fast radio bursts, or FRBs, are one of the hottest topics in astronomy right now. These intense blasts of radio energy reach us from outside the galaxy, lasting only milliseconds before they disappear once more. Astronomers aren’t sure what causes them, and none of these bursts have ever repeated — except one, FRB 121102, which made headlines with the identification of its host galaxy, sitting nearly 3 billion light-years away. The Breakthrough Listen project has just announced the detection of 15 additional bursts from FRB 121102, which has now been seen to repeat more than 150 times. Currently, one of the leading theories outlines the source of FRBs as highly magnetized neutron stars, called magnetars, which may experience outbursts related to starquakes or magnetic field events.”


    • GoneFishing says:

      I always enjoyed sailplaning. However I kept my AGL’s under 10,000 feet since I liked to breathe.

      Getting up in the U2 spy plane range. Speed is the key since there is little air to obtain lift. The U2 had to run near full speed at altitude and had about a 3 MPH window between stall and severe buffeting. Tricky to fly, tricky to land. Many crashed.

      Because the air is so thin, the airspeed indicator will read about 50 mph at 90,000 feet, but the aircraft’s speed over the ground will be greater than 400 mph. At that altitude the pilot will zig-zag into the wind to hold position over the narrow lift area of the mountain wave, with enough oxygen to stay there for three hours. Descending back to Earth will take less than an hour.

      An older article but very detailed and nice photos.

      • Doug Leighton says:

        Yeah Dad and I had an ASK 21, a glass-reinforced plastic two-seater, a mid-wing glider with a T-tail. It was made by the German company Alexander Schleicher and designed for beginner instruction but great for cross-country flying (even aerobatic instruction). We certainly weren’t into high altitude stuff or any aerobatics for that matter. I don’t recall the stall speed (about 30 knots). It was pretty docile with its stall gentle and lots of vibration warning and easily recoverable. Great days were those.

      • Hightrekker says:

        I’ve done a bit myself.
        Easter Sierra is incredible!

  4. Doug Leighton says:

    Back on track. 🙂


    “Ice-covered sea areas in the Arctic Ocean during summer have nearly halved since the 1970s and 1980s, raising alarm that the ocean is shifting from a multiyear to a seasonal ice zone. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has forecasted summer ice cover in the polar ocean might disappear almost completely as early as 2050. Various factors have been cited as causes, including rising temperatures and changes in atmospheric circulation patterns…

    Recently, however, ice-ocean “albedo feedback” has emerged as a key cause for sea ice melt. The feedback is generated by a large difference in albedo — a measure of light reflectivity — between open water and ice surfaces. As dark ocean surfaces absorb more light than white ice surfaces, solar heat input through the open water melts sea ice, increasing both open water areas and heat input and thus accelerating sea ice melt.”


    • GoneFishing says:

      Japan must use a different time system than the rest of the world. The ice-albedo feedback has been known for a long time as a key driver of warming the ocean and melting ice. Nice to see they are catching up.

  5. islandboy says:

    As the mayhem continues, take note of the island in the upper right hand corner of the image below. I took a look at it using Google Maps and it is as flat as a pancake. I seriously hope nobody decided to stay on that island with a storm surge and 180 plus mph. winds approaching. If there is any structure left standing and any land mammals alive on that island it will be a miracle, seeing as it would have experienced the worst effects of the north east quadrant of the hurricane.

    • Longtimber says:

      Here in Pensacola .. We be out of the cone of certainty but in the cone of uncertainty. Like Peak Oil Dynamics?! I was surprised that the Google Earth Maps of Houston were just hours old. Looks like many of the islands will be Houstonized.

      BTW – the newLeaf ( Japan Version ) has the TEPCO Designed Fukushima style CHADdeMO Port.

      • OFM says:

        Why do you call it Fukushima style ?

        Is it that bad, in some respect?

        • Longtimber says:

          Because it was designed by TEPCO and Standardization is critical. No to a Beta vs VHS format war. Level 2 Charging ( ~7 kW max ) is via an on board AC to DC Charger. A simple adapter can handle L2 charge from any plug. Level 3 is HVDC when the terminals of the Battery are presented via DC Pins after a lot negotiating, 50, 100+ kW can flow both ways and the kW limit is the conductors, pins and the appetite of the Battery. So for DC FC ( Fast Charge), we have Tesla SuperCharge, CSS and CHADdeMO. All 3 types have merits but if you have the wrong style.. L2 is all you can do.. you must wait. More info here. https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/01/ev-charging-time-single-fast-charging-standard-now/
          With an L3 plug you have a rolling bi-directional Power Supply. ~400V @ 500A is serious juice.

        • Hightrekker says:


  6. Hightrekker says:

    Leave it to Beaver.

  7. Survivalist says:

    Make Easter Island Great Again

  8. Survivalist says:

    “Average sea ice extent for August 2017 ended up third lowest in the satellite record. Ice loss rates through August were variable, but slower overall than in recent years. Extensive areas of low concentration ice cover (40 to 70 percent) are still present across much of the Eurasian side of the Arctic Ocean.
    Arctic sea ice extent for August 2017 averaged 5.51 million square kilometers (2.13 million square miles), the third lowest August in the 1979 to 2017 satellite record.”


  9. Survivalist says:

    The linear rate of decline for August 2017 is 76,300 square kilometers (29,000 square miles) per year, or 10.5 percent per decade.

    • George Kaplan says:

      I think it will likely hit a tipping point sometime and just disappear rather than continuing down linearly.

      • Survivalist says:

        I tend to agree with you. That the volume is declining faster than is the extent indicates that the ratio of surface area to mass is increasing, thereby, all things being equal, making it more susceptible to rapid collapse. I’m interested to see what negative feedbacks might do to help sustain the ice cover. Arctic low pressure seems to have helped slow the decline in extent this year.

  10. Boomer II says:

    Wind power has been good for rural areas, so it’s gaining support from politicians from both parties.


    • OFM says:

      The truth about things both good and bad is eventually accepted as common sense by the public, given enough time. It took a couple of generations for the last of the people who insisted that smoking is good for you, or at least that it won’t hurt you, to either DIE or change their minds.

      After another decade or so passes, even today’s hard core Republicans who reflexively oppose anything to do with renewable energy because Democrats support it will just FORGET they ever opposed renewables to begin with, lol.

      They have pretty much forgotten already that they opposed air bags and pollution controls on automobile engines, because even as the bitch about how much it cost to fix a car nowadays, compared to the old days, they KNOW that you service an electronic engine ignition system one a decade, at the most, rather than once a year, as we used to do back in the automotive dark ages.

      The people who pissed and moaned and bitched about collapsible air bags, and collapsible cars ( all modern cars are essentially collapsible, made to CRUSH in an accident ) have either been in an accident or know somebody who has, who walked away because of mandatory seat belt laws, air bags, and the car undergoing a controlled crush. ( When the front of a car gives up a couple of feet over the space of a few hundredths of a second, you stop pretty fast, but not NEARLY as fast as if you are still going sixty PERSONALLY, and the car is going ZERO when you hit the steering wheel.)

      I have a LOT of fun out of older hard core ignoramuses who are Trump fans by pointing out that if the Republicans had their way, they wouldn’t be on Medicare, or Social Security, because neither of these programs would exist.

      • Nick G says:

        In general, I agree. One disagreement:

        Republicans who reflexively oppose anything to do with renewable energy because Democrats support

        Republican opposition to renewables and an energy transition away from FF & oil has very, very little to do with Democratic support. It’s not a culture war. It’s not a backlash. It has to do with a very carefully planned long-term program of toxic misinformation, largely created by the Koch’s but also supported by Murdoch media, Fox and talk radio.

        • texas tea says:

          I think you got that completely wrong, you do not give much credit to the general population to make decisions that they believe are in their best interest and look for scape goat to coverup a lack of persuasive facts .

          But on a very serious note, in watching the poor folks in florida, many hundreds of thousands if not millions who are evacuating…what if they were made to drive EVs. How many of them could get out in a similar circumstance. And yes I am aware of the gas shortages, we still have them here in texas, for those that have gas or can get it can at least go 300-400 miles on a single tank, and based on the latest computer models showing Irma might go the entire length of the Florida peninsula covering it with hurricane force winds and flooding rains, 3/4 of the sate may be in harms way. In an EV world what does mass evacuation look like?

          • JJHMAN says:

            Well, it would be quieter for one thing.

            You really have to use a little imagination. In 1900 no one would have considered evacuating in a gasoline powered car because they would not have expected to find a gas station every 50 miles

            In a world where everyone has an electric car either there is public transportation that everyone uses to go long distances (I once sat in my car and rode through an Alpine tunnel) or electric cars all go 300 miles between charges. Just think! Everyone would have a full charge when they left their garage. No waiting in line.

          • Nick G says:

            you do not give much credit to the general population to make decisions

            I wouldn’t give much credit to the general population to read a CT scan, or decipher differential equations. Why would 99% of the population even think about questioning climatologists, unless they were told to, over and over, by Rush Limbaugh?

            • texas tea says:

              why would anybody trust one person or a select few to make decisions for a whole society…please point the forum to the great examples where that has worked in the past.. lets just say the last 200 years of experimentation with various governments forms? surely you have some examples to gives… lastly depending on your age and if you have ever had a ct scan maybe a second opinion would help you sleep at night. I have a number of MD’s in my close circle of friends and family and I would not, given a choice, let any single one of them make life and death decisions for me.

              • Survivalist says:

                “please point the forum to the great examples where that has worked in the past” – TT
                Defeating Nazi Germany
                Winning the Cold War
                Eradicating smallpox
                Killing Bin Laden
                Inventing penicillin
                I could go on forever. Duh!

                Doctors are not supposed to make decisions for you. They’re supposed to make decisions with you. The deliberative model’s aim is to help patients determine and choose the best health-related values that can be realized in the clinical situation. To this end, the physician delineates information on the patients’ clinical situation and then helps elucidate the types of values embodied in the available options. I know that went over your head.

              • Dennis Coyne says:

                Hi Texas Tea,

                British colonists in North America circa 1775 would be an obvious example.

                Not familiar with your own history I guess. 🙂

        • OFM says:

          Hi Nick,
          There’s certainly an element of truth, a fairly substantial element, in your argument that there is a misinformation campaign, and that it is the work of the Koch brothers types who have vested interests in the fossil fuel status quo, not just the actual fossil fuel industries themselves but also industries that are dependent on them, etc.

          But I have been observing politics long enough, and talking to various people from various walks of life long enough, that I am absolutely convinced I’m right about the culture war being more important.

          It provides the fertile ground for the misinformation campaign. We naked apes are predisposed to believe whatever we WANT to believe, and we WANT to believe that almost anything that the opposition favors is BAD.

          • Nick G says:

            I agree – cultural differences provide fertile ground. But the seeds and the fertilizer come from elsewhere.

    • Paul Helvik says:

      Well, one exception to rural areas falling madly in love with the wind energy boondoggles is the Nebraska Sandhills. There’s a whole lot of anti-windmill sentiment there, but, they certainly do have plenty of sensible reasons why.

  11. Fred Magyar says:


    Donald Trump’s weekly approval rating in Gallup polling last week sunk to his lowest average yet, with just 35% of adults giving him positive marks for his performance as President. He hasn’t averaged 40% approval over a full week in the Gallup daily surveys since May — and hasn’t even cracked 40% on any single day since July 11.

    In polling dating back to Harry Truman’s administration, every president except one has averaged at least 57% approval in Gallup surveys over their first year; the sole exception was Bill Clinton, who averaged 49% in 1993. Trump’s average for 2017, Gallup recently reported, has dipped to 39%, and the trend line is pointing down.

    Worst president ever!

  12. Survivalist says:

    Sea-ice was much less widespread in August 2017 than in the average for August from 1981 to 2010.

    Arctic sea-ice was either absent or at a lower concentration than normal almost everywhere. Ice cover was especially below average in a region extending outwards into the Arctic Ocean from the Beaufort Sea and the East Siberian Sea.

    Antarctic sea-ice cover was also lower than average overall. It extended less to the north than is normal for August in all but one sector, although concentrations close to the northern limit of sea-ice were also higher than average in two other sectors.


    • George Kaplan says:

      PIOMAS numbers came out and there was actually a big slowdown in volume loss in August, I think mainly because there was no transport out of the Fram (which equally meant that the Greenland Sea went pretty much ice free for the first time). I don’t know if that was just because of weather o if the thin first year ice that is all thats left doesn’t get moved by the currents and/or wind quite as far. For some reason the download doesn’t work any more so I can’t plot running average extent unless I can get the data elsewhere).

      The Arctic extent melt which seemed to have stopped earlier has resumed again. That ESRL site that has five day predictions of melt looks like its getting things quite close, despite only just coming on line (must have quite comprehensive models, and I’d assume a mega-computer).


      The Antarctic has got clobbered the last two years. I hope someone is studying it and there’s a paper or two coming out.

  13. islandboy says:

    Tons of videos of hurricane Irma showing up on Youtube. This 10 minute clip gives a good sense of what it’s like to observe a monster like Irma from a safe place. Although the video is only ten minutes long the winds would have been blowing at similar speeds for several hours. Reminds me of Gilbert back in 88, my first and hopefully my last experience of a direct hit.

    • George Kaplan says:

      Looks like Barbuda and two of the French Antilles Islands are pretty much completely destroyed. Antigua escaped OK, which shows what an effect a few miles difference in the track can have. ECMWF and UKMET sets have the track a bit further west today – which is devastating for Florida – but GFS now has it missing Florida to the east but a direct hit on the Carolinas. The water around Florida is really warm, so it probably wouldn’t weaken much.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        The latest NOAA track has it making a direct hit on Miami and skirting right along the beaches before swinging a bit East and then tracking into South Carolina. I’ve always wondered what would happen if a Cat 5 took a direct hit on Miami, looks like I’m about to find out. Here’s a picture of the Miami’s Skyline and that open expanse of water is where Irma will be approaching from, assuming NOAA’s latest track is correct. And yes the waters off the coast of Florida are quite warm so the storm would not abate much before coming ashore in the Carolinas.

        • George Kaplan says:

          ECMWF currently has Jose making a direct hit on Miami from the east, exactly a week after Irma. It seems to go over some hot water north of Cuba and turn through 360 degrees. It also has another one forming about then in the same place as Jose and Irma and following their route (actually looks bigger than either in the early simulations and the isobar patterns in the Atlantic look almost identical to those for Irma on 2nd September).

          • Fred Magyar says:

            LOL! Tks for the GOOD news… My family just called me from Europe asking if I was ok, I told them to check back on Monday. Maybe I’ll just say goodbye now and send them your post 😉

            • George Kaplan says:

              Yeah – sorry about that. Forewarned is forearmed though – also they’re seven and fourteen days out if they are going to hit, lot’s can change; the other models don’t go that far ahead so nothing to compare yet. I had to check a couple of times because I thought I was looking at the same thing and had messed up the date selection somehow. I think the same thing happened in the Katrina year – just repeated waves coming off the Sahara and a blocking high in the Atlantic that pushes the hurricanes straight west. The difference this year is the water is warmer. I guess the finding that El Nino’s tend to suppress Atlantic hurricanes is getting borne out, maybe so too that climate change will produce fewer but more intense ones.

  14. HuntingtonBeach says:

    Oil Markets Need To Plan For EV Dominance

    There will be more than a billion electric vehicles on the road by 2050, according to Morgan Stanley, adding one more voice to notion that the EV revolution is coming.

    The investment bank says that despite hiccups for many EV models to date, Tesla’s success thus far “shows that the consumer preference for internal combustion engines can be swayed.” Morgan Stanley analysts go on to add: “technology and usability are improving, and charging times are falling. There will come an inflection point where range and usability combine with the right price.”

    In fact, the conversation seems to have completely changed only recently, with projections and policies getting a lot more bullish on EVs this year, a marked change from even just a year ago.

    There have been a flurry of announcements from the auto industry, detailing an array of new EV models. Obviously, Tesla’s Model 3 garners most of the attention, along with its early rival, the Chevy Bolt.


  15. George Kaplan says:

    Is this a known troll tactic – just post endless screeds of crap and bore us all to distraction? Why not a link? Isn’t there a copyright limit on how much of an article you are allowed to copy at one time, and/or aren’t you supposed to provide an accreditation of where you’ve copied it from – I know the FT gets very excited about that, maybe it depends on whether there’s a pay wall.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Why not a link? Isn’t there a copyright limit on how much of an article you are allowed to copy at one time, and/or aren’t you supposed to provide an accreditation of where you’ve copied it from

      I’m pretty sure you do. Maybe Dennis will clean up his mess…

  16. OFM says:

    I’m personally an old fart, and the only new cars that really impress me , in terms of styling, are the most expensive ones, such as the Tesla S. Somehow all the cheaper new cars all either look pretty much alike, or else just LACKING in real style. In times gone by, you could get a cheaper new car with a nice shape to it that somehow just WORKED, aesthetically.

    I’m thinking the new LEAF is the biggest improvement I have ever seen in the looks of a given model. Nissan deserves a pat on the back for bringing a MORE AFFORDABLE electric car to market that I think will actually appeal to most younger buyers on the basis of looks alone.

    My guess is that it will sell very well indeed. Tens of millions of people can get by just fine with a hundred fifty mile driving range, and within the next few years, we are going to see fast chargers popping up like mushrooms at lots of businesses located on major highways. We will be able to stuff our guts with grease while we stuff our cars with electrons, no problem.

    The flat roofs on businesses and factories in my part of the world, if we have sense enough not to export our remaining industries, will soon be covered with solar panels, and employees will be able to charge up as part of the fringe benny package any day the weather cooperates.

    • Bob Nickson says:

      With the price reported to be comparable to the existing model, it will be really interesting to see if the aggressive lease structures that Nissan has offered remain in place while their cars are still eligible for federal tax incentives.

      That car at a ~$250./month lease rate is pretty compelling.

      I agree that the look is improved, or at least will be more appealing to a broader market. The instrumentation is very much improved; hated the old display.

      It will be really interesting to see what they go for on the used car market four years from now.

    • Hickory says:

      I like the little Bolt from Chevy. Seen quite a few on the road- just about every day.

  17. OFM says:


    TONS of practical minded Democrats who are looking forward to the next election cycle are GROANING about HRC and her blame it on everybody except herself book tour.

    But the Republicans are having a blast laughing about it.

    She’s charging up to three thousand bucks for a ticket, which pretty much sums her up.

  18. OFM says:

    Hydrogen may indeed turn out to be the fuel of the future, if we manage to build out enough wind and solar farms to generate enough summer surplus electricity to run factories built to manufacture hydrogen from water or any various hydrocarbons.


    The transition will cost a fortune, but it will still be CHEAP, compared to doing without plentiful and clean electricity, and it will allow us to get by with less and less oil, which is pretty damned expensive , when you get down to the REAL facts, including the environmental and military costs of it.

    It’s interesting to note that technology we consider obsolete may make a big comeback in some new applications.

    For instance, it’s easy to build a very small stationary internal combustion engine that will last twenty or even thirty or forty years or more running on hydrogen at a low steady speed in a nice clean environment such as in your back yard or basement. Such an engine can be coupled to both a heat pump and a generator, no problem at all, and the cooling system for the engine can be so arranged as to capture almost all the otherwise wasted heat of combustion to heat water for domestic use or for space heating.

    So this little engine could be automatically started anytime there is a need for juice, because of high peak demand, or because the grid is down, etc.

    And WHY would somebody opt for such an engine, rather than a fuel cell and an electric motor?

    It’s simple as pie, dude.

    Such engines, mass produced to a standardized design, cost peanuts compared to fuel cells. They may always be cheaper than fuel cells by a factor of five or ten or even more. We know what small engines cost already, they are a MATURE technology. We can only GUESS at how much small fuel cells will cost in coming years.

    And such engines can be easily be built so that they will also run on natural gas, or propane,if hydrogen is in short supply, if the market calls for this option.

    But running on hydrogen, they will be so close to pollution free that only a holier than thou environmental nit wit would object to their use.

    Zero new technology is needed to build them. All that’s necessary to make them last is that they be built from first class materials, such as CAST IRON, LOL, and lightly stressed. Piece of cake.

    Yes children, cast iron is far more durable in terms of wear and far cheaper than aluminum, etc, and it does not matter that it’s HEAVY, in a stationary application, lol.

    • GoneFishing says:

      First, we will not need near the amount of energy we use now if we transistion to renewable electric power (not bio-fuels).
      That said, hydrogen could be a good energy carrier but it must be applied carefully. Using hydrogen produces water vapor which can be problematic to deadly in large scale use. Imagine most of the cars and many other motors using hydrogen in a city on a hot humid day. The extra water vapor could raise the local humidity past survival point. Even if it just made it more uncomfortable then more air conditioning would be needed indoors and less work would get done outdoors.

      Wisely used and used in a dispersed way, hydrogen works. Used as a the major fuel it will cause lots of humidity problems in concentrated areas. Since cities have the bulk of people, wide use of hydrogen is not the answer there.
      Something to think about.

      • notanoilman says:

        Hydrogen exhaust is not a problem. Just condense it and pour it down the drain, unburnt hydrogen? My thoughts are what advantage does hydrogen have over ammonia? You don’t need the pressures or low temperatures with ammonia. I can see hydrogen being on dodgy ground after a few explosions. It may behave well when looked after by professionals but once you place thousands or millions of units in the hands of Joe6pack who thinks he can fix anything with duct tape…


        • Nick G says:

          For utility installations, H2 is simpler and cheaper – you can skip the step of combining the H2 with nitrogen.

          OTOH, it’s possible HN3 would be easier to store, as you note. I haven’t seen cost comparisons, but cheap underground H2 storage is here.

        • JJHMAN says:

          Hydrogen is much safer from two standpoints.

          First it is not toxic. An ammonia gas leak can kill.

          Second hydrogen is very dispersive and requires significant energy to initiate combustion. Explosions would be very rare indeed.

          Perhaps with piping systems as we now have with natural gas not much storage would be needed, thereby limiting the need for refrigerated storage. Consider that many ham handed mechanics can take apart and re-assembly IC motors quite successfully yet have no understanding of the complexity of forging pistons or crankshafts.

          And in terms of managing danger I always remind myself that a gallon of gasoline has as much explosive capacity as a stick of dynamite.

          I’m with OFM on the engines. Let’s use hydrogen powered IC instead of fuel cells.

          • George Kaplan says:

            Hydrogen has many almost unique problems. It has an extremely wide flammable range, from 4 to 75%, I think acetylene is wider. It is a significant explosion risk on offshore platforms where it comes off the batteries in the UPS system – there was a recent explosion and fatality at an Anadarko plant which I think was due to this. It leaks through normal pipe welds. It embrittles many different sorts of steel. It is very inefficient to compress. It’s autoignition temperature is lower than methane, any spark, flame and even sunlight will do it (I think it is classed with acetylene her too in the category of worst gases). I think there might also be a dispersion issue in that is is so light it will concentrate in pockets under roofs. There is almost nothing it has as an advantage over other flammable gases when it comes to explosion risk (except it might have lower overpressure so would cause less damage, but I can’t find any data at the moment, probably lower than propane anyway which is usually the worst).

    • Nick G says:

      Yes, exactly. Some thoughts:

      The expensive backup problem for renewables is the relatively rare, long period of low renewable output. In January, if wind is low for 2 weeks, what do you do?

      Well, there’s lots of things, including raising power prices and reducing consumption (especially by EVs and industrial customers); drawing in power from other regions; generating power with extended range EVs like the Volt and sending that power to the grid; and overbuilding. The first three options are very cheap, of course, while overbuilding is expensive.

      On the other hand, it’s nice to have a traditional backup. But, if you’ll need to provide a week’s worth of power (50% backup for two weeks) or more, you can’t use batteries or pumped hydro – it would be fantastically expensive.

      Internal combustion engines are very cheap. Underground H2 storage is very cheap. Both are scalable. Both are inefficient, but that doesn’t matter because you won’t use the power very often, so the cost of replacing it isn’t important (besides, you’ll probably overbuild somewhat, which will provide some very cheap power for electrolyzing the H2 for at least half the year – if you build above the average demand, you’ll have a surplus more than half the time, as the median will be pretty close to the average).

      So, ICE’s make all the sense in the world. Expensive fuel cells might be used for daily/diurnal backup, but long-term seasonal backup – that’s the province of cheap generation.

  19. Dennis Coyne says:

    Hi Bob Frisky,

    I have deleted your comment. Copying and pasting the entire speech is not ok
    A short excerpt is fine (50-100 words at most), with a link to the full speech.

    More nonsense like this and you will be banned.

  20. Longtimber says:

    From Drudge – Not the Blackout as was in Texas when they ran STP reactors against NRC regs requiring scram in winds > 75 kts.
    “The last time a major hurricane hit the Turkey Point nuclear power plant, it caused $90 million in damage but left the nuclear reactors along southern Biscayne Bay unscathed.”
    Cause the Backup Generators ran for weeks – else much of the state would be permanently evacuated.
    “Don’t be too proud of this techno terror you’ve constructed.”

  21. Longtimber says:

    “Peter Robbins, spokesman for FPL, said shutting down a reactor is a gradual process, and the decision will be made “well in advance” of the storm making landfall.” Right – NRC Regs are Clear – Go Cold in high winds that will unplug the plant.

  22. Javier says:

    Arctic sea ice extent has already surpassed 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016. It is already above the average of the past 10 years, and there is still time to get close to, or even surpass, 2010.


    There is a 10-year pause in Arctic sea ice melting. Polar bears are thrilled, catastrophic-climate advocates not so much, as they had predicted an immediate collapse of Arctic sea ice that is not taking place.

    • Javier says:

      Summer record low was expected last year:

      Speaking to Carbon Brief at EGU, Dr. Marcel Nicolaus, a sea ice physicist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, said the 2016 summer could equal or surpass, this record.

      Sea ice conditions over the recent months are similar to those seen before the 2012 record, Nicolaus said. He identifies three main reasons why this year’s summer minimum could rival 2012:

      “We did see a stronger melt last summer than usual, so we went into the winter in November with thinner ice than the previous years. We saw, due to the warming, less freezing and less build-up of ice mass [during winter]. And we do see a shift of secure ice towards the northern end of the Fram Strait of the Atlantic Ocean, where it’s very likely to be exported [away from the Arctic and into the North Atlantic] over the course of spring and summer.”


      But scientists were wrong on that. Then summer record low was expected also this year:

      “NSIDC scientist Julienne Stroeve said, “Such thin ice going into the melt season sets us up for the possibility of record low sea ice conditions this September.” Stroeve is also professor of polar observation and modeling at the University College London.”


      But no, it won’t happen either. What a disappointment to be a catastrophic-climate advocate polar scientist in times of no melting. Their predictions based on an old trend are always wrong.

      • Dennis coyne says:

        Hi Javier,

        They said it was possible, that is all.

        It depends on many factors including winds and ocean currents which are difficult to predict. The long term trend looks linear. There will be variation above and below the trend since 1979.

        Ice is also getting thinner, though the data for thickness has larger uncertainty.

      • Dennis coyne says:

        Hi Javier,

        Predictions based on new trends, especially short term trends over 10 years can also be incorrect.

        Probably the longer term linear trend over the past 38 years will prove closer to the truth, than the trend over the 2007 to 2016 period, especially because the 2007 data point was unexpectedly low, a poor point to choose for the start of a new trend.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Don’t concern yourself with those claims, the minimum ice volume has fallen by 56% in the past 17 years. This year was well down in volume, matched last year at this time. No signs of any recovery of ice.
          Ice extent is a highly inaccurate and imprecise way to measure the amount of ice.

          Don’t forget those record low maximums and early season melting increase the albedo forcing in the region. The late season melt is not as important because that area differential only exists for a very short time while the spring differential exists for months.

          • Doug Leighton says:

            Fish — When it comes to extracting (even simple linear) patterns from time series data Javier over his head. Best X him out and save your time/energy for the scientifically/statistically cognizant.

            • Survivalist says:

              Deniers are behind the times. And they know it.
              As they know they will eventually be proven wrong – their only joy or reward comes from trolling their opponents.
              Everyone offended or irritated is a victory for the denier cause. That’s why Javier comes here- to irritate. The specific data-point is irrelevant as all denier views will eventually consigned to the dustbin of history – the only thing that matters is “how many people did that view piss off?” – the more the merrier. It’s a trolls game.

              • Javier says:

                I’d like to see your face the day you realize climate catastrophism is bogus. On the other hand you might cling to it even when the scientific consensus moves on.

                • Dennis coyne says:

                  Hi Javier,

                  The mainstream position is between yours and the doomers.

                  Lots of uncertainty, we don’t know what future emissions will be and we don’t know the ECS or ESS. We also don’t know how easy it will be to adapt to future warming.

                  Most people face uncertainty by being careful, this helps with survival.

                  • texas tea says:

                    with regard to future warming…I think as I watch what is happing in florida with millions of people being ask to evacuate…why? yea low taxes, free enterprise, right to carry, etc made florida a great place to live but I bet most people moved there because it was warm and pleasant. I find it way beyond ironic when folks preach global warming when most folks sit back and say yea bring it on🔆 i know that went over most of your heads😉

                  • Survivalist says:

                    That’s not what ironic is. At least I’m pretty sure it’s not ironic. I sometimes think that no situation actually fits the technical definition of irony, and that the word just sort of hangs out in the linguistic ether singing a siren song that’s designed to crash the unsuspecting against the jagged rocks of pedantry. But I’m pretty sure its not ironic. Maybe its just interesting. Or a coincidence.

                    īˈränik – adjective
                    happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.
                    “it is ironic that Texas Tea has such a bad grasp of the English language that he doesn’t know how to use the word ironic in a sentence.”

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    “it is ironic that Texas Tea has such a bad grasp of the English language that he doesn’t know how to use the word ironic in a sentence.”

                    Ironic?! That’s not ‘ironic’ , that’s sad!

                    But what else would you expect from a Trump supporter…

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Texas Tea,

                    Most people are unaware of the potential negative consequences of continued warming, perhaps it will never be a problem, but eventually fossil fuel resources will start to run short (probably before 2030 for all fossil fuels combined) and we will need to move to alternatives as a society.

                    The free market will help to guide this as inadequate supply will lead to sharp increases in fossil fuel prices, probably by 2025.

                    This in turn will lead to a ramp up in the use of solar power, wind power, nuclear power, and the use of electricity for transportation, by 2050 or 2060 the World may be using only a small fraction of the fossil fuel energy used today (probably 10% or less).

                    Much of this will have little to do with addressing climate change and will be more a matter of using alternatives that are cheaper than fossil fuels.

                    Fossil fuels will go the way of the buggy whip and horseshoes. They may be used a bit, but they will be much less important in the future.

          • Jason says:

            There was more humidity in artic this spring due to warmer winter which caused a lot of snow to cover ice thus reducing melt ponds in early summer. This is a feedback which helps prevent melting. Warmer water though so more melting at bottom of ice
            Just mother nature trying to keep in homeostasis. That’s why hard to predict year to year what happens but warming will eventually win the day.

            • Jason says:

              Sorry about spelling, auto correct. Dont know if edited version will show.

          • Javier says:

            That’s a very different song that the one singed by catastrophic-climate advocates when ice extent was going down. You guys have a tough job explaining that the Arctic is still melting when the ice extent is actually increasing.

            • Dennis coyne says:

              Natural variability, it is a two word explanation, not very difficult at all.

        • Javier says:

          Hi Dennis,

          Predictions based on new trends, especially short term trends over 10 years can also be incorrect.

          Of course, and they can also be right. In 2006 Robert Carter, a geologist at James Cook University was the first to report the slowdown in warming since 1998. The Telegraph. April 9, 2006. He was made a laughing stock based on a too short trend (8 years) and uncertain statistics, but he was right, and in February 2014 Nature Climate Change dedicated an issue to the slowdown in global warming.

          The change in climate conditions behind the trend change started to take place in 2006. Due to weather conditions 2007 turned to be a particularly low year for sea ice, but that is the nature of things. It is not mathematics but climate that sets the start of the trend in 2007.

          Next year the trend will be 11 years long, and the following one, 12 years. The only question is how long it will take experts to notice what it is so clear. They are victims of their own biases. Since we are due for a La Niña in the next 2-3 years, this trend is likely to reach 15 years at least. By then there will be panic among catastrophic-climate advocate polar experts.

          • Dennis coyne says:

            No Javier a scientist would understand that climate change varies depending on many different factors.

            At different times global temperatures will increase faster than at other times.

            Many of the temperature data sets you prefer are based on models which may be wrong.

            In fact you base your criticism of global climate models based on temperature output from models.

            We don’t necessarily know which models are wrong. Also experts can indeed be wrong, the question is are they all wrong?

            Generally the experts as a group will be pretty close to the truth.

            • Javier says:

              Well, we know all models are wrong, don’t we? Then all predictions from models are wrong except by chance.

              “All models are wrong but some are useful” – George Box.

              • Dennis coyne says:

                Some models work pretty well especially physical models.

                None are precisely correct.

                Have you ever flown in an airplane?

                The models are good enough to get us from place to place with pretty high probability.

                • Javier says:

                  Well climate models don’t work nearly as well as plane models, as we don’t understand climate nearly as well as we understand the dynamics of flight. Aeronautical engineers have demonstrated their value over many decades. Climate scientist prognosticators not so much.

                  • @whut says:

                    Dennis said:
                    “None are precisely correct.”

                    That’s the key.

                    I actually studied Box’s original quote and it has nothing to do with the models per se. It has to do with the precision in the computations — in other words, how accurately values can be represented via numerical models, such as the model for floating-point computation. The quote was buried in a Box book on a chapter on numerical computation.

                    People twisted what Box said, tailored specifically to be used by people like Javier.

                  • Dennis Coyne says:

                    Hi Javier,

                    I agree the models are not perfect, we know that it is likely that climate will warm over the next 50 years (at least) and probably for far longer (perhaps the next 500 years as the ocean slowly warms due to increased levels of greenhouse gases, possibly longer as permafrost and ice sheets melt, though this is even less certain).

                    We do not know that future rate of warming as there is uncertainty about feedbacks from changes in cloud cover and Earth System feedbacks as well as uncertainty about future changes in solar output, volcanic eruptions, and future greenhouse gas emissions.

                    Expectations that all of these things can be predicted in advance are just silly.

                    As are claims that climate science knows nothing because they fail to make precise predictions of all these variables 30 years into the future.

                    So do you still think all models are wrong?

                    Or maybe you mean there are no perfect models, on that I would agree, but Newton’s laws are close enough for the velocities typically encountered by humans.

                    At very high speeds or at very large mass (for gravitational fields) other theories work better.

  23. OFM says:

    It’s very sad to contemplate the fact that Bob Frisky might NOT be a troll.

    He may actually BELIEVE the shit he posts.

    Hell’s bells, I know TONS of people with degrees from respectable universities that believe in various sorts of Sky Daddies.

    I even know some who believe in HRC, so why shouldn’t some believe in Trump?

  24. Javier says:

    In June 2008, Obama declared: “I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children … this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

    It seems Obama is as worried about future sea level rise as I am:

    The Obamas May Buy Beachfront Property in Martha’s Vineyard
    “the Globe suggests the former president might be eyeing two oceanfront properties in Aquinnah that were once part of the 377-acre Red Gate Farm owned by Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis”

    What a hypocrite. An investment of millions at current sea level. The money in one place but the mouth in another.

    • OFM says:

      Javier pretends to be a scientist but totally ignores the precautionary principle.

      He is right that the climate has not gone to hell as fast as some of the more pessimistic climate scientists feared it would, years ago, but it’s STILL GOING TO HELL.

      Look at it like a physician. When your doctor tells you that drinking a twelve pack of beer every day is going to FUCK YOU UP, you can bet your last breath that he is RIGHT. I’ve known LOTS of drunks. Some have wound up in their graves within a decade of turning into heavy drinkers, others have lived into their sixties and seventies while still functioning reasonably well.

      But in every case, the bad effects are obvious after a few years, and it’s obvious that hard drinking shortens life expectancy.

      Your doctor cannot say FOR SURE how fast you will go downhill if you turn into an alky.

      The perfectly obvious signs of forced climate change for the worse are there for those who will open their eyes to see them, and they are getting worse from year to year.

      Climate scientists cannot say for SURE just how fast the climate will change for the worse.

      I have neighbors that would put Javier to work in a heart beat, in season, given that they have acres of cherries than need picking, lol.

      • Survivalist says:

        “Javier pretends to be a scientist” – OFM
        Agreed. Also ignores data, embraces political rhetoric and makes normative value statements. Not scientific at all.

        • notanoilman says:

          Worse, cherry picks data to fit his story.


          • Survivalist says:

            Casting doubt on science because of imperfect models and inaccurate predictions was a strategy employed in the past by tobacco lobbyists, and now by climate science deniers. Javier’s is not a scientist. He’s a PR hack, and not a very good one.

  25. Bob Frisky says:

    Where’s my post? It had the complete remarks of President Trump in front of the beautiful Andeavor oil refinery in North Dakota yesterday.


    How will you be informed of what is going on in this country if the president’s speeches and actions are hidden behind fake news?

    • Dennis coyne says:

      Don’t post the entire speech a 50 word excerpt is ok with a link for those interested.

      Otherwise you will be banned.

  26. Cats@Home says:

    Watching the hurricane Irma news coverage about Florida and will be sending prayers asking God to protect all Floridian’s here from this terrible storm. In His name we shall pray with all His ever loving Glory to comfort you, shelter you, feed you, cloth you, bathe you, love you, and keep you out of harms way. God, we place our trust in you! Amen. Meanwhile here are some pro tips for riding out the storm, they may be useful to some of you people here.

    7 household hacks to help you prepare for Hurricane Irma
    By Jennifer Earl CBS News September 7, 2017, 4:55 PM


    As Hurricane Irma, one of the strongest Atlantic storms in recorded history, heads for Florida, people are taking to social media to share their “pro tips” for hurricane preparations.

    Some areas are under evacuation orders, and officials are urging people to heed the warnings. (Florida Gov. Rick Scott put it bluntly: “If you live in any evacuation zones and you’re still at home, LEAVE!”)

    But if you plan to shelter at home, some items lying around your house may be just what you need to get through a few difficult days.

    Here are some hurricane hacks you probably didn’t think of:

    • Caelan MacIntyre says:

      Thank you, Cats@Home, for your excellent hurricane hacks, which I definitely didn’t think of…
      Wow, where to begin?

      “… will be sending prayers asking God to protect all Floridian’s here from this terrible storm.” ~ Cats@Home

      Stop the presses, hold the phones, this just in from God:

      “Floridians have sinned, so Irma will keep going.”

      Several news outlets, however, report God as saying, “I’ll see what I can do.”, but these are rumored to be fake.
      One independent journalist, however, whose name has been withheld due to death threats, has suggested that “It’s the same thing.”. So it looks like Irma will indeed ‘keep going’.

    • Survivalist says:

      “You cannot petition the lord with prayer” – Jim Morrison

    • George Kaplan says:

      Current path has the eyewall going straight through downtown Miami, hitting at 140 to 150 mph sustained wind (higher gusts) – unlikely to be much left after that. Also two other hurricanes might be queuing up to hit in the same area. A conclusion could be that the prayers aren’t working – maybe she actually just wants us all to shut up and stop bothering her but we keep missing the hints. On a related note when someone’s neighbourhood has been demolished and a few of their friends maybe killed and they stand up and thank god for sparing them, what is actually going through their head?

      People’s lives will be saved because there has been a lot of warning as the paths can be predicted with some accuracy now, so maybe the best thing to do would be to pray for more funding for climate scientists and meteorologists, so they can further improve our understanding and predictive methods.

      • Blessedcat says:

        Mocking the power of prayer for those who are truly in need of our prayers right now is shockingly rude. In your time of need you are gonna wish you were right with God, I assure you of that!

        • Fred Magyar says:

          In your time of need you are gonna wish you were right with God, I assure you of that!

          And who the fuck do you think YOU are to assure anyone of anything?! You sound like just another arrogant religious asshole to me!

        • George Kaplan says:

          I’d rather be considered rude than a pig ignorant, passive aggressive, smug, virtue signalling dumbass like you. Hope your cat’s doing OK.

          • George Kaplan says:

            Here’s a more reasoned response, though I like the first one as well.

            I find having religion shoved in my face offensive, especially when your likes so often take advantage of moments of tension and disaster to do it, thinking nobody is going to then be able to speak up against you (that is passive aggression in case you were wondering). When trouble strikes, people’s masks often fall. After a major disaster most people would initially think of sorrow and condolence for what has been lost, or maybe practical matters like organizing help, or even anger at those perceived to be responsible. But the first thing from religious types is an implication that somehow they are special because they have been chosen to be spared (really that should be wondering what sins they are being punished for). So if you shove your ignorant religion in my face I feel entirely justified in shoving my scorn back.

            p.s. Still hope your cat is doing OK.

        • Hickory says:

          Prayer is a form of make-believe thinking, like God and UFO’s.

        • Survivalist says:

          What I find interesting is how the religion of Jesus Christ, Apocalyptic Judaism, became the religion about Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul of course had a lot to do with this. I suspect that the formation of Christianity was primarily as a Roman Empire collapse cult. I find collapse cults quite interesting.

        • Hightrekker says:

          You are infected by some nasty parasitic memes that are using you as a host for their replication.

        • notanoilman says:

          Well, those who prayed in the Lesser Antilles didn’t do so well. Haiti got off lightly. Maybe Voodoo works better.


        • Caelan MacIntyre says:


          God suggested that they (gender-neutral) couldn’t have made anything without destroying things in the process, and prayer is more of a placebo than anything.

          We are made of Starstuff™.

          Mind the keys!

          • HuntingtonBeach says:

            Hey Caelan, you put the circular saw hurricane blade on back words.

            Your picture “is more of a placebo than anything”

        • Lloyd says:

          Reply #1: Oh for Christ’s sake, if there was a god and he cared, he would send text messages telling people to get out of the way.

          Reply #2: All those bastards praying for the storm to miss Miami have doomed Tampa (as of noon Saturday).

      • notanoilman says:

        Mother Nature to USA, will you take notice NOW!


      • Bob Frisky says:

        Here is the map of % of people in each state who pray daily. 56% of Florida residents get comfort through daily prayer. That’s over 11 million people. That’s a whole lot of people to belittle and put down just over what helps them deal with daily struggles in life, especially when letting them do what they want to do has no impact on your own life.

        • Nick G says:


          I think prayer can be enormously valuable, in general.

          In particular, the kind of prayer in which one asks god to do stuff for you seems to me, and a lot of people, to be completely out of sync with real religion. Real religion is compassionate, and helps one forgive oneself and others. Asking for stuff, whether it’s physical stuff or help in daily life, is, well, selfish. It’s just not understanding what god is all about. God helps you understand life, do the right thing, forgive oneself and other, but god doesn’t go around doing stuff for people.

          People who call themselves religious, but who are harsh and unloving…they give religion a bad name. And it’s that harshness and false religion that people here object to.

        • Fred Magyar says:


          No Prayer Prescription
          Send good vibrations, but keep it to yourself

          The study found no differences in survival or complication rates compared with those who did not receive prayers. The only statistically significant blip appeared in a subgroup of patients who were prayed for and knew it. They experienced a higher rate of postsurgical heart arrhythmias (59 versus 52 percent of unaware subjects).

        • Dennis Coyne says:

          Hi Bob,

          It only affects us if we have to listen to people who want to come here to preach.

          Not the place for it. People are free to bring it up. Others are free to mock them if they wish. Very little is added either way imo.

        • George Kaplan says:

          In the US a lot of people also get comfort from opioids, in the UK it’s skunk – hows that working out? And if you getting comfort from praying fine, just don’t take some holier than though attitude with the rest of us, and don’t pretend it’s anything but a psychological fix.

        • Stanley Walls says:

          Well hell! I see that one more time poor ole Mississippi has kept my dear old Bama off the bottom of one more goddam list of stupid shit! Thanks MS.

          I’m damn glad to be in the 27% in this state that no longer wastes my short time in this crazy world begging for something I can’t have, from some non-existent body who doesn’t have it to give.

          Now I’ll go quietly back into the outfield and try to not cause any trouble.

        • OFM says:

          There aren’t any good figures when it comes to how many people pray on a daily basis, or that sort of thing.

          I KNOW , because I LIVE in a fundamentalist Christian community, with a substantial portion of my family being fundamentalists, evangelicals, or whatever you wish to call them.

          I would gladly bet my farm that not over twenty percent of the people in Florida actually DO pray on a daily basis,and my guess is that a lot fewer than that do so.

          The vast majority of people who identify themselves as serious Christians aren’t, they just lie about praying daily if somebody asks them such a pointed question.

  27. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    No Soil & Water Before 100% Renewable Energy

    “Many say we can have 100% renewable energy by 2050. This is factually incorrect.

    We can have 100% renewable electricity production by 2050.

    But electricity production is only 18% of total world energy demand.

    82% of total world energy demand is NOT electricity production.

    The other 82% of the world’s energy is used to extract minerals to make roads, cement, bricks, glass, steel and grow food so we can eat and sleep. Solar panels and wind turbines will not be making cement or steel anytime soon. Why? Do you really want to know? Here we go…”


    “Loki sometimes assists the gods and sometimes behaves in a malicious manner towards them.” ~ Wikipedia

    • OFM says:

      Solar panels and wind turbines ARE making steel and cement already, because they are providing a significant percentage of our electricity already, and lots of electricity is necessary in both cases.

      Most steel is recycled these days, and the state of the art and usual method of recycling it is in an electric furnace.

      Within the next generation, solar panels will get to be as common as automobiles today. And when the sun’s shining bright…….. they will be generating enough juice to run just about everything…..including the mines where we get the gravel to make cement.

      The machinery in such a mine is already electrically powered, except the trucks and bulldozers and so forth. There’s one just a few miles down the road, where I go occasionally to buy gravel, and the aggregate horsepower of all the electric motors there probably exceeds the aggregate horsepower of the diesel engines there.

      They used to use big diesel engines to run air compressors and drills. Now they use electric motors, and run a big air line from a bunch of big electrically powered compressors that branches out as necessary to wherever they want to run a drill these days. Air motors are cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, and cheap to run, compared to diesel engines.

      • GoneFishing says:

        I think that several people here might need to look up “electric arc furnace” and also the “aluminum process”. then tell us that steel and other metals don’t use electricity.
        A few minutes of self-education is worth many years of embarrassing mistakes.
        Of course there is always the old method of looking intelligent, keep your mouth shut.

        Because of the geographical locations of most smelting facilities in North America, about 70 percent of electricity consumed in smelting facilities comes from hydroelectric sources. This renewable source of energy significantly contributes to the environmental efficiency goals set by the industry.


        • notanoilman says:

          How would you refine iron ore without carbon? That’s one that is a sticking poit for me, at the moment.


          • Doug Leighton says:

            If you don’t want to use carbon (as in coke) you can always scrounge the hills and dales for meteorites, like the ancient Egyptians. 🙂

          • Nick G says:

            You don’t need coal or carbon to reduce iron ore. Hydrogen, for instance, works just fine.

            Heck, you could probably do direct electrolysis, just as is done with aluminium.

            • OFM says:

              Now about producing steel using electricity rather than coke, etc,, it can be done and is done to a very limited extent.

              If we build out wind and solar farms to the extent I think we will, globally, assuming the world economy doesn’t crash sooner, we will probably have enough electricity to produce a substantial portion of the steel we need. Hell, we might even be able to produce nearly all of it using electricity, considering that the population will eventually peak, and that we will likely learn to buy things that LAST, such as electric cars than are close to corrosion proof.

              We know how to alloy steel now so that it’s extremely rust resistant. Personally I don’t see why we aren’t using such alloys in bridges and so forth. Sure it would cost a lot more now , but the eventual savings would be ENORMOUS.

              • Nick G says:

                Coal is cheaper than electricity for reducing iron oxide to iron, if you don’t count the external costs like pollution. Aluminium producers work very, very hard to find cheap power – that’s why they’re all located next to historicallly cheap hydropower – one imagines that if and when wind & solar surplus power gets cheap, they’ll relocate to be next to wind and solar plants (it doesn’t take much power to keep the pots warm during periods of more expensive power – that’s why a lot of smelting now takes place at night).

                OTOH, by the time the world gets serious about eliminating metallurgical coal, the need for virgin metal will probably be smaller.

                I have wondered why stainless steel isn’t used more – my impression is that there’s a big tradeoff between corrosion resistance and other desirable characteristics, like strength.

                • Doug Leighton says:

                  Basically, stainless steel is an alloy of iron with a minimum of 10.5% chromium. Just checked my Machinists’ Handbook (25th Edition) which lists roughly 100 varieties of stainless steel with varying amounts of titanium, nickel, molybdenum, etc. All have different characteristics.

                  • Nick G says:

                    A little googling suggests that it’s purely a cost thing – stainless is much more expensive, and end buyers won’t pay a premium for it.

                  • Doug Leighton says:

                    “A little googling suggests that it’s purely a cost thing.” I’d say it’s more an availability and application thing. Stainless (a range of metals) is excellent for some things, useless for many.

                  • Nick G says:

                    Well, for instance, why not use stainless in bridge and train supports? I see a lot of rust in the understructure of these things…

                  • Doug Leighton says:

                    Obviously mechanical properties are not the only criteria on which materials are judged. Cost counts, too. I’ve noticed a lot of stainless steel (SS) used on bridges, etc. in Japan. But, in my experience SS tends to be brittle which may be a factor. Far too complex a subject to address in a space like this. I work a lot with metals but am not a Civil Engineer.

        • Fred Magyar says:

          I think that several people here might need to look up “electric arc furnace” and also the “aluminum process”. then tell us that steel and other metals don’t use electricity.

          Sheesh, surely you jest?! How many times have we discussed Donald Sadoway’s molten metal and salt batteries on this site, which he based on the concepts behind the aluminum process?!

          There are some people on this site who are just not capable of, or interested in connecting the dots. They don’t do math or physics and when they look at a periodic table their eyes glaze over… And you really expect them them to actually have enough background knowledge and curiosity to take the trouble to google something like the ‘aluminum process’?!

          They’re not interested in learning anything. They are much more interested in telling the rest of us that basic science and the technologies derived from it are the work of the devil and that we are better off going back to our caves and sitting around a fire gnawing on charred bone fragments dressed in animal pelts and worshiping spirits.

          Of course they are the epitome of hypocrisy because they still use all the technology that basic science provides us.

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            The world is polluted/littered with the detritus of technology that has Earth by the ball, and some people expect us not to pick some of it up and beat the status-quo over the head with it?
            That’s quite asinine/idiotic an expectation, but it’s what I’ve come to expect from some people.

      • JN2 says:

        Good points, OFM.

        As for steel: “… it is estimated that the global steel industry uses on average 2 billion tonnes of iron ore, 1 billion tonnes of metallurgical coal and 520 million tonnes of recycled steel to produce 1.6 billion tonnes of crude steel, a year.”

        Not quite a circular economy, at least not yet.


        • Nick G says:

          That’s mostly because of China – they need a lot of virgin metal because they’re growing.

        • OFM says:

          The amount of steel used in total is still growing whereas the steel goods that are scrapped are now mostly recycled. I should have made that clear, my bad.

          According to industry sources, eighty eight percent of scrap steel is recycled, making it the most recycled single industrial good.


          Yes, new steel is still manufactured almost entirely using iron ore, coke, and limestone, with the coke made from coal. Maybe a little petroleum coke is used but I don’t know about that. I’m no expert by any means, but I read everything I run across if it concerns the environment or any of the critical industries.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Hey OFM, just got to operate an old belt powered forge. Was run by a 1902 steam engine being operated on air. Amazing how easily it shaped railroad spikes.

        • Doug Leighton says:

          That’s a little beauty. How is it lubricated? Most guys I know use a light (air tool) oil misted into the supply because you’re oiling the governor, valve body, valve seat, valve stem packing, piston & rings and piston rod packing: a lot when you stop to consider it. As I’m sure you know, steam cylinder oil won’t do it cold because it uses the heat in the steam to help atomize the oil. If you have the option live steam is better in every way: sounds better too!

        • OFM says:

          I envy you, not being able to travel and see this sort of thing these days due to family obligations. If my health holds up, I’m going to buy a steam engine one of these days. One of my great grandfathers worked for a period of years running a steam powered sawmill, which was fed with the slab wood from the logs being sawn into lumber.

          I’ve seen a couple of old time steam tractors running, and a couple of Stanley steamers.

          There’s an old four by four with granny gear full size Ford pickup sitting out back, which I intend to convert to wood gas operation. I have the FEMA book with drawings. It’s going to take a while, but it’s not all that complicated a job.

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        It will be a very long time, if ever, before only solar panels and windmills provide anywhere near 100% electricity (never mind 100% energy), such as to run large-scale mass production industrial processes.

        Meanwhile, climate continues to change…

        • islandboy says:

          Are you saying that we should just continue BAU? If you are not, what exactly are you trying to get across? Maybe it’s binary thinking on my part but, unless significantly scalable alternatives to fossil fuels are pursued aggressively, at some point within the next 100 years, billions of people are going to starve. Is that what is being suggested? I ask because, we do not have 100 years of oil, gas and probably coal too, left. I choose to ignore any detrimental effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere for the purposes of this particular discussion.

          Based on recent growth rates I just did a little spreadsheet extrapolating current growth rates, with the growth rate for solar decreasing by 11% each year and the growth rate for wind falling by 6% each year. I actually low balled the current growth rates for wind and solar at 14% and 43% respectively. Under this scenario the joint contribution from wind and solar would exceed 10% by 2019, 26% by 2025, 42% by 2030, 68% by 2040 and 83% by 2050, as shown by the graph below. By 2050 the growth rates for wind and solar would have declined to 1.7% and 0.8% respectively.

          Were this or anything close to this, to happen, there is some chance that the depletion of FF would not be as catastrophic as it would otherwise be, meaning that billions of people might not have to starve. Maybe you do not believe FF are finite and maybe you also think that global warming is not an issue of concern because, while pointing out the shortcomings of renewables you conspicuously avoid mentioning the shortcomings of FF. Do you not think there is going to be an issue with FF depletion in the not too distant future? If you think there is going to be a problem, how are we to cope with the 7 plus billion population of the planet?

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            Chart of Revised Projections:

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            Conversational format:

            “Are you saying that we should just continue BAU?” ~ islandboy (and all quotes hereafter)

            It would appear that renewable pursuit is the continuation of BAU.

            “If you are not, what exactly are you trying to get across?”

            I already suggested much of it in my other comments.

            “Maybe it’s binary thinking on my part but, unless significantly scalable alternatives to fossil fuels are pursued aggressively, at some point within the next 100 years, billions of people are going to starve.”


            “I choose to ignore any detrimental effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere for the purposes of this particular discussion.”

            Buildout of alternative electricity generation appears to demand the continuation of BAU ‘for as long as possible’ to paraphrase OFM/Oldfarmermac/Glenn McMillian, and that necessitates the continued/frantic/desperate burn of FF’s by TPTB.

            “Based on recent growth rates I just did a little spreadsheet extrapolating current growth rates, with the growth rate for solar decreasing by 11% each year and the growth rate for wind falling by 6% each year. I actually low balled the current growth rates for wind and solar at 14% and 43% respectively. Under this scenario the joint contribution from wind and solar would exceed 10% by 2019, 26% by 2025, 42% by 2030, 68% by 2040 and 83% by 2050, as shown by the graph below.”

            Fair enough, but we both should know that projections can be way off. Also, within the next, say, 30 years that your projections cover, what of the ecosystem? Also again, your graph only covers US, not the planet, like not India, China, etc.. What will they be doing within the next 30 years?

            “Maybe you do not believe FF are finite and maybe you also think that global warming is not an issue of concern because, while pointing out the shortcomings of renewables you conspicuously avoid mentioning the shortcomings of FF.”

            Now you’re just being ridiculous. We both know FF’s are finite and that global warming appears very real, so I consider both moot points at this stage. I mean we both agree on gravity I hope? We don’t have to clarify our positions on it all the time.

            “Do you not think there is going to be an issue with FF depletion in the not too distant future? If you think there is going to be a problem, how are we to cope with the 7 plus billion population of the planet?”

            We are going to get our heads and asses back on the land, such as the one you mentioned inheriting from your family, and figure out yet again how our ancestors did it if we know what’s good for us.
            We all came out of Africa, and might end up back there, metaphorically speaking, with regard to how our ancestors did it as well as with regard to Duncan’s Olduvai.

            • islandboy says:

              “Also again, your graph only covers US, not the planet, like not India, China, etc.. What will they be doing within the next 30 years?”

              China halts building of coal power plants

              BEIJING, Aug. 14 (Xinhua) — China is holding back on building new coal-fired power plants to avoid risks from overcapacity and promote a clean energy mix.

              A total of 150 million kw of new coal power generation capacity will see construction halted or postponed from 2016 to 2020, the 13th Five-Year Plan period, according to a statement released Monday by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and other government agencies.

              “New capacity will be strictly controlled,” the statement said, citing measures to crack down on violations in planning, approval and operation. “All illegal coal-burning power projects will be halted.”

              Meanwhile, more than 20 million kw of outdated capacity will be eliminated, and nearly 1 billion kw of capacity will be upgraded to produce fewer emissions, use less energy, and better coordinate with new energy development.

              The government plans to keep the country’s total coal power capacity below 1.1 billion kw by 2020.

              China To Install 403 Gigawatts Of Wind Energy Over Next Decade, According To MAKE Consulting

              As of the end of 2016, China had installed 23 GW of new wind capacity, bringing its cumulative total up to 168.7 GW, following on from a record-breaking 2015, when it installed 30.5 GW of new wind. However, China’s big issue for new wind capacity is curtailment issues, where wind turbines are not necessarily connected to the grid, or when electricity generated is simply lost along the way. This has been a big issue in China for some time, and while China is moving to address these issues, we’re not likely to see ready fixes until the beginning of the next decade.

              China installed 24.4 GW of solar in first half of 2017, shows official NEA data

              AECEA: China installations to surpass 40 GW in 2017

              “China’s cumulative capacity now stands at 112.34 GW, already around 7 GW ahead of the 2020 target of 105 GW outlined in the 13th Five Year Plan (2016-2020), and current estimates predict that by 2020 China’s PV capacity could reach as much as 230 GW.”

              AECEA: China could reach 230 GW of solar by 2020

              If China were to install 40 GW of solar per year until 2030, their cumulative capacity would be over 600 GW, that is, more than seven times their capacity as at the end of 2016.

              • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                Well thanks for the elaboration, islandboy. It’s something, even if underwhelming. Here are some reasons:

                • It’s only about China. I posted a world graph as well.

                • China has frittered a fortune in/on time, money, energy and materials on ghost cities, for example, that may not be sufficiently inhabited forever. Given this and the rest of the human global squander, and the general idiocy we see even hereon, why should I expect this to suddenly do a 180 in terms of all kinds of things that are currently required for reformation and to save the planet? Answer: I shouldn’t.

                • Conventional hydro is large but is probably not going to change much after the 3 Gorges Dam project. (“China’s Three Gorges Dam: An Environmental Catastrophe?“)

                • Coal is obviously the lion’s share, but any new projects halted is irrelevant to what’s already being burned as per your graph. Also, what are the currently-installed plants’ capacities and are they operating at near-full? Can larger amounts of coal be shoved into them to offset the plants being halted?

                • Solar appears negligible within the renewable section– again from a previous comment of mine, even ‘if’ China were to install all that extra capacity (and increasing scale has ‘funny’ effects), it would still be only a relatively-small percentage of the percentage that is electricity-only generation. That’s small consolation for the climate… What does China’s primary energy mix look like? China’s become a pseudoeconomic powerhouse of epic proportions. The bigger that kind of thing is, it would seem the harder it has to ‘fall’ to cut into its consumption patterns/scales and fall in line with planetary-scale constraints. Of all the dinosaurs, only the birds made it apparently.

                • What does China’s population and other forms of energy, materials, etc. growth look like over that 30 year time-frame? Increasing demand could override any gains in solar and efficiency, Jevon’s Paradox and stuff like that. Increasingly, many more collapse/peak-etc. websites are of course talking about population concerns.

                I can think of other issues, but we’ll leave it at that for now.

        • Ulenspiegel says:

          Three remarks:

          1) It is of course clever to use primary energy charts. Why not final energy? 🙂

          You use a stupid definition (primary energy) to make a point, why do you not work harder and bring shares of final energy or useful energy?

          2) There are people who understand exponential functions and there are people who do not. You belong to the latter.

          3) As long as you do not deliver an alternative, your contributions lack quality.

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            “…why do you not work harder and bring shares of final energy or useful energy?” ~ Ulenspeigel

            Be our guest, since you just called for them. Deliver. Were you on the toilet with your computer when you commented?

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        The quote may be referring to solar and wind, alone, and it is imagined that the author is aware at least enough of the manufacturing processes of steel and concrete, etc..
        In any case, it is one thing to make something and yet another to deal with it, and effectively, from cradle to grave.

        Taking a look at the below chart (Wikipedia-referenced) we see that solar/PV isn’t even on it– not obviously anyway. But we also see that this is electricity generation, alone (and USA, alone), as opposed to all power sources, which includes or involves electricity, but is not limited to it. In electricity generation, alone, primary fossil-fueled power is nevertheless still whopping. AKAIK, nuclear seems to be entering mothball phase and most sites have already been accounted for WRT hydro, so it likely won’t be expanding much if at all, and may even be contracting.

        So far, solar and wind are relatively niche, and may remain that way before the issues of food, water, social unrest, financial-system stability, energy-depletion/energy-quality-depletion, climate change and general ecocide become too severe, as if they aren’t already, and their amplifying feedbacks really start to kick in.
        Therefore, their potentially-unbalanced discourse on POB will be relatively esoteric and in favor of GAU (government-as-usual)/BAU to boot, in order to ‘desperately’ roll out the pseudorenewables.

        Lastly, I see Javier and the ‘techno/circular economy’ choir as, in a sense, playing up different sides of the same coin, whether explicitly or implicitly, since, if climate change is nothing to worry too much about, then neither is GAU/BAU in its fossil-fueled green-and-whitewashed ‘red-queen’ transition race while coercively imposing ‘efficiencies’ as assorted austerity measures, money-printing, financial ‘instrumentalizing’, and plundering pensions, etc..

  28. Fred Magyar says:

    What You Need to Know About Climate Change
    A Conversation with Joseph Romm

    In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Joseph Romm about how the climate is changing and how we know that human behavior is the primary cause. They discuss why small changes in temperature matter so much, the threats of sea-level rise and desertification, the best and worst case scenarios, the Paris Climate Agreement, the politics surrounding climate science, and many other topics.

    • Hightrekker says:

      A good podcast, but for the climate literate, nothing new.
      But good summation, and both are articulate.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Even though I am not very far from the Atlantic Ocean and in a rainy temperate zone, a trend in reduced heating degree days is now becoming detectable. I have seen the trend in biological activity and in temperature variance before seeing a detectable shift in overall temperature readings. The averages seem fairly stable although the extremes and patterns are not. Probably due to periodic incursions of Arctic air due to Jetstream changes (hot-cold-hot-cold). Makes for inconsistent freezing of nearby water bodies, versus past consistent freezing. Winters seem to be shifting more than summers here, so far.
      Some deciduous plants are ending their growth season earlier by a few weeks now, most likely due to much earlier start in the spring. Leaves were starting to change color a couple of weeks ago even though temperatures are well above freezing and good rainfall amounts. Should be a good fall color season up here this year or at least a long one.

  29. Survivalist says:

    Looks like Arctic sea ice extent may finish up as 6th place for lowest minimum.


    • George Kaplan says:

      July and August relatively cool in the Arctic, so lower ice loss – the problem is the heat has to go somewhere else, so heatwaves in western USA, Europe etc. in a non EL Nino year.

  30. GoneFishing says:

    PIOMAS daily Arctic ice volume data from 2000 to Aug 31 2017. Format is in year and day number. Linear trend for this period is 4.3 km3 X1000 per decade loss.

    • Dennis Coyne says:

      Thanks Gone fishing,

      So if the trend holds, roughly 12 or 13 years until an ice free Sept, approximately 2030+/-3 years would be my rough guess. If the trend is a negative exponential, it would be a little longer maybe 2045+/-5 years, though I would need to crunch the numbers to be sure.

      • GoneFishing says:

        Using basic physics, the trend should increase with increasing global temperature and with decreasing albedo in the region (that being the larger input locally). Since the albedo change is linked to the melting, the ice melt should accelerate with time. The modifying factor is of course cloudiness which both blocks incoming sunlight and prevents infrared radiation losses.
        At the current rate of loss, first ice free period is 9 years from now plus or minus 2.3 years. Since potential range can vary with weather and cloudiness (high pressure regions in the polar regions in summer), that combined with accelerations due to those mentioned above and lower energy needed to melt less mass of ice, we may see the first ice free period several years earlier than that.
        However, to maintain that fully open period so it happens every year will take longer since the natural variability range must be overcome. So consistent ice free periods might not happen for years after the initial ice free periods happen.
        The more important factor occurs with how early the spring breakup starts. Meaning how long open water is exposed to maximum radiation.

  31. Hickory says:

    Alfred. Aren’t you just a nice fellow. So glad to share the world with you. So many nice things to say, so constructive and inspiring.
    btw- prayers are for your own mind (there is no god listening).

  32. GoneFishing says:

    . Please institutionalize yourself, you severely need help.

  33. Hickory says:

    I have noticed that most people don’t relate very strongly to weather phenomena that happens over the horizon.
    Massive floods or fires can be just 50 miles away, and generally people aren’t much impressed or concerned.
    And that makes it hard to have a good grasp of the big picture.
    In case you missed it, there has been some hellish conditions this summer.
    The western states have been historically hot and on fire. Smoke has been very thick and persistent over huge areas, hundreds of miles from the big fires- B.C. Wash, OR, ID, Mont, Calif.
    And, oh yes, there is some big swampy, wet and windy conditions in southern Texas and LA. Got drywall?
    Its been hard life on the Indian subcontinent this season, but I suppose that is too far away for people to care.
    Next up Florida.

    Maybe the world is filled up (and trashed) with too many people.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Although the things people use come from global range now and the distance they can travel is vast, most people spend much of their lives in a very small area. In fact if you take the area they normally traverse it is jus a set of short narrow corridors. They often do not know what goes on in their own towns and nearby towns, let alone have a global perspective.
      So yes, it is common but understandable for people to have a very limited view of the world. Unless one travels widely and immerses in the local cultures while at distant destinations it is difficult and very time consuming to build a picture and mindset of the world.
      The media is not much help since it just gives snippets of exciting or disastrous events in a random way. The US media covers very little of the world in general. Again, it takes much time and effort for a person to achieve even a partially realistic world view.
      In the long view, we do not need to have a large view or care about far flung places. All we need is a common pattern of action to follow and some common goals. Acting locally using a general format would work.

  34. islandboy says:

    With some of the comments I see popping up around here I have to wonder, what in heavens name were these people searching for that brought them to this particular Peak Oil web site?

    • Boomer II says:

      It helps that they are mostly sticking to the non- petroleum threads and we have an ignore option now.

      More than half of the comments on the non-petroleum posts I don’t see because I’ve ignored their authors. It makes skimming so much faster.

  35. Doug Leighton says:

    Alfred — Praying for disasters, what a fine fellow you are. Do you pray for school buses to crash into fuel trucks when you’re not praying ‘with all your might’ for natural disasters?

    • Bob Nickson says:

      I’m pretty confident Alfred’s post, apparently now deleted, was argumentum ad absurdum.

  36. Doug Leighton says:


    “It’s time we took a stand against this bully!” reads the event description.
    “This is our home, nobody drives us out of our own territory.
    “Join me in this fight as we shoot flames at Hurricane Irma and dissipate her on the spot.”


    • notanoilman says:

      So, people now have to dodge flying bullets as well as flying debris and trucks! If anyone gets hit by a stray bullet they or their next of kin sue the hell out of these guys.


    • Fred Magyar says:

      Oh yeah?! Well down here in Florida we will just huff and we’ll puff and blow the Hurricane back out to sea…

      Over 59,000 people are pointing fans at Hurricane Irma in an attempt to blow it away

      The event, titled “Everybody Points Their Fans At The Hurricane To Blow It Away,” has gathered over 59,000 confirmed participants. “Everyone takes their fans outside and points them at Hurricane Irma to blow it away from us,” the event description reads. “Air compressors with a blow gun attachment also a plus, or anything else. Get creative. Date/time subject to change due to the unpredictable path it may take.”

    • islandboy says:

      Some of these folks ought to get a Darwinian Award!

      • Fred Magyar says:

        LOL! I think anyone who actually goes out on their porch with an electric fan in a major hurricane will be subject to natural selection pretty quickly…
        There may be a significant population reduction in South Florida over this coming weekend. As they say, you can’t fix stupid!

        • notanoilman says:

          Islandboy: Many of them do get a Darwin award.
          Fred: Stupid often gets fixed, see above.


  37. George Kaplan says:

    This is a chart from ECMWF midday from 3rd September. The blob at the bottom is Irma.

    • George Kaplan says:

      This from today’s midday run for 17th. The blob near North Carolina is Jose, the blob at the bottom hasn’t got a name yet but looks a lot like Irma did. In theory a couple of earlier hurricanes should have cooled things off a bit so there’s less energy for subsequent ones, but I don’t know if that happens anymore.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Meanwhile US forecasting is getting worse due to staffing cuts and lack of funding. Thank you Repubs!


        SCIENCE —
        US forecast models have been pretty terrible during Hurricane Irma
        NOAA’s best weather model seems to be getting worse with hurricanes, not better.

        Why the US lags

        So what’s the deal here? The overall performance of the National Weather Service’s GFS model has lagged for years behind the European forecast system, which is backed up by superior resources and computing power. Finally, this year, the GFS was upgraded. However, even before those upgrades went into effect, hurricane forecasters were raising concerns about the new GFS.

        Shortly before the beginning of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, in fact, forecasters at the National Hurricane Center in Miami pushed back against the upgrade. They had noted degraded performance during internal tests of the GFS model on Atlantic tropical cyclones. The track forecasts were about 10 percent worse with the newer version of the model than the older one.

        The European forecast model already kicking America’s butt just improved
        In a presentation posted on the National Weather Service website, first reported by Mashable, the hurricane center officials said, “The loss of short- to medium-range [tropical cyclone] track and intensity forecast skill for the Atlantic basin in the proposed 2017 GFS is unacceptable to the National Hurricane Center.” Ultimately, the upgrade was initiated anyway.

        An independent expert on global forecast models, Ryan Maue, said the NOAA office responsible for developing US computer models, the National Centers For Environmental Prediction, is understaffed and has less funding than the European forecasting center, which is based in the United Kingdom. America, he said, is getting what it pays for.

        “The American way of life is not up for negotiations. Period.”.
        G.W. Bush

        With a special thank you, to all the Republican Climate Science Deniers, Neo Cons, The Religious Right, and the Fossil Fuel Lobby.

      • George Kaplan says:

        Looks like the Irma lookalike has faded away, but Jose now predicted to hit between Washington and Maine by GFS and ECMWF (UKMET tending that way too). The water temperatures anomaly is 2K off the east coast so it’s likely to retain a lot of strength.

  38. Doug Leighton says:


    The team calculated sea level fingerprints using time-variable gravity data collected by the twin satellites of NASA’s Gravity Recovery & Climate Experiment between April 2002 and October 2014. During that time, according to the study, the global mean sea level grew by about 1.8 millimeters per year, with 43 percent of the increased water mass coming from Greenland, 16 percent from Antarctica, and 30 percent from mountain glaciers. The scientists verified their calculations of sea level fingerprints associated with these mass variations via ocean-bottom pressure readings from stations in the tropics.


  39. islandboy says:

    This Hurricane Irma is quite something! According to the latest coordinates (from Weather Underground) Hurricane Irma is about 450 km (280 miles) from Kingston, Jamaica, yet the sky is completely overcast and it was raining for more than an hour with even a surprising gust of wind about an hour ago! Looking at a satellite image animation loop, Jamaica is at the southern edge of the hurricane and it looks like we will continue to get rain from the spiral bands for another few hours at least.

    I can only imagine what it must be like in northern Cuba and the southern Bahamas!

    • Fred Magyar says:

      That thing is massive! The eye alone has a diameter of 40 nautical miles

      • GoneFishing says:

        Very scary.
        At this time the center of the probability zone has moved toward the Gulf coast of Florida and maybe it will move further west in the next day. Also looks like it weakened some but that is a relative term with a storm this hot.

      • George Kaplan says:

        Irma is back to category 5. All the tracks have the eye going up the west coast. Unfortunately that means the built up areas on the east get the rain and highest winds for the longest possible time (previously a lot of the NE quadrant was over the sea as the hurricane is so large). The Carolinas are out of it’s path now – it heads for Birmingham and maybe Atlanta.

        Apparently 5.6 million have been advised to evacuate – is that even possible? Also only 34% have some kind of flood insurance.

        Not so much consensus on Jose yet, but looks like it might stay out to sea but could hit the Atlantic Provinces in Canada.

    • notanoilman says:

      We have been getting a lot of rain in West Mexico. From what I see in the satellite animations, a lot of moist air is being driven, by these storms, across Mexico and falling as rain over the western mountains. There is concern over river levels with some flooding occuring. I crossed one river, earlier today, and it was a raging torrent. These storms can affect a huge area, not just what lies under them.


    • kokoe3 says:

      i am no longer living in florida anymore having moved to south dakota for the jobs but looking at all the weather posts about irma i’m feeling like deja vu as if irma may be bigger than charlie.. i remember it was charlie first.. Then we had franicis and jeanne do a loopdedy loop to come back and hit us.. i think ivan formed that same yr.. the jose models are just bugging me out something fierce. they’ve been going back and forth for over a week but now jose’s track is getting more and more similar looking… so i wont be surprised if there is a storm that comes and goes between now and when jose comes back around on his loop.. im not going to be shocked but yea its going to spook me a little bit for the next few days because it seems no forecasters can accurately predict what these storms will do.. all i can do for now is hope and pray my friends back in florida have all found a safe place to ride out irma.. these storms are nothing to mess around with..

  40. Survivalist says:

    Tropical Tidbits Hurricane update


  41. OFM says:

    Modern automotive diesels are actually a hell of a lot cleaner than most people think they are.


  42. Doug Leighton says:

    Pretty obvious that God is pissed off at the moment (earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires). Does this mean we’re supposed to pray more or perhaps mend our ways? Or, according to some, vote differently.


    The United States Geological Survey rated the quake at Magnitude 8.1, at a depth of 69.7 km. It struck at sea 87 km away from the town of Pijijiapan in the southeastern state of Chiapas.

    • Hightrekker says:

      I think we need to bring back the much maligned Inquisition.

      • GoneFishing says:

        It’s fine to pray, just don’t fill up the church donation baskets with money. Send donations to the better geoscience schools.

        Mend our ways? God made us this way, so it’s his/her fault right? Who is going to pay for all that psychoanalysis anyway? 🙁

        • Doug Leighton says:

          “God made us this way, so it’s his/her fault right?” Yes, entirely his/her fault. Shoddy engineering, obvious lack of foresight, iffy rectitude.

          • GoneFishing says:

            If gods are so superior then why do all the tales of them involve killing and torturing us, sometime en masse? We supposedly despise mass murder and torture yet we are supposed to love such gods?

            • Doug Leighton says:

              We’re not supposed to love them; we’re supposed to fear them. Furthermore, I expect your iffy attitude will lead you to Eternal Damnation, purgatory, or some permutation thereof, being the best you can hope for.

              • GoneFishing says:

                Doug, you are responding like a bot. That was a question.

                Ever think why a supreme Omni-powerful being would want to associate with us crazy animals? Would be like me keeping a pet yersinia pestis .

                Fear, lost that a long time ago.
                Any belief not based in nature is delusional.

    • Fred Magyar says:

      Does this mean we’re supposed to pray more or perhaps mend our ways?

      Neither, for earthquake control just toss a few Trolls into the nearest active volcano to keep old AH-PUCH happy, works every time… 😉

      Mayan Death God
      Hellish Death God of the Mayan Underworld
      God of Death AH-PUCH is the Ruler of MITNAL or Level 9 of the Underworld: the deepest and nastiest department of Mayan Hell.

    • notanoilman says:

      It is worse than just the earthquake. It is the rainy season and they may have a lot of rain, The quantities that have Brits and Gringos panicking count as normal. Just to rub it in, there is a hurricane heading for them. Their ordeal is far from over, expect to see landslide issues too.


      • Hightrekker says:

        Lived in Jalisco last Winter.
        I feel comfortable in most of Mexico.
        If you are not a player, or have conspicuous wealth, it has never been a issue.

  43. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    I’m no longer advocating for clean energy; here’s why

    “I think the debate is going nowhere, and I don’t want to waste my time on a futile project. We are not going to get a decarbonized energy system by 2050. We are going to fail the climate targets, probably by a large margin, and I suspect that a warming of about 3 degrees centigrade is going to be almost inevitable. It’s perfectly possible that self-amplifying feedback mechanisms under way will amplify this change even more…

    The reason why we’re going to fail is because we’re lulled into optimistic complacency. An occasional follower of the energy and climate news will inevitably conclude that climate change is as good as solved: page after page gushes about the relentless, inevitable progress of renewables and the just about imminent downfall of fossil fuel behemoths.

    The reality, of course, is quite different from these uncritical pronouncements.

    Despite the very real advances of low-carbon energy sources in the recent decades, fossil fuels are still – relatively speaking – just as dominant as they were in 1980s…

    However, nothing about this urgency is communicated to the broader audience. In general, people want to hear happy stories that fit their preconceptions…

    I and many others have tried to point out that there are still unsolved issues and potential pitfalls between the rhetoric and the ultimate, total victory of renewable energy… We think that these issues have been downplayed or ignored entirely in the optimistic discussion, and that in order for renewable energy industry to avoid making the mistakes the nuclear industry made in the 1970s and 1980s, these issues would need to be addressed – soon…”

    • islandboy says:

      DNV GL: Renewables to account for 85% of global electricity by 2050

      “A new report from DNV GL forecasts a bright future for renewable energy, predicting that by 2050 electricity demand will increase 140% to become the largest form of energy consumed, and that 85% of this electricity will be generated from renewable sources.”

      I would like to believe that the global energy system can greatly reduce it’s carbon footprint and the amounts of other pollution it introduces into the biosphere. The problem is that the scale of the system is huge and any attempts to reduce it’s carbon footprint will depend on solutions that can scale adequately. Detractors of renewable energy are quick to point out that the contribution of sources like wind and solar is tiny (laughable). What they are consistently failing to acknowledge is that the contribution of wind and solar has been growing exponentially and anybody who has been hanging around this web site or it’s precursor (www.theoildrum.com) should be aware of the late Albert A. Bartlett (1923-2013), Professor Emeritus in Nuclear Physics at University of Colorado at Boulder. Prof. Bartlett’s lecture, Arithmetic, Population and Energy explains how exponential growth starts out insignificantly but can quickly catch even the most aware by surprise (video [1 of 8], transcript).

      I remain puzzled by Caelan’s seemingly intense focus on the shortcomings of renewable energy, in light of a complete lack of balance when it comes to criticizing the existing, established system based largely on burning fossil fuels. He seems willing to give the ff based energy system a pass, despite the fact that it is all heavily dependent on finite, unsustainable fossil fuels, not to mention the environmental harm caused by the extraction and burning of said fuels. What gives?

      • notanoilman says:

        re your last sentence, he is a troll – now x troll.


        • Caelan MacIntyre says:


          If you are referring to me, I don’t recall ever responding to any of your comments in the past ~4 years, ironically, so your comment is a bit of a troll.

          If you’re not referring to me, then kindly disregard this comment. ‘u^

          Vancouver White Genocide Freak Show

          “We are the fucking system of oppression, you fucking moron!..

          Whatever… You’re a piece of shit, you don’t care, you don’t belong here…”

          [Choir, clapping, chanting…] “Racist go home!…”


          (Interesting comments below the video too.)

      • GoneFishing says:

        Read Derrick Jensen books to get a clue into his views.

        • Hightrekker says:

          Very prolific writer, and a DGM organizer.
          Has a podcast Resistance Radio

          Lives in Crescent City, on the very North Coast of CA.
          (a place I occasionally hang out)

        • Fred Magyar says:

          Derrick Jensen is primarily an advocate for indigenous peoples and wild nature, and an opponent of civilization, rejecting the notion that it can ever be an ethical or sustainable model for human society. He describes the linguistically and historically defensible definition of civilization[7] as “a culture — that is, a complex of stories, institutions, and artifacts — that both leads to and emerges from the growth of cities (civilization, see civil: from civis, meaning citizen, from Latin civitatis, meaning state or city),”[8] and the definition of city as a group of “people living more or less permanently in one place in densities high enough to require the routine importation of food and other necessities of life.”[8] He explains that, by such definitions, civilizations and cities are both unsustainable:

          Source Wikipedia

          I have to agree with him that the current BAU path is indeed unsustainable but so is his delusional fantasy. Without a change in course to a highly technological, clean tech circular economic model concentrating most of civilization into cities and a better stewardship of nature in general, there will probably be massive dieoffs. However his vision almost absolutely guarantees it.

          Implementing his vision might have worked in the 16th century, in the 21st with 7.5 billion humans currently on the planet, its way too late for the idyllic pastoral lifestyle. For all practical purposes it means literally advocating for massive die off!

          • GoneFishing says:

            Practicality is not the issue with Derrick, the end result is the issue.
            Just because nuclear war and or nuclear meltdowns might occur during the “transistion” period as well as most animals of any sixe being killed for food never seems to come into the picture.
            Myself, I like the half-earth principle. A dream to aim for and maybe we will let Derrick live there.

            • Hightrekker says:

              Wilson’s Half Earth proposal is currently a pipe dream.
              Reduce the population to 200 million, and get rid of all current economic systems, and you might have a 10% chance.

              • Fred Magyar says:

                Have you read the book? I don’t think you have, either that or you don’t understand the proposal at all.

                • Hightrekker says:

                  Must admit, I haven’t.
                  Huge Wilson fan.
                  It is on my list.

                • Caelan MacIntyre says:

                  I skimmed the book and read some critical reviews of it and seem to recall posting to POB about it.
                  One of the words used in the reviews about the book may have been, ‘naive’, if far superior of course to what we have now.

                  I also seem to recall suggesting thenabouts that we cannot possibly read every book that gets recommended, given our limited lifespans, so, where desired, tempered investigations into forwards, summaries, conclusions, and various reviews, etc., along with, where possible, some skimmings of the books-in-question, would appear a reasonable way to go.

                  In any event, my harping over the years on stuff like pure democracy and equability and the like looks to be becoming mentioned more often online on fora and in discussions related to energy, civilization, peak oil, etc..

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        Renewable energy – Hope or hype?

        “So, only 12% will be truly renewable energy if we stay on the business as usual track. So renewables, including hydro reach 6% of market share by 2030, up from 2% a couple of years ago. So there’s no hope if that’s the trending for true alternatives.”

        Islandboy, you work for the solar industry as you may have mentioned hereon, yes?

        In any case, I have no such affiliations or conflicts-of-interest, except where a healthy, viable planet is concerned.

        Do you know what ‘industry’ actually is, BTW? Its history? Have you ever looked into it?

        Also, you never responded to this and maybe a couple or more other comments. ‘What gives’, as you say?

        My take is pretty simple, and I’ll highlight it for you, (but naturally, you may feel free to ignore it)– permaculture and movements like it; social change related to equability/ethics/pure-democracy; and a very fast dialing down of fossil fuels– and BAU. Yes, business as usual: Alas, that implies that it may also include a fast dialing down of alternative energy buildout efforts of certain kinds.

        If you or others want to ignore my commentary, whether as nested within your comments or using the ignore button, that’s your prerogative, but doing so may actually underscore some of my points and concerns.

        I’m bulletproof with regard to that, though, because my loyalties are with the planet, not the status-quo, the job/career, or groupthink or whatever have you along those lines.

        As far as is understood, POB is a place to discuss energy transition and decline/collapse and related and I guess whatever else.
        It is not solely a platform for the discussion of very limited electrical-energy generation using solar panels and windmills.
        And/So it is a platform to discuss issues that may be in conflict with the the aforementioned.

        While I’m still looking into it, it increasingly appears that some forms of alternative energy within a crony-capitalist plutarchy model are on a ‘red queen’ or ‘black swan’ collision course with AGW and other ecological and social issues and that it may be much too late.
        But we as a species will likely maintain our tack anyway until ever more serious ecological affects are on top of us. Then what?

        “I can only show you the door. You’re the one that has to walk through it.” ~ The Matrix

    • Nick G says:

      It’s hard to tell because of the lack of detail or numbers, but this doesn’t look realistic.

      I don’t see any sign, for instance, of an understanding of the difference between depleting fossil fuels and cheap & abundant wind & solar.

      • Survivalist says:

        I assume the future looks rather bright in your eyes. What’s your prediction for when all this abundant, affordable and clean energy will bring real underlying growth back to the American economy?

        • Nick G says:

          I think growth is going to be slow, but I don’t think that’s strongly related to energy.

          I’d say energy costs are pretty stable – cheap wind, solar, NG and coal are making electricity cheap. NG and oil costs probably won’t go up soon, though oil prices may.

          I do think we’re losing a little bit of growth due to the transition away from FFs – the investment in R&D does take away science & engineering talent from other things, and “premature” replacement of FF capital does carry some costs. I don’t think that’s a really big factor, though.

          The bigger factor is simply the maturity of OECD economies. We don’t need more cars, appliances or houses – we’re in purely replacement mode at the moment. Goods can improve in quality, and services can grow, but it’s very hard to measure labor productivity (or growth) for services. How do you tell if medicine is providing “more”? More outpatient visits, more inpatient days? Better health isn’t the same as more procedures. If doctors get paid more, are they doing more or just finding better ways to game the insurance system?

          So, I don’t see faster growth in the US. And, with Trump in the oval office and the Kochs in control of government in many places, I don’t see much improvement in the equal distribution of income, which is essential to a better life for the working class.

          OTOH, China’s growth is fast, and looks pretty durable. Other parts of the developing world continue to grow – world growth looks decent. We’ve got to keep a wider perspective…

  44. Survivalist says:

    “Essentially, there is reasonably agreement between the various estimates for the TCR; most are consistent with the likely range of 1 to 2.5oC and suggest that it is extremely unlikely above 3oC. There is some disagreement amongst the estimates for ECS, but this is mostly due to those that use the observed warming. The method that uses the observed warming essentially assume that the feedback response will remain constant as we warm to equilibrium; there now seems to be a reasonable amount of agreement that this is unlikely to be the case and that we will likely warm more as we approach equilibrium than we did initially.”


  45. OFM says:

    I have come to rely on The New Yorker for the best in depth analysis of a lot of current events.

    This piece on North Korea is probably the best one you will find anywhere, short of reading some entire books.

    It’s not a sound bite, it’s going to take a few minutes to read it, but they will be well spent minutes.


    • WeekendPeak says:

      Thanks for that link. interesting to get a different perspective.

  46. GoneFishing says:

    NSIDC sourced Arctic sea ice concentration data used to calculate open Arctic water area during the melt season. Even in May there has been a significant increase in open water area over time. The variation appears to have increased with time also.

    May is on the bottom, August on the top.

  47. Fred Magyar says:

    LOL! looks like even RA is pissed at us.


    published: Saturday, September 09, 2017 01:55 UTC
    The G3 (Strong) geomagnetic storm watch for the 7 September UTC-day remains in effect due to coronal mass ejection (CME) arrival and effects from the 4 September CME. Additionally, a G3 Watch is now in effect for the 8 and 9 September UTC-days in anticipation of the arrival of another CME associated with the X9.3 flare (R3-Strong radio blackout) on 6 September at 1202 UTC (0802 ET). Analysis indicates likely CME arrival late on 8 September into early 9 September. Keep checking our SWPC website for updates to the forecast.

  48. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    Solar and wind power are an energy trap

    “When you hear stories about solar & wind generating 50% of all humanity’s electrical power by 2050, that’s really only 9% of TWED because
    100% of electrical production is 18% of TWED.

    Research says it will take 4 X 82% of TWED for a 100% renewable energy transition. But then again, whoever trusts research?…

    We require 10X the fossil electrical grid energy we use now just to solve 18% of the emissions problem with solar & wind power. This also means that even if we use 100% efficient Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) for all the world’s electricity generation, we would still only prevent 18% of our emissions. 100% efficient CCS is very unlikely. Switching to electric vehicles would only double electrical demand while most of our roads are made out of distilled oil sludge.

    These figures do not include massive electrical storage and grid infrastructure solar & wind require. Such infrastructure is hundreds of millions of tons of materials taking decades to construct, demanding even more energy and many trillions of dollars…”

    Wealth redistribution and population management are the only logical way forward

    “Techno-industrial society is in dangerous ecological overshoot… The global economy is using even renewable and replenishable resources faster than ecosystems can regenerate, filling waste sinks beyond nature’s capacity to assimilate. (Even climate change is a waste management problem – carbon dioxide is the single greatest waste by weight of industrial economies.)

    Despite the accumulating evidence of impending crisis, the world community seems incapable of responding effectively…

    …human impact on the ecosphere is a product of population multiplied by average per capita consumption – exacerbated by an increasingly global compound myth of perpetual economic growth propelled by continuous technological progress. While there is evidence of some decoupling of economic production from nature, this is often an artefact of faulty accounting and trade (eg, wealthy countries are offshoring their ecological impacts onto poorer countries). Overall, economic throughput (energy and material consumption and waste production) is increasing with population and GDP growth…

    There is widespread support for the notion of clean production and consumption but in present circumstances, this must soon translate into less production and consumption by fewer people. It complicates matters that modern society remains dependent on abundant cheap energy still mostly supplied by carbon-based fuels. Despite rapid technological advances and falling costs, it is still not clear that renewable energy alternatives, including wind and photovoltaic electricity, can replace fossil fuels in such major uses as transportation and space/water heating in the foreseeable future.

    The problem is that what is politically feasible is often ecologically irrelevant…

    At the same time, this is a world of chronic gross social inequity that erodes population health and social cohesion. According to Oxfam, the world’s richest eight billionaires possess the same wealth as the poorest 50% of the human family. More generally, the richest quintile of humanity takes home about 70% of global income compared with just 2% by the poorest fifth of the population…

    Higher incomes enable citizens of high-income countries to consume, on average, several times their equitable share of global biocapacity, while denizens of poor countries are unable to claim a fair allocation of Earth’s bounty. This situation is egregiously unjust, socially destabilising and ecologically precarious.

    The evidence argues instead that the global community should cooperate on redistribution – on devising methods to share the benefits of development more equitably. Unsustainability is a collective problem that requires collective solutions.”


    “I did some simple spreadsheet simulations using the Kaya Identity:
    C (emissions) = C/E (carbon emitted/energy unit) x E/Y (energy/output) x Y/P (per capita income) x P (population). A climate conference I attended was all about technology solutions (reduce C/E, renewable solar and efficiency, less E/Y). But my simulations showed that with growth about 3% (2% income growth, 1% population growth), it is hard to build enough windmills–16 times more demand in a century, four doublings). So the answer isn’t ‘this or that’ it is ‘this and that’ or ‘all of the above.’ Not sure how to get that message across.” ~ Max Kummerow

    • islandboy says:

      Here’s one take on wealth re-distribution. When an individual such as myself buys a PV system, it may drastically reduce the amount I have to pay to the existing electricity provider with add on effects to the equipment and fuel suppliers. After the system is paid off assuming I used credit, I then have more of my income to spend on other goods and service,s distributing wealth away from the legacy electricity suppliers and their supply chain to the providers of whatever goods and services I spend my newly disposable income on.

      Similarly if I acquire an EV, it eliminates my spending on fuels and if my PV system is big enough, I may not need to buy electricity from the grid either. At any rate, the money I don’t spend on liquid fuels is then going to be available for paying for charging and other goods and services. Note that the providers of EV charging will not necessarily be the existing electric utilities even though it would seem a good fit for them.

      In Australia there is an ongoing debate about renewables, solar in particular, as more and more consumers decide that it is better for them to provide as much of the electricity they can for themselves, rather than be beholden to utilities that are known to gouge their customers when certain circumstances arise. Some 15% of Australian households have a PV system installed. Is that not a redistribution of wealth, in that the consumer can own the means of production for something they use rather than having to buy it from some corporation that owns the means of production?

      Finally, my professional training is in the area of electricity. My income currently comes from an area that depends heavily on discretionary spending. Back in the days over at theoildrum.com Jeffery Brown a.k.a. Westexas issued an edict that went something like “Get out of debt and get thee to the non discretionary side of the economy”. Would you like to suggest an area of endeavor for someone with my training and interests, living where I do, that would be better than setting up solar PV systems and implementing energy saving techniques and devices? I could just continue the business that currently pays mt bills and try to maintain or increase my income but, I tend to want to heed the advice of Westexas.

      • Longtimer says:

        PV is the only form of DG for most of us. You can buy and AC PV Panel for well under $1.00/watt. When an IOU buys that same resource – they Bill you for Principal and Interest for 20-30 years @ 10+ % Interest. Here in NW Florida it’s 14.4% – 10% for Stockholders and 4.4% for Pensions, Girl Scouts jamborees, 5K Runs, High Rent Building, Security, Political corruption, etc, etc. Calculate what YOU pay them for that same resource ??!! That’s why no matter what – Edison Institute HAS TO STOP Customer Owned PV. The IOU’s have scored some major victories. No voltages > 48Vdc in homes, Rapid Shutdown on Roof for PV, Derating of PV Source Circuits, Net Metering Contracts, Laws to make it illegal to share, buy and sell kWh’s. Grid Tie Inverter Standards – such as ieee 1549 / UL1741. Imagine that all cars had to shut down for 300 seconds for each and every bump in the road. That same car is trying to run you off the road. – ie. Anti Islanding logic. It goes on and on and on. – You will be ASSIMILATED

        • notanoilman says:

          IEEE1549 s/b IEEE1547
          This is to stop frying people who are working on the grid lines, pretty useful. Doesn’t mean to say you can’t have your own off grid power. I have seen one inverter that had a local socket for when it was cut from the grid. You can always use a grid tied with battery backup to get through glitches, perhaps just a small battery.


          • Longtimer says:

            Brainwashed. “Pretty Useful” NOT AS IMPLEMENTED. The solutions is backwards at the device level and there are far simpler and safer solutions. A case can actually make it’s more dangerous to linemen as implemented! Much unnecessary complexity unrelated to safety. Does a Generator have such features? They are needed since many linemen have been fried. Rapid Shutdown is Another battle Lost to let’s make things un manageable. There will be no more PV Source circuits on residential roofs in North America. Rapid Shutdown requires 10 fold complexity on the roof and hundreds will die of falls trying to install/service un necessary gadgets that average wrenches will struggle with.

    • Dennis coyne says:

      Hi Caelan,

      Of the energy used typically 65% is wasted as heat that is not used for heating purposes.

      So with an entirely electric energy system only about 35% of current energy use is needed.

      For heating needs ground source heat pumps produce 3 times the heat output per unit of electrical energy used (or more) so about 33% of building and hot water heating energy used currently will be needed.

      Basically about one third of current energy use would be enough and that does not include improved efficiency which could cut energy use further to perhaps 25% of current energy use.

      Population growth must peak and decline and this could occur by 2070 with good policy.

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        Hi Dennis,

        POB seems to be having trouble lately posting attached images, incidentally. I have had to post them separately.

        “So with an entirely electric energy system only about 35% of current energy use is needed.” ~ Dennis Coyne

        Do we have an entirely electric energy system? Where? The Vatican?
        And even if we did, would the remaining C02 emissions be sufficiently low enough for the climate and during and after the buildout? I’ll put my chips in for ‘no’.

        You once wrote something hereon to the effect that you ‘deal in what is’? Well, do the charts I’ve posted recently tell us ‘what is’?

        I don’t doubt that we can run some sort of civilization on solar and wind, alone; what I question, in part, is the ability of the coercive crony money-profit-driven system you and others seem to put so much faith in, to make it so– and properly and equably– as well as the time– and energy and sociopolitical, ecological and financial stability– it needs to do so. There has to be some accountability.

        Any way you slice it, it comes up rotten from my perch. Even if it managed to somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat– charitable fantasy-thinking for you– we would likely still be left with a system that is rotten to, or at, the core.

        Do tell me that at least one alternative energy company is run cooperatively…

        • Ulenspiegel says:

          “Do we have an entirely electric energy system? Where? The Vatican?
          And even if we did, would the remaining C02 emissions be sufficiently low enough for the climate and during and after the buildout? I’ll put my chips in for ‘no’.”

          Stupid arguments: A transition to an electric economy is under way, there is no reason that with todays technology this an issue, in many cases it will be cheaper than conventional solutions.

          With only 15-20% of toady CO2 emissions, we would be in a confortable situation.

          BTW: What is your solution? You offer nothing.

          • Caelan MacIntyre says:

            “A transition to an electric economy is under way, there is no reason that with todays technology this an issue, in many cases it will be cheaper than conventional solutions.” ~ Ulenspeigel

            So you say. People like to say a lot of things, like about their religion.
            This ‘electric economy’ transition isn’t quite under our power, is it? So maybe it is a bit like a religion/cult in that, for example, we are mostly relegated to praying, hoping, hand-waving and chanting, etc.– and giving donations, whether we like it or not.

            “BTW: What is your solution? You offer nothing.” ~ Ulenspiegel

            Apparently I offer nothing you notice or pretend not to.
            Naturally, not noticing some things doesn’t always work out well.

          • Dennis coyne says:

            Hi Caelan,

            The political issues are intertwined as everything comnects.
            You can focus on political power and social systems.
            When you have a clear notion of how to get from where we are to a better system let us know.

            You have provided very little on how your dream might be accomplished.

            Pointing out problems is easy, solutions are both more interesting and more useful.

            I have never seen any viable plan for getting from point A to B.

            Canada sure seems better than the US.
            Figure out a way to move Nova Scotia or Canada to a better system.
            If the rest of the world agrees the system is better they may follow.

            Small steps get you from A to B.

            • Caelan MacIntyre says:

              Hi Dennis,

              I will give you some benefit of doubt that your comment is not a bit of a subterfuge to distract from what appears as some ostensibly very serious concerns regarding energy and energy transition/buildout vis-a-vis the ecosystem and time, etc..

              Feel free to respond more verbatim or faithfully to my questions above.

              Continued here

    • OFM says:

      Does anybody have energy enough to wake thru Caelan’s seven thirty eight pm comment and translate it into ordinary English?

      While I certainly don’t think of myself as an expert, I know what most of the more common abbreviations mean, but this is so full of acronyms that I suspect it is simply more of Caelan’s anti tech bullshit, and utterly meaningless.

      • Hickory says:

        The ignore button works on CM.

        • Caelan MacIntyre says:

          ” ‘Interesting to me how desperate many of you appear as you search for needles in the haystack in your effort to find a truth that is convenient to you.’ ~ Hickory

          ‘This kind of bilge will no longer appear on Energy Matters.’ ” ~ Euan Mearns

      • Caelan MacIntyre says:

        It’s at the site, top of the page in large letters…

        “TWED = Total World Energy Demand”

  49. Hightrekker says:

    Avoid reading–
    Learning from mistakes in climate research

    • Bruce Grano says:

      With this Hurricane Irma, your team once again will come out with egg on your faces. Then you will just add it to the already long list of events used in “learning from your mistakes” if such is possible. However, out in the real world people are going to pointing fingers, and they are going to wonder why the million dollar taxpayer funded forecasting models and taxpayer funded career scientists pushing comfortable six figure salaries couldn’t predict squat.

      Just take an example from this very blog. A couple days ago we were reading … “I’ve always wondered what would happen if a Cat 5 took a direct hit on Miami, looks like I’m about to find out.” Now 48 hours later, not only is Miami not going to take anywhere near a direct hit, but the region may struggle to get Category 1 conditions out of Irma. Millions and millions of people have evacuated, doing untold harm to local businesses and the economy, and all scientists will do is offer a weak apology telling us they are underfunded. Really?

      Why should people in the Miami area listen to climate scientists ever again? Then there is the bigger issue of how these scientists can’t say with any certainty what a hurricane will do within 24 hours, yet they are going to continue insisting they know absolutely for sure what will happen with sea ice and global climate systems (both of which are much larger than any individual hurricane) within the next 24 years?

      • Hightrekker says:

        Cat 4 right now.
        Well within the cone.
        The forecast was amazingly accurate.
        I might not be able to tell you the temperature of the coffee in your cup in 3 minutes, but in 5 hours I will.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        However, out in the real world people are going to pointing fingers, and they are going to wonder why the million dollar taxpayer funded forecasting models and taxpayer funded career scientists pushing comfortable six figure salaries couldn’t predict squat.

        Why don’t you just go and fuck yourself, you, POS Troll?!


        An independent expert on global forecast models, Ryan Maue, said the NOAA office responsible for developing US computer models, the National Centers For Environmental Prediction, is understaffed and has less funding than the European forecasting center, which is based in the United Kingdom. America, he said, is getting what it pays for.

        • islandboy says:

          As I have said before, I am really curious as to what these people are searching for when they show up here? What web sites are they coming from that link to this one? What is their motive for trolling this particular web site? Are they real people or just sophisticated bots? What are their views on Peak Oil or renewable energy or electric vehicles? Are they being paid to try and derail the conversations here? If so, by whom?

          So many questions, so few answers!

          • George Kaplan says:

            It’s interesting to see how the deniers rants change as the evidence becomes more convincing that they have been completely wrong. They seem to just ratchet up the idiocy and dishonesty. It’s probably all the inevitable result of cognitive dissonance – any other behaviour and they’d have to admit to themselves that they are pig-ignorant, hypocrites.

          • notanoilman says:

            They are being sent here. They are trolls who are given an agenda to spout.


            • George Kaplan says:

              Three deaths so far – how many more if nano brain Grano had been in charge?

              • notanoilman says:

                See someones comment about Galveston , the other day 🙁 Perhaps, for the next one, the meteorologists should turn round and say ‘Nope, not telling you anything’ and see what the reaction is.


          • Stanley Walls says:

            These fools do serve at least one useful purpose. They prove, at least to me, that I’m not the stupidest fucker on the whole goddam planet!

            Thanks folks, and stay off the damn roadways, I might be traveling through.

        • George Kaplan says:

          Fred – I’d suggest first he takes his head out of his arse, then fucks himself, then sticks his head back. I think these people need very precise and simple instructions in order to get it right. There can be no room left for any doubt or uncertainty, otherwise they will just blame you for them getting it wrong.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            I think these people need very precise and simple instructions in order to get it right.

            Maybe the instructions should be pictorial as these people are probably not capable of understanding simple text.

            Seriously though, I strongly suspect this kind of post to be the work of paid trolls or possibly some automated bot.

            Either way sitting here in South Florida this Sunday morning I have only the highest praise for the scientists, meteorologists and forecasters from NOAA and other organizations. I feel the same about our local emergency responders. It has already been a rough night and the worst of the storm is just really beginning as I type these words.

            It’s going to be a long miserable day here in South Florida…

            • Doug Leighton says:

              Hang in there Fred, our thoughts are with you guys. My best friend lives in Tampa but well away from the Coast.

      • Hightrekker says:


      • Survivalist says:

        It’s an unfortunate comment on the American condition that it’s impossible to tell whether or not this post is someone aping the deniers, or if this is a genuine post from a fellow American. It could plausibly go either way.

      • notanoilman says:

        The forecasts were good and gave Miami time to prepare for what they are receiving.


  50. Survivalist says:

    2017 is closing with the 2015 record US fire year as measured by acres burnt. In 3rd place but closing.

  51. Survivalist says:

    US wildfire total acres burnt. Comprehensive data does not exist prior to 1960. Reliable data only since 1983. 2017 will likely finish in first or second place.


    Definite trend upwards in acres burnt despite extensive efforts and resources allocated to prevent and suppress wildfires.

  52. islandboy says:

    Irma leaving Cuba.

  53. George Kaplan says:


    This is NOAA radar from Miami. It shows how the east side gets clobbered most, and why the move west, while maybe saving downtown Miami might mean that the overall impact is higher. Currently cat 4 and strengthening. Looks like it might go straight over Key West, hopefully everybody has left, just the storm surge is going to flood at least half of it and the rain is going to be about 15 inches. Somewhere I’ve seen that flood to wind damage averages about 4 or 5 to 1 for most hurricanes in US.

    I was going to post some webcams but it looks like they aren’t surviving the first few hours, and very slow updates – tens of thousands watching though.

    • Jared Quinlan says:

      Seeing all the destruction and fear these storms cause makes me realize we need to get the greatest minds of the United States together to try and come up with ways to destroy/overpower hurricanes before they can ever make landfall. With the way technology keeps advancing so fast, the day could come soon enough where that’s possible.

      • OFM says:

        It’s PERFECTLY obvious that Jared has a near zero understanding of physical and technical realities.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        Seeing all the destruction and fear these storms cause makes me realize we need to get the greatest minds of the United States together to try and come up with ways to destroy/overpower hurricanes before they can ever make landfall.

        Maybe we could all start with conserving resources and energy and using fossil fuels as little as possible while we transition to clean, non carbon based energy systems.

        • GoneFishing says:

          Instead of tilting at windmills, we are now supposed to tilt at windstorms?
          We have met the enemy and the enemy is us. Further disturbances to the natural cycle is not advisable until we actually understand the short and long range effects to the system. Knowledge is power, acting with lack of knowledge and understanding is a fool’s errand.

          Speaking of conserving and reducing use of fossil fuels, a total of over 4 million hybrid electric vehicles have been sold in the US as of May last year.
          Since they get about twice the mpg of their ICE types, when one considers they may run for 200,000 miles the savings of fuel and extraneous energy is great.
          That’s about 17 billion gallons of fuel saved. When one realizes that about 40% of the energy in gasoline is needed to produce that gasoline, then the savings is more like 24 billion gallons of gasoline. Sounds like a lot but when compared to the annual use of 142 billion gallons per year in the US, we have a lot of room for improvement. Maybe we should aim at cutting that use of gasoline in half as a first step, while using more efficient ways to produce electric power.

          When one goes to the global regime. just consider that Toyota alone has sold over 10 million hybrid vehicles. Add to that the other hybrid and economy ICE’s that have been produced and there has been a significant savings in fuel use worldwide.

          If we all used hybrids and pure electrics we could knock the top off of peak oil and have some control over it versus it controlling us. Plus we could take a chunk out of carbon emissions too.

      • notanoilman says:

        There is way to cut back on storms. It is called cut global warming by not putting out CO2. Trouble is the USA doesn’t want to try.


    • Jared Quinlan says:

      Btw, this is a good live stream. The owner of a gas station on the keys along with some tourists are standing outside recording as the eye wall comes in. Sometimes the canopy over the gas pumps looks to be blowing apart, but not yet. They can stream for as long as the cell service stays up.


      Edit-they just lost power right after I posted. Now the stream might go down as the phone’s battery is low. They had to go inside because of the debris flying around.

  54. GoneFishing says:

    Crowded Earth. Where is everyone going to live?


    • Hightrekker says:

      They are not, any population biologist can easily inform one of the results.

  55. islandboy says:

    Looking at the animated satellite loop and the path over the last few hours, Irma seems to be heading due north. If it were to continue on it’s current heading as shown by the red arrow in the image below, that would be the best possible outcome. That path would put the most intense winds around the core of the storm, over the largely uninhabited Everglades. Unfortunately the storm seems to be veering slightly west of north taking the center directly over Naples towards Fort Myers, Sarasota, St Petersburg and Tampa so the property damage will be worse than if the storm taken a more northward tack. Hopefully the interaction with land will weaken it rapidly.

  56. Justin Sroka says:

    As we watch hurricane Irma cross Florida, here is something interesting to ponder…


    Steve Milloy‏
    Verified account

    If Florida was powered by wind and solar there would be no electricity in the state this weekend. Long live fossil fuels. #Irma

  57. notanoilman says:

    Has there been a hurricane season where 2 storm names have been retired?


  58. Boomer II says:

    A good article on how denial about natural disasters will result in economic panic and collapse. I think we are already seeing something similar with big oil, but not everyone wants to deal with it yet.


  59. Gerry says:

    Maybe the Dutch know how to feed more than 10 billion people on this planet.


    Their reliance on natural gas needs to be addressed though.

    • OFM says:

      Feed ten billion? It could be done, TECHNICALLY. Hell’s bells, any competent farmer knows HOW, in general terms.

      The first, second , and third questions, in no particular order, are who will supply the necessary inputs on the grand scale, who will pay for them, and whether the various governments of the world will enact and enforce such regulations as are necessary to protect what’s left of our soil and clean water etc.

      And if the near miracle of ENOUGH is pulled off, the NEXT question is who or which countries will be able to PAY for food, and which ones won’t. It’s as sure as sunrise that some won’t be able to pay.

      Considering the likely day to day climate realities and economic realities in a world that far down the road with that many people, it’s almost dead certain that there will be countless of millions of people in EACH of a dozen or more various geographical areas who will be beggars rather than producers.

      My personal opinion is that the most likely overall scenario is that major famines will sweep thru these areas, over a period of years, thereby reducing the population substantially in the most overpopulated spots.

      That’s the sort of Pearl Harbor wake up brick upside the collective local head that just might convince the locals that it’s time to make only ONE baby, or maybe no baby at all. Contraception is dirt cheap, if you take out the various middle men such as pharmacists and physicians living high on the hog. Paying for contraception would be a piece of cake.

      Cheap and easy communication will be the norm by then, even in the worst of slums and rural backwaters. Getting the word out won’t be impossible by any means.

      Let’s just hope that the inevitable resource wars don’t escalate into WWIII.

      WWIII would wipe out just about all of us.

      ONE thing, in my estimation, is for dead sure. Just about ANY country with decent prospects is going to be the target destination of tens of millions, hundreds of millions of wannabe new citizens, and unless something is done between our present day now and our future day THEN, to prevent it, they will be arriving in such numbers.

      And it will be literally impossible to prevent their arriving, short of the worst sort of violence at the borders.

      Those of us who are so ignorant or naive or politically cynical as to pretend we DON’T already have immigration problems in rich western countries have their heads up their asses so far they will NEVER see daylight.

      The proof? They’re too stupid to understand that when the local people who occupy the lower rungs of the economic ladder start feeling threatened, ENOUGH of them will vote for Trump type politicians that Trumps and Hitlers get elected.

      It NEVER ceases to amaze me just how blind and or naive otherwise well educated people can be , when it comes to their political prejudices.

      About the stupidest thing I have EVER heard is that Americans won’t do shitty tough jobs. They WILL, and they DO, by the tens of millions. And if such jobs were to PAY BETTER, tens of millions more Americans would be willing to do them, rather than subsist on welfare and charity in mom’s basement and flipping burgers.

      I KNOW, I have lived among such people for most of a century now. It’s easier to get by flipping burgers for a little less, inside, where it’s clean and warm in the winter, and not all that hot in the summer, compared to cutting grass, picking veggies, toting lumber, etc. It’s easier to be a single mom, living on food stamps and rental assistance with the kids getting free lunch at school, and just keep the man around on an INFORMAL basis, and HOPE he contributes something.

      Such women’s kids can get into a doctor’s office easier than some who have both mommies and daddies working their asses off , and making just enough that they CAN’T run their kids thru the clinics operated by the local health department.So semi dead beat ( not intended judgementally) mom’s kids see the same doc for free in the morning that the other kid sees in the afternoon, with Momma and Daddy coughing up eighty or a hundred or even two hundred bucks out of the family’s weekly take home income of six hundred or maybe even less.

      I know personally of half a dozen women who are living this way right this MINUTE, and while all of them would like to live BETTER, they’re doing the BEST they can, given their ACTUAL options, and they aren’t ashamed of themselves. Why should they be ? I would do the same in their shoes, myself.

      They have looked around at the way the world works. If you were to tell one of them that HRC is a friend of hers, she would laugh her ass off , and remind you that HRC gets a quarter of a million bucks for telling a few jokes to her bankster friends, and that her social worker makes fifty grand or more with TONS of bennies, doing an EASIER job than the one she can has , which pays less than twenty thousand and has little or nothing in the way of benefits.

      If we had five or ten million less people looking for every unskilled or semi skilled job, the wages paid to to such workes would rise SUBSTANTIALLY, and quickly, and one hell of a big chunk of the income inequality problem would solve itself instantly. All my well insulated from the realities of exported industries and imported cheap labor would be bitching their asses off about having to pay a decent wage to get their grass cut and their painting and tree work done, but they could afford to do so, easily enough.

      I have PERSONAL knowledge of at least three or four hard core nickel and dime criminals going straight because they lucked out and got jobs where they can actually make a living, operating machinery at a nearby mine. They were willing to give up their uncivilized ways for fifteen to twenty bucks an hour of bust ass hard work with some occasional overtime. They couldn’t do that well as nickel and dime thieves and dope dealers, even working the same long hours.

      Incidentally they got these jobs because one of my relatives, who goes to church three times a week, is a manager there, and gave them a shot, driving trucks or operating other machines. He has done this a dozen times at least. Success is not by any means guaranteed. But on the other hand, turnover has been high when times were good, and so he wasn’t actually risking very much.

      Beware of what you wish for, because there are ALWAYS STRINGS ATTACHED.

      I’m not bitching about my own circumstances. I’m not hard up at all, although I am property rich and cash poor. If I REALLY wanted a new Tesla S with all the extras, I could sell an acre or two of hilltop land with a view and own one within ninety days, paid for.

      And most of my extended family has played by the rules, INCLUDING the rules taught in the church so many people make so much fun of, and succeeded in moving up in the world, with a substantial portion of us doing very well indeed.

      People who don’t actually know shit from apple butter about what ACTUALLY happens in church don’t know that MOST of what is taught in Sunday School , whether for toddlers or old men, is about living a respectable, dignified and reasonably prosperous community life. There are four or five times more lessons about living within your means, honesty, dealing fairly with your fellow man, respecting secular law, setting aside savings for a rainy day, avoiding drunkenness,planning for the long term, only having kids when you are able and willing to support them, etc, than there are about seven days, whales swallowing men and burping them up, etc. ( The lesson about so called LOVE children, aka bastards, IS wrapped up in the lesson about avoiding premarital sex, to be sure. )

      The myths are the necessary glue that helps hold the membership together.

      • Nick G says:

        What do you think of what the Dutch are doing?

        ” Almost two decades ago, the Dutch made a national commitment to sustainable agriculture under the rallying cry “Twice as much food using half as many resources.” Since 2000, van den Borne and many of his fellow farmers have reduced dependence on water for key crops by as much as 90 percent. They’ve almost completely eliminated the use of chemical pesticides on plants in greenhouses, and since 2009 Dutch poultry and livestock producers have cut their use of antibiotics by as much as 60 percent.”

        • OFM says:

          They’re doing a great job. I’m impressed, seriously. I read this article sometime back, a few weeks ago I guess, and I have followed what they are doing in the industry press off and on for years.

          Any discussion of water and agriculture is generally so full of bullshit, or so one sided, as to be ass wipe material, because most people who write about it have made their minds up what they are going to write no matter what the facts are.

          When you read that it takes thus and so many gallons of water to produce a pound of beef, it sounds AWFUL……… until you come to understand that almost all that water is rain water, lol, which will fall and run off or sink in no matter what. And while it may (or NOT ) be polluted to some extent with pesticides and fertilizers, it’s still going to run off cornfields and or sink down to the water table just the same as if the cornfield was a forest, lol. Agriculture generally speaking does not use up water, other than what evaporates, although huge quantities are MOVED from one place to another, via large scale irrigation systems. It’s fucking HARD to get rid of a water molecule, lol.

          Whatever the cows in a feed lot drink, it winds up going downstream just like the water you flush down your toilet. The problem arises when there’s not enough clean water handy to flush toilets, lol.

          If you are a really good manager, you can cut your use of insecticides to near zero in a green house, because in that tightly controlled environment, you can break the life cycle of just about any insect , and once you have gotten rid of any particular nasty fungus, etc, you don’t have much problem with it being reintroduced on the feet of birds or in their poop or just blowing in on the wind, etc, so you can cut eighty to ninety percent plus on fungicides, etc.

          But you have to spend ONE HELL of a lot of money to set up green house operations, and you must have electricity, and heat, and skilled help, and even then……… you will lose your ASS except when growing stuff that has some crunch, some fiber and a few useful vitamins and minerals and so forth, but goddamned near NOTHING in terms of calories and protein, compared to field grown crops.

          It sure as hell helps if you happen to be located someplace you can get cheap natural gas and dirt cheap electricity, which happens to be the sort of place that tomatoes are grown in greenhouses, lol.

          Now COULD you grow soybeans, or peanuts in a green house? Sure ….. If you could get a high enough price for them. Rich people can afford green house greens, lol, poor people can’t.

          The tech marches on, and from one year to the next, you can grow a little more using the same inputs in the same green house, by tweaking your technique, introducing a new variety, installing a new computer system to control the flow of water and fertilizer, etc.

          You lose almost nothing to inclement weather, very little to disease or pests, you can be really close to your destination market, bypassing middle men and shippers, you can use very little water by recycling it right inside the greenhouse, ditto you don’t lose any significant amount of expensive fertilizer to run off, you save a fortune in pesticides, you can grow six, even twelve crops a year, if you’re growing the select right stuff, right around the calendar.

          Given these advantages, there’s every reason to believe that so long as steel, glass, etc, remain affordable, and lots of people have money enough that they don’t have to watch their grocery budget down to the last dollar, the green house industry will continue to grow, and at a fairly fast pace, on average. But the foods produced this way by and large will NOT be staple foods, at least not for the foreseeable future. It’s probably always going to be cheaper to produce the staples out in the boonies by the hundreds of acre, with next to nothing, by comparison , in capital expenditures.

          Back in the Dark Ages, when I was an undergrad, we used to sit around and drink beer ( pot was a real novelty that far back, lol) and debate the coming of controlled environment aka green house ag and a lot of us believed then that by now we would measure green houses by the square mile and be growing grain indoors, lol.

          Well, the prices of labor, glass, concrete, pressure treated lumber, electricity, and galvanized steel kept on going up, while the yields of field crops kept on increasing.

          I’m helping a relative build a greenhouse right now, which will be pretty much a state of the art combination hydroponics and fish operation. We set the tank for the fish some weeks back, and all the below grade plumbing is in place, and the framing is all up, ready for plastic, which costs only a very minor fraction of what glass costs, but it will have to be replaced every four or five years.

          Of course he expects to sell his tilapia and his greens direct to restaurants and a few select independent grocers. I wish him luck, but it’s been my experience that damned few independents willing and able to buy direct from producers actually EXIST in my part of the world, and you’re pissing your time away trying to sell to supermarket chains unless you are able to deliver by the truckload any time they call.

          But he will be one of the first people up and running this sort of operation in this general area, and with a little luck, he won’t have much in the way of competition for at least a few years, so he has a decent shot.

          This is my first HANDS ON experience with such a system, so I’m expecting some surprises. They will be his problem, not mine, because I’m not going to be involved in running it.

  60. islandboy says:

    >U.S. Solar Market Adds 2.4 GW in Q2, Largest Second Quarter Ever

    The report forecast that the solar industry will add 12.4 GW of new capacity this year, down slightly from GTM Research’s previous forecast of 12.6 GW.

    The report did not change its forecast that the American solar industry would triple cumulative capacity over the next five years.

    However, trade relief, which is being considered by the U.S. International Trade Commission, could radically affect the solar outlook and “would result in a substantial downside revision to our forecast for all three segments,” the analysis said.

    In a June report, GTM Research said that the requested floor price, if approved, would cut cumulative demand in half over the next five years. SEIA says the petition could cause the solar industry to shed 88,000 jobs just in 2018. Last year, U.S. solar companies added 51,000 workers.

    Also reported at the following links:

    US added 2.4 GW of solar resources in Q2, SEIA says
    Solar booms: 2.4 GW installed during Q2 in the United States (w/ charts)

    It would appear that the entrenched electricity utility interests are having some success in their campaign against rooftop solar, with net metering rules being changed in several states in a way that removes one incentive for householders to install solar. Also with the senate majority leader being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industries, it can be expected that all federal support (tax breaks) for renewables will be removed. The good news is that, the current boom in utility scale installations is based more on solid economic feasibility than even the Production Tax Credit, the only subsidy offered to solar in the US.

    Maybe the US will end up like Australia, where the federal government is doing everything it can to hamper renewables and support coal and gas but, the states are pushing renewables with plenty of support from the citizenry. See:

    Nationals demand “coal target” as energy politics spirals into loony fog

  61. Songster says:

    I found an article over on Zerohedge yesterday regarding Tesla helping the Florida-based Tesla owners to escape Irma and pasted in the following excerpt:

    “In what is either a generous act of charity or an unnerving example of the control Tesla exercises over the vehicles it producers, or perhaps both, Tesla CEO Elon Musk has magically unlocked the batteries of every Tesla in Florida to maximize the distance that people fleeing from Hurricane Irma can travel before stopping to refuel at one of the company’s “superstation” charging centers.

    Typically, these types of over-the-air upgrades can cost thousands – if not tens of thousands – of dollars.

    But Musk is temporarily offering full battery capacity to all owners of Model S/X 60/60D vehicles with 75 kilo watt battery packs, according to Electrek, a blog that covers electric vehicles.

    The upgrade will surely help Floridians who are still rushing to escape as the now category 3 storm makes its second landfall near Naples. The upgrade will last through Saturday.”

    As is normal over there, most of the comments were negative to the point of delusional. But how great is it to be able to wirelessly upgrade the Tesla’s there to help the owners escape the storm. Very Musk.

    • notanoilman says:

      Paying big money for upgrades that cost little or nothing goes back a very long time. Used to be a disk drive, back in the days of interchangeable 14″ platters (look it up), where it came in a series of capacity options. To double the capacity all that was needed was to snip one wire! The customer was charged heftily and the only problem was making the service call look sufficiently complicated to justify the cost.


      IIRC was one wire may have been 2 or a wire wrap or one of each, was a while ago.

  62. Doug Leighton says:


    “In a new analysis of climate models, researchers from the University of Pennslyvania, Spain’s Institute of Marine Sciences and Johns Hopkins University reveal the significant global effects that these seemingly anomalous polynyas can have. Their findings indicate that heat escaping from the ocean through these openings impacts sea and atmospheric temperatures and wind patterns around the globe and even rainfall around the tropics. Though this process is part of a natural pattern of climate variability, it has implications for how the global climate will respond to future anthropogenic warming.”


    • Doug Leighton says:



      “The East Coast of the US is threatened by more frequent flooding in the future. This is shown by a recent study by the Universities of Bonn, South Florida, and Rhode Island. According to this, the states of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina are most at risk. Their coastal regions are being immersed by up to three millimeters per year — among other things, due to human intervention…The researchers assume that it is caused by the significant use of groundwater in the corresponding region. Water allows the land mass to swell up to some degree — similar to carbon dioxide bubbles in cake mix. “When groundwater is removed, the land mass can be compressed more greatly,” says Karegar. “It practically collapses into itself and thus sinks even more.”


      • GoneFishing says:

        We losing on average up to 100 yards of coastline (landward) about every 8 to 10 years worldwide. Somebody will notice this by 2050.

  63. Doug Leighton says:


    “Sand, spanning miles of beaches, carpeting vast oceans and deserts, is a visual metaphor for limitless resources. Yet researchers in this week’s journal Science seize another metaphor — sand in an hourglass, marking time running out…

    The biggest worry, the authors say, is that the true impact and economics of sand mining isn’t even clearly understood. The simple anecdotes which have received some publicity make it clear solutions can’t be delivered to only one spot. The transactions of sand, and the toll of obtaining the natural resource, span the globe in a web of supply, demand and power.”


    • notanoilman says:

      Years ago builders here used to go down to the beach and fill up their pickup with sand for construction. Now, a lot of old buildings have problems due to the salt that was in that sand.


      • Fred Magyar says:

        You want sand? Come and pick it from the Hollywood Broad Walk

        • Hightrekker says:

          Maybe sell it to the Shale Guys?

        • notanoilman says:

          Yeah, know the feeling. Were there any interesting artifacts uncovered where the beach used to be? We saw bases of old beach stalls that had been covered by a couple of meters of sand, over the years.


          • Fred Magyar says:

            No, but I did see some sea birds on the beach that I didn’t recognize. I took photos and will try to identify them later.

    • Bill Franti says:

      The sand industry is booming–making lots of money for lots of people–because of the amount of sand required by America’s shale oil drillers. Unfortunately, a rare example of a successful industry delivering alpha to the masses is just too irresistible for scientists to leave alone. Evidently science will stop at absolutely nothing to discredit America’s proud oil and gas entrepreneurs.

  64. Fred Magyar says:

    The physics and chemistry of non linear dynamic complex interacting systems such as the atmosphere and oceans are difficult enough to grasp. IMHO that still pales in comparison to what is happening on the biological and ecosystem fronts. Time to get serious about protecting the parasites we know before they go extinct and are replaced by things that could be much worse.

    Scientists: Climate Change May Wipe Out Third of World’s Parasites, With Disastrous Ripple Effects

    On second thought, never mind, to understand what that means and what the implications are, requires an understanding of basic scientific principles and the scientific method. Unfortunately for the vast majority of people on the planet, that train has already left the station…

    Edit: Link to paper.


    Parasite biodiversity faces extinction and redistribution in a changing climate
    Colin J. Carlson1,*, Kevin R. Burgio2,†, Eric R. Dougherty1,†, Anna J. Phillips3,†, Veronica M. Bueno2, Christopher F. Clements4,

    Climate change is a well-documented driver of both wildlife extinction and disease emergence, but the negative impacts of climate change on parasite diversity are undocumented. We compiled the most comprehensive spatially explicit data set available for parasites, projected range shifts in a changing climate, and estimated extinction rates for eight major parasite clades. On the basis of 53,133 occurrences capturing the geographic ranges of 457 parasite species, conservative model projections suggest that 5 to 10% of these species are committed to extinction by 2070 from climate-driven habitat loss alone. We find no evidence that parasites with zoonotic potential have a significantly higher potential to gain range in a changing climate, but we do find that ectoparasites (especially ticks) fare disproportionately worse than endoparasites. Accounting for host-driven coextinctions, models predict that up to 30% of parasitic worms are committed to extinction, driven by a combination of direct and indirect pressures. Despite high local extinction rates, parasite richness could still increase by an order of magnitude in some places, because species successfully tracking climate change invade temperate ecosystems and replace native species with unpredictable ecological consequences.

    • Caelan MacIntyre says:

      For a fleeting second, I thought you were speaking about the human elite-status-quo parasites and that you might be coming around.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Thanks Fred, very insightful. The little things truly do run the planet. Taking the loss of parasites up another level, certain bird populations and fish populations will plummet.
      Flies should do wonderful for a time.

      As far as ticks go, the ticks around here are like little armored tanks that can stand just about anything. In the last 3 decades I have seen them advance into very cold territories with extreme weather, where they never used to be at all. Now they are thriving in high mountain areas where normal winter temps hit minus 20 to minus 30. They are on the move and not much can stop them. I really pity the deer and mice.
      There are not enough tick predators, probably other food is more nutritious.

    • Nick G says:

      “…a collapse in commodities prices tipped Brazil into a recession that has shrunk economic output by more than 7 percent since 2015, crippling demand for electricity and leaving an excess of generating capacity.

      The “reverse auction,” which Energy Minister Fernando Coelho Filho says could start within months, would provide an escape for financially distressed firms holding licenses for power projects, particularly in the solar and wind sectors, that they are unable to build.”


    • Fred Magyar says:

      The reality is that Brazil is broke thanks to the corrupt politicians and business men who are mostly the cattlemen, soy growers, mining and oil tycoons, and the bankers. Same shit, different flies… Much like what happens in the USA. I’m pretty sure Brazil will continue to build out other wind and solar projects despite the current reality. It is the only way, two steps forward, one step back.

      • Hightrekker says:

        Brazil, being the 5th largest country by area, and 6th by population, is a player no matter what.
        But to get rid of the scum that has risen to the top of the pot, it probably needs a little stir. The US currently needs a mixer to get the scum from the top away.

  65. Hightrekker says:

    Coconut Grove Faces 38-Month Supply Of Luxury Condos Listed For Sale
    ( I bet that time frame just got longer)


  66. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    Indigenous grapple with NYC bedlam, bureaucracy at UN forum

    “To hear Ati Quigua tell it, New York City is a place where people who don’t know each other live stacked inside big buildings, gorging on the ‘foods of violence’, and where no one can any longer feel the Earth’s beating heart.

    Quigua, an indigenous leader whose village in Colombia sits on an isolated mountain range rising 18,700 feet (5,700 meters) before plunging into the sea, is just one of over 1,000 delegates in town for the 15th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues that ends Friday.

    ‘On top of the temples of the goddess and Mother Earth, they are building castles, they are building cities and building churches, but our mother has the capacity to regenerate’, Quigua said. ‘We are fighting not to have roads or electricity — this vision of self-destruction that’s called development is what we’re trying to avoid.‘…

    ‘It’s a really big city, a huge city. It’s massive, a lot of people are everywhere and they are always rushing and always fighting with time,’ said Patty. “It’s completely different from my community where life is slow and simple.‘…

    Roy said he finds he has more in common with indigenous peoples — even Finland’s Sami, who live in the Arctic region — than with the New Yorkers he passes on the way to the forum.

    ‘Sometimes someone brought up in a community lifestyle from Asia or Latin America … may find city people quite aggressive. The way people walk past in railway stations, the way they look at another person. I think that indigenous people will find city people quite rude, and if I may say so, unsophisticated’, Roy said. “

    Loistava Tulevaisuus (Brilliant Future)

  67. OFM says:


    At least four or five leading contenders for the D nomination in 2020 are on board with single payer already , that’s about half of all the likeliest candidates.

    A year ago HRC said it would never ever come to pass. What she really meant was that she was opposing it because Sanders was for it, and because O Care does more for the health care industry than it does for the people of this country, by a country mile.

    Even though he lost the nominating contest, in no small part because HRC controlled the party machinery and did everything possible to tilt the playing field in her own favor via that machinery, Sanders forced the D party to face up to the fact that it would continue losing power and influence by playing the R Lite game.

    D’s next time around are going to ACT like D’s, rather than Republican wannabe’s, at least at the presidential nominating level.

    • Hightrekker says:

      Let’s hope so.
      But, if their appointment of the new DNC Chairman is any indication, they haven’t learned a thing.
      They are just pigs at the trough, and can’t think of leaving.

      Clinton Says Giving Paid Speeches to Wall Street Firms a Mistake
      Democrat says she’s ‘done with being a candidate’ after 2016

      • OFM says:

        The old Clinton controlled political machine is still in charge of the D party machinery, this is true. But hopefully that control won’t last much longer, as the older people are replaced by younger ones, who are by and large in the Sanders faction D camp.

        She’s supposed by her fans to be super duper smart and competent, but she’s actually about as dumb as they come, politically, considering all the opportunities she had to learn how to behave, with all the top level people available to her to give her good advice. She surrounded herself with yes girls and yes boys. BIG mistake.

        From the Washington Post, about the book:

        “Again and again she blames herself for losing, apologizing for her “dumb” email management, for giving paid speeches to banks, for saying she’d put coal miners “out of business.” She veers between regret and righteous anger, sometimes in the same paragraph.”

        The email system bordered on the criminal, with the justification for no prosecution resting on the lack of INTENT to mishandle classified materials, and the lack of a previous record of successfully prosecuting similar cases involving super prominent and politically powerful people.

        Blaming and bad mouthing the majority of the electorate ( white people ) for disagreeing with her on cultural matters displays a lack of political smarts indicating a political iq down in the seventies.

        She displayed an APPALLING lack of good judgement in numerous instances, and if Cattle Gate were to be replayed today, she would go to jail . Betty Crocker what’s her name was convicted of insider trading on a hell of a lot less hard evidence. Cattle Gate was and is mathematically provable as straight up bald faced fraud involving the use of her husband’s political office and collusion with very powerful businessmen with many issues on the table relating to their business and the state government at the time.

        Now Trump’s an old he coon to her two month old kitten when it comes to personal shortcomings, we all know that. Trump has usually managed to steal more in a good year than she has in a lifetime, but according to what I read, she and her immediate family have managed to get to be into the one percent of the one percent without ever owning a real business or holding any real jobs, other than political jobs. Old women might not be aware of that, but you can goddamned be sure the average coal miner and textile and furniture worker are all aware of it. Ditto the average YOUNG woman who is interested in politics.

        Then she had the gall to send out her lackey flackeys to accuse Sanders of corruption when he and his wife sold an inherited house to buy another one more suitable to their old age desires, implying they got the money by underhanded means.

        But on the other hand, Trump was NOT running for president until the prevailing perfect storm conditions offered him the opportunity to jump in and do so. If his long term plan had been to be president, he would most likely have done some things differently, so as to look better as a candidate. He SHOULD have been jailed for the Trump U fraud, but he got off with a settlement for the same reason as Clinton did with the email, it’s hard to prove INTENT, and it’s hard to convict the super rich and powerful.

        And although he was the most distrusted and disliked nominee in the history of the R party, and arguably in the history of the country, at least in modern times, he STILL managed to beat Clinton, which indicates just HOW pathetic a candidate she really was, in terms of the PUBLIC’s perception of her.

        I’m trying to argue this like a COACH talking to the parents with kids on the team.

        You put the best players in the most important spots. You don’t run a candidate for president who comes into the race dragging a thirty year plus baggage train who has flip flopped on several issues held as core values by fifty million or more voters. Old people tend to REMEMBER such flip flopping, and wonder which way the candidate will go the next time expediency dictates another flip.

        Yes, the R’s ran Trump, but not because the R PARTY wanted him. The Republican PARTY ESTABLISHMENT hated his guts, and still hates his guts, but politicians work with whoever they must, and they’re stuck with Trump for now.

  68. Caelan MacIntyre says:

    Continued from here

    “I have never seen any viable plan for getting from point A to B.” ~ Dennis Coyne

    You sure?

    “Of course there is an idealistic Permaea– the one on paper/in theory– and them a realistic one– the one that actually forms– assuming it even does– and properly– and in my lifetime. Some big ifs.

    But if I don’t do anything with what I know, then my conscience won’t be clear that I didn’t at least try.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    “…permaculture includes cities. Look it up.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    “Also, permaculture methods can reverse desertification.” ~ Bob Nickson

    “Before that, or at least at the same time, a push toward local resilience should be on everyone’s agenda, including your own, Dennis. That way, there may be far less to transport, and so far less energy, etc., expenditure. It just seems to make economic sense– the real kind, I mean.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    “…How about, ‘the economy’ (of unsustainable growth and material accumulation, etc.) is a religion; the GDP a self-reinforcing, self-rationalizing facet of it?
    Does nature agree with ‘the economy’? Do you? Do you agree that it’s uneconomic? If so, then why are we calling it the economy?” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    “Someday maybe ‘all the people’ will be ‘sharing all the World’ and ‘the World can live as one.’

    A nice thing to strive for, but it will be ‘a long and winding road.’ ” ~ Dennis Coyne

    “It’s a peak oil(/’collapse’) blog, Dennis. Why’s that?
    Because everything’s hunky-dory in the Neofeudal Church?

    We can begin change merely by prefixing ‘economy’ with ‘un’, or ‘pseudo’, for examples. It’s not hard to do.

    By changing the discourse. Go ahead, try it.
    Take a deep breath and play some relaxing music.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    All you seem to be doing is rationalizing away the system that you don’t even agree with. It is hardly a representative democracy– whatever that really means– either.
    It is also a system that determines in large part how humans behave– your ‘human nature’.
    I am not suggesting you hack your arm off, just make at least some effort in shifting the thinking/narrative and/or at the very least make genuine attempts at avoiding supporting and/or making rationalizations for this system…”

    Are you familiar with permaculture, incidentally? They are making those kinds of efforts.
    And their illusions are hardly childlike. They are, rather, grounded in reality such that this system, ironically for your case here, is far from.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    “The irony, Dennis, as I’ve already mentioned, is that a so-called optimistic view that ostensibly upholds such things as wage-slavery/vertical hierarchy/etc. (i.e., not much in the way of purely-democratically-run egalitarian business cooperatives); coercive governance, and ‘technocracy’ is actually pessimistic, so to speak. In part because it keeps us in prisons, in binds.

    With regard to going with the current narrative, to ‘what is’, I would respectfully recommend that you at least attempt to push the narrative along more ethical lines.
    Your ‘government will step in’ or ostensible faith in industry is against that and upholds the narrative that may get us all killed and/or without that smooth and orderly decline you seem to want.
    This is precisely in part why I posted the corporations and capitalism comments yesterday by the way.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    “Hi Dennis,
    No guns then? Hey great. So then the US military, for example, can just close up shop overseas and go home? That savings, alone, might put a real dent in the cost and length of time of whatever smooth transition is properly agreed upon– which might involve going against some of Tesla’s ideas– and make some parts of the world, like the places that got bombed, or might get bombed, very happy.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    “Dennis, your scenarios seem to always be based on industrialism and the way the current pseudostability of the sociopoliticaleconomic structure/order presently operates.

    Other scenarios could also, and just as easily, involve revolts/revolutions, civil unrest, wars, civil disobedience, sabotage, etc., and people getting out of wage slave and tax-coercion, etc., predicaments and reinvesting some of those kinds of unproductive efforts, if sometimes out of necessity, in a lot of native vegetation, local food and real community and family, etc., again.
    Much of that is of course already happening…” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    “Dennis et al.’s ‘crony-capitalist plutarchy industrialized transition’ sentiment sometimes, maybe usually, sounds a little along the lines of Javier’s ‘AGW is really nothing to worry about’, with an ostensible contention predicated on a ‘growth-based economy’ (<– meta-oxymoron?), debt-based money system and still-large-scale, relatively energy-sucking technology/industry/transportation and government– all in the face of decreasing energy returns.

    Large-scale, large-area, more-complex, less-democratic anything would seem to take more energy-sucking and in myriad forms, than small scale, localized and equable.

    Sure, Dennis, if you are reading this, there will be efficiencies, lower-energy transitions and 'cheap labor' as you put it in your 'cool and calculating economic objectivity', not seeming to be too concerned about wage-slavery, tax-pimping or even authoritarian regimes ‘spontaneously appearing’ on your own home-turf and their effects, or any of that sort of thing.
    But it will still be relatively resource and energy-sucking– a growth-based, industrialized, JIT, complex levels/supply-chains, debt-based IOU pseudoeconomy, in the face of energy shrinkage, ongoing environmental destruction, increasing societal instability/insecurity/land-grabbing/poverty, increasing population, decreasing government pay-ins and pay-outs (taxes, investment funds, civil infrastructure, social benefits…), and increasing sociogeopolitical strains, etc..

    This shit knows it's shit and wants to hit the fan.
    It's true dystopia– the kind with a white and greenwash that many people don't notice as such. The Matrix. Plato's Cave. That's the key to an effective dystopia– that people don’t recognize it as such.

    This is why others are advocating things like true local resilience, green anarchy, equability, pure democracy, Transition Towns, and permaculture.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    “Hi Caelan,
    People can choose to vote for candidates that might make your vision a reality.

    In the mean time I deal with the World as it is and try to improve it incrementally.” ~ Dennis Coyne

    “Hi Dennis,
    People can choose to opt out of the aforementioned, and redirect their attention and efforts toward their own their local communities. That’s real incremental improvement.

    ‘Voting’ for people we don’t really know and in/for systems we have no real control over is a counterproductive path toward ‘incremental improvement’.” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    Part of the idea behind Permaea, incidentally, is to create a completely new society, kind of like a cancer of the state that grows slowly from within it, creates its own safety-nets from it and leverages its operations until it just dies, without violence or bloodshed, simply from the little participation that’s left in it.

    One catch is how do we get Permaea to go ‘viral’? The main proposal, aside from an advertising/marketing campaign (one of the first/main ones of which I already have in mind, and you can get a hint of it in the graphics of people holding Pangaea) is we do it by leveraging ‘off the shelf parts’– groups that are already averse to the state, and there are plenty, obviously. I argue that Permaea already exists, just that those groups are simply not working together. Which really annoys me. LOL” ~ Caelan MacIntyre

    Permaea manifesto
    (rough draft)

    Here’s a recent video with Barrett Brown that I watched just yesterday, which, in places, echoes some of Permaea’s fundamentals as mentioned in the manifesto:

    American republic is essentially doomed

  69. Fred Magyar says:

    And just another reminder why nuclear power is a really bad idea. Humans just can’t be trusted to run them safely. Maybe when our new ‘General AI Overlords’ have taken over control we can revisit the issue but at least for now, I’d like to see the Turkey Point reactors shut down permanently and it’s operators prosecuted for criminal negligence!


    BY MELINA DELKIC ON 9/11/17 AT 10:01 PM

    Operators of a nuclear power plant in the path of Hurricane Irma kept one reactor operating during the cyclone, despite failing to bring the plant up to federal safety code and long-known concerns about the danger faced by nuclear power plants during power outages.

    The Turkey Point nuclear plant in Homestead, along the southeast Florida coast, was in the midst of a region with 5 million power outages —”unprecedented,” according to Florida Power and Light CEO Eric Silagy — yet kept operating even though the risk of a serious accident rises significantly in a power outage, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    “When there’s a possibility to lose power, why would you take the risk of increasing that?” Maggie Gunderson, founder of Fairewinds Energy Education and former nuclear engineer, told Newsweek.

    “It’s just absolute hubris and a huge risk to the population.”

    The most likely problem for a nuclear power plant in a hurricane, added Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, “is a loss of power to the plants.”

    “Most people don’t understand this, but you need electricity going into a power plant — two sources of it generally to be on the safe side — to make sure that the electric motors that control things like safety control rods are running,” he added.

    Imagine what might have happened if we had had a direct hit from a CAT 5 hurricane?
    No power and no diesel to run generators, or worse generators under salt water. What were these idiots thinking?!

    • OFM says:

      I don’t know anything specifically about Turkey Point, but I have been in a number of nukes, as a worker, mostly during maintenance shutdowns, and know quite a lot about them. Lots of folks who never wanted a conventional career used to work shutdowns, because you could make serious money for a few weeks or months, and then do to suit yourself for several months afterwards, and rinse and repeat. Once you were known to the contractors as reliable, you could go back again and again, as needed. If I were still free to travel, I might be on a shutdown someplace right this minute.

      There’s plenty of on site generation available via big, essentially brand new diesel generators, to manage a safe emergency shutdown, if that becomes necessary. These generators are never actually USED for any purpose, until there IS an emergency. But they are kept in pristine condition and the operations crew runs them a few hours once a month or so, just to be sure.

      This is NOT to say a tsunami can’t flood generators, lol.

      I don’t know if Turkey Point is low enough that the plant could be flooded by storm surge.

      It’s obvious that our present fleet of nukes, world wide, is obsolete, in terms of safety standards, and that we need to shut them down, rather than run them into the dirt. The thing that scares me the most is that some country in desperate economic circumstances will run a nuke into the dirt while cutting every possible corner on maintenance and training, and that’s a recipe for a real problem sure enough.

      But everything’s a trade off.

      When you make such a decision, you have to consider not only the immediate risks and costs involved, you have to consider the political consequences as well.

      Shut down nukes, and if the lights stay on, maybe not much of a problem, or no problem at all.

      Shut them down, and see the lights go out, because there’s NOT ENOUGH wind and solar power and gas or coal handy to keep the lights on in pinch, and the political consequences may be such that you set back your own agenda by a decade or two.

      My own opinion is that it’s rather likely that we COULD build a new generation of reasonably safe and reasonably affordable nukes if we were to invest the necessary money into research and development, and that we are making a colossal mistake in failing to do so.

      I’m all for renewables and conservation and changing life styles and all that, but there’s a very real possibility we will run critically short of fossil fuels before we ever manage a successful transition away from them, and it’s STUPID, imo at least, not to have a plan B, and a plan C in place to help make sure that doesn’t happen.

      • Fred Magyar says:

        My own opinion is that it’s rather likely that we COULD build a new generation of reasonably safe and reasonably affordable nukes if we were to invest the necessary money into research and development, and that we are making a colossal mistake in failing to do so.

        Perhaps but I’m not convinced. My own opinion is that there are a thousand better options in which to invest that money.

        I follow disruptive technology and energy conservation developments around the globe. Here’s a very short list of just one competition happening in Europe now, with money from big oil. http://newenergychallenge.com/

        Note: not a single entry from any kind of nuclear technological breakthrough.

        • OFM says:

          It’s going to take a publicly funded effort to find out if a new generation of nukes can be built.

          The cost of the research and development is beyond the scope of even a man as rich as Elon Musk or the Koch brothers, and the political risks are such as to scare any angel money away anyway.

          Let’s hope that all the other alternatives, combined, work out ok.
          But in my estimation, it’s not wise to pursue every reasonably likely / possible option to the point of knowing if it’s technically and economically viable.

          The biggest problem with the CONSTRUCTION cost of nukes is that they are basically one off jobs, with near zero benefits realized in their construction due to the way they are permitted, designed, and built, up until now.

          That problem could be solved with a new generation technology without any doubt at all. Whether the safety and waste issues can be satisfactorily resolved are open questions.

          The nukes we have today were built to sixties standards in technology, and the needs of the military establishment seems to have had as much to do with the design of them as the needs of the electric power industry. Those problems are history NOW.

          • GoneFishing says:

            Minor problems such as what to do with that 97% radioactive waste and how to make uranium mining safe so it doesn’t make a dead zone need to be seriously studied and further ignored while we wander into another dead end power source.
            There are never any deaths or illnesses from nuclear power, because they happen years later and are statistical blips of leukemia and other cancers. So only those few major incidents get any real news and because most of the time people die somewhere else or years later, it gets washed over and forgotten. NIMBY mindset.
            Any power source that makes a permanent wasteland from it’s mines to it’s generation sites to it’s waste products is not an option. Maybe someday people will notice, but it’s difficult to sort among the many the wastelands we have created. Especially when they are made on places that don’t count like Navajo land or far away countries like Canada.
            Maybe people just get used to the wastelands, the toxic lands created by the atomic age. We seem to get used to just about anything that isn’t bearing down on us with fang, claw, knife or gun at the moment.

            It’s not a healthy glow.

            As I sit here surrounded by towering trees, verdant growth everywhere, the lake shining silvery in the sunlight, birds chirping; I know that out there are seven nuclear plants heating water to produce electricity. Out there in the not too far distance, all within two hours or so drive from me. All with their loads of radioactive core and lots of waste just sitting there in barely protected pools of water. All with their trail of destruction, death and toxic landscape. All hidden in sealed buildings away from the sight of the millions around them. All surrounded by the many multitudes of unknowing life forms, just to satisfy the needs of one part of one species. Never knowing when something will go wrong, never knowing what has and is going wrong right now.
            Best to be upstream and downwind if that is possible.

            Mad dreams of Mad Hatters madly chasing down mad money.

            • Doug Leighton says:

              “…and how to make uranium mining safe…”

              Actually there is nothing unsafe about uranium mining (except in some third world countries). Those rare and unusual high grade deposits, such as McArthur River (and Cigar Lake) in northern Saskatchewan, are mostly mined robotically in any case. There is risk from radon gas is some cases but this is easily monitored and controlled. Far higher risk in other types of mining such as deposits with a high silica and asbestos content. Underground coal mines are especially dangerous places to work.

              • GoneFishing says:

                So the mining, milling, processing are all safe for the local environment and a waste zone is not created there? No polluted land or streams. I am sure the life in the region is happy to know that. How interesting.

                The environmental impacts of uranium mining and milling activities are severe. These impacts range from the creation of massive stockpiles of radioactive and toxic waste rock and sand-like tailings to serious contamination of surface and groundwaters with radioactive and toxic pollutants, and releases of conventional, toxic and radioactive air pollutants. In fact, the impacts of uranium mining have been so severe, that many juris-dictions around the world have adopted bans on the establishment of new uranium mines (a prominent example is Nunavut, where any proposal for a future uranium mine must be approved by referendum).
                The tailings or wastes left by the milling process consist of ground rock particles, water, and mill chemicals, and radioactive and otherwise hazardous contaminants, such as heavy metals. In fact, up to 85 percent of the radiological elements contained in the original uranium ore end up in the tailings. Canadian uranium mines produce more than half a million tonnes of tailings each year.
                Other mining methods, such as in-situ leaching, where powerful chemicals are injected into the ground to leach uranium out of the ore, are sometimes presented as a way of mining uranium without the need for milling operations. However, the practice is associated with groundwater contamination that is impossible to remediate.
                Uranium mining operations also produce waste rock, which can contain both radionuclides and heavy metals, such as nickel, copper, arsenic, molybdenum, selenium and cadmium.

                And then there is the caribou connection, the basement ecology is contaminated and works it’s way up the food chain.
                Beside the ground, water and air contamination, the waste products have to go somewhere after the power plant uses a small portion of the radioactive material. Sure we get rid of some of it in war by use in artillery but most of it stays at home.

                And if you think nuclear is carbon free, it’s not.

                There are many books written on the wastelands created and the multiple problems created downstream by nuclear power. Easy to get hold of them.

                Not a viable option for use in the world of life and definitely a non-sustainable resource, just another dead end. Might work out for robots and AI though.

                • Doug Leighton says:

                  Having visited most of the large uranium mines in the world I’m more than familial with the various issues involved (no need to be condescending). If you want to bring attention to devastation wrought by mining talk about the rare earth mines in China where children die daily so we can pretend we’re so smart with our latest cel phones. And yes, I’ve been to the REE mines in China and seen the horror. Lots of photos on the internet if you care to look: “Not a viable option for use in the world of life and definitely a non-sustainable resource, just another dead end.”

                  • Doug Leighton says:

                    China’s rare earth industry makes up 97 percent of rare mineral trade worldwide. BTW in North Korea, an assessment of the Jongju target indicates a total mineralisation potential of 6 billion tonnes with total 216.2 million tonnes rare-earth-oxides including light REEs such as lanthanum, cerium and praseodymium; mainly britholite and associated rare earth minerals. About 2.66% of the 216.2 million tonnes consists of more valuable heavy rare-earth-elements.

                  • GoneFishing says:

                    Sorry Doug, just pissed off lately about the way the world is being treated. Put up another solar panel today which calmed me down some.

                    I saw enough horror in the chemical industry. People have little idea what is being unleashed into their air, water, food, products they use and the general environment. Improvements have been made (and unmade) but the variation of controls and handling is extremely wide across the world.
                    China has a huge social and human rights problem, but not just China, others too. That is correctable. Reducing and eliminating the environmental damage and destruction costs more money, something that with which many do not part easily.
                    Sadly, the local people and all the other living things take the brunt of the harm in the reckless race for profit and low price.

          • Fred Magyar says:

            The cost of the research and development is beyond the scope of even a man as rich as Elon Musk or the Koch brothers, and the political risks are such as to sre any angel money away anyway.

            Agreed! Which is precisely why that link I provided hints toward the fact the Nuclear is viewed as neither all that promising but more importantly as economically problematic give all the potential alternatives. Two of the supporters behind that are Shell Oil, which has more financial resources available to it than many nation states, and YES!Delft, known for being a very savvy angel venture capital organization.

            Having said that, the Chinese are investing in in new thorium reactor development. If Trump doesn’t screw up our trade relations with them or worse start a hot war, who knows they may sell us their technology at affordable prices in the future, when the US comes back to its senses and becomes a productive member of the global community once again.

            • Hightrekker says:

              Commercial thorium is a constant, kinda like the speed of light.
              No matter when you observe it, it is 5 years away.

              • OFM says:

                Well, that’s forty five years closer than fusion, which is always fifty years in the future, and we are spending a TON of money on basic research that doesn’t promise much in the way of practical returns unless it leads to fusion power.

                If you were running SHELL, would you take the career risk of putting company money into nuclear research, given that even if you were to last long enough to see the research thru to a successful conclusion, the odds of being able to actually SELL your product given the clout of the anti nuke lobby in the West ?

                Government doesn’t HAVE to sell the results of research to justify the investment.

                But I’m GLAD we’re spending that money, because although any breakthrough in physics might not profit us at all near term, it could change ALL the rules long term.

                I am NOT arguing that a new generation of affordable and safe nukes is a sure thing. I’m arguing that the possibility is there, and that the problems are mostly engineering problems, rather than theoretical problems.

                Whatever we learn about new materials and methods of manufacturing them, working with them, and so forth will be worthwhile even if we never have a cheap safe nuke.

                I’m arguing from the position that the precautionary principle is worth following in this case.

                The price of FAILURE to have a source of dependable base load power a few decades down the road could be catastrophic, if not directly, then as the consequence of political backlash.

                The cost of research into a new generation of reactors is trivial in comparison. WE are researching asteroids hitting the Earth fer Sky Daddy’s sake.

                The odds of a major asteroid hitting are probably ten thousand times less than the odds of a major energy crisis at some future time which MIGHT bring down civilization if it gets bad enough.

                A fleet of nukes MIGHT prove to be what keeps such a crisis from getting THAT bad.

                Note I am all for pedal to the metal on wind, solar, tidal, and even geothermal power, although I suspect the latter is not likely to be practical except in a few select spots.

                Pedal to the metal on conservation technologies as well of course.

                There’s this to consider as well. Think about how a lot of us look at Musk and Tesla as embodiments of our supposedly legendary Yankee spirit, and how proud so many of us are that we are mostly the country looked up to as the technical and engineering leader of the world.

                Well, the Chinese are pretty much known already as the leaders of the world in terms of pushing the development of wind and solar power on the grand scale, and will likely own most of the factories turning out the necessary infrastructure if for no other reason than that they have ungodly amounts of money to invest due to us being so stupid as to fuck over our own manufacturing working class so the NON manufacturing classes can have a cheaper throw away junk, and because they will continue to pay wages that are a very minor fraction of what German or American workers earn, assuming they are still working.

                If a new generation of affordable and safe ( enough) nukes does come to pass, they will be the people the rest of the world looks up to for entrepreneurial leadership a generation down the road.

                Whether this is good or bad or irrelevant depends on one’s pov.

                Personally, I’d just as soon we retain what’s left of our reputation as leaders rather than followers.

                • GoneFishing says:

                  So let’s look at the practicality of making nuclear our mainstay or even a long term solution.
                  If we were to try and provide all current electric consumption with nuclear it would take 15.000 nuclear generating stations. Now there are less than 500. The land based uranium would last about 15 years.
                  The real time limits of building and decommissioning nuclear plants will limit the world to about twice what we have now. They only last about 50 years and it takes 10 years to build one (at about 10 billion to 20 billion each).

                  So unless the technology changes dramatically and gets a lot cheaper, I doubt if nuclear power will get much past it’s current rate and if it did it would last less than 100 years. Then we would be stuck with a huge amount of unproductive decommissioning and a huge amount of waste to deal with. Who would pay for that?
                  The problem with current nuclear is that it does not scale and is basically limited in usable time. Besides it’s other problems.


                  We will soon have to be opening new nuclear plants at the rate of 9 per year to just keep up with the losses from closing. There are 60 being built globally now and it takes about 10 years to build one, a rate of 6 new per year as the closure rate reaches toward 9 per year.

                  A look at the scalability of nuclear power.

                  • Fred Magyar says:

                    If we were to try and provide all current electric consumption with nuclear it would take 15.000 nuclear generating stations. Now there are less than 500. The land based uranium would last about 15 years.
                    The real time limits of building and decommissioning nuclear plants will limit the world to about twice what we have now. They only last about 50 years and it takes 10 years to build one (at about 10 billion to 20 billion each).

                    Which is why I’ve been saying the economics just don’t make sense. How much wind, solar PV and CS, hydro, wave, tidal and geothermal with all the options available for back up and storage plus technology advances for energy efficiency can we build out in less time and for a fraction of what it would cost to build thousands of nuclear generating power plants?

                    IMHO nuclear is the least attractive option available in terms of bang for the buck. And that’s not counting externalities, decommissioning costs, waste storage and other safety and long term reliability issues.

                    So if I counted my zeroes right and we built 10,000 at a cost of only 10 billion each we are looking at spending 100 trillion. Let’s just say I’d rather put my money into something else!

                    So I vote NO, on nuclear!

                  • notanoilman says:

                    @Fred: I wonder how much battery capacity that $100T would buy.


                  • GoneFishing says:

                    With a PV overbuild factor of two we could power the world for 5.3 trillion dollars. Compare that to Fred’s figure of 100 trillion for nuclear to produce 2/3 of that power.

                    Plenty of money left over for all the efficiency changes, energy storage and an EV for every family. 🙂

                    Fact is we will need less than that so my numbers big enough to electrify Africa and other places needing it.
                    Now if we can only reserve some sand for all those panels. 🙁

  70. Hightrekker says:

    Nuclear actually is not bad idea, if you disregard the waste issue, except humans design, build and maintain them.

  71. Doug Leighton says:


    “The decline of cold regions called periglacial zones is now inevitable due to climate change, researchers say. Periglacial zones, where there is often a layer of frozen ground known as permafrost, make up about a quarter of Earth’s land surface and are mostly found in the far north and south, and at high altitudes. Scientists from the universities of Exeter and Helsinki and the Finnish Meteorological Institute examined natural processes caused by frost and snow which take place in these zones. Their findings suggest that — even with optimistic estimates of future carbon emissions — areas covered by periglacial zones will reduce dramatically by 2050, and they will “almost disappear” by 2100.”


    • Doug Leighton says:


      “By studying climate changes that took place thousands of years ago, we can better understand the global climate system and predict Earth’s future climate. A multi-organization research team led by Professor HYODO Masayuki (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) has discovered evidence of rapid climate changes on a millennial-to-centennial scale that occurred 780 to 760 thousand years ago. “
      “This cyclic warming and rapid cooling repeated twice just after a geomagnetic reversal, a key event for the Early/Middle Pleistocene boundary, and a third time about 10 thousand years later. All occurred after Earth had recovered its geomagnetic strength. This shows that the second half of this interglacial period, namely the earliest stage of the Middle Pleistocene, was a time of extreme climate change when ice sheets expanded and shrunk causing changes of several meters in sea levels, repeating every 500 to 2000 years.”


    • GoneFishing says:

      72% loss of periglacial zone even at the most optimistic warming scenario? That is world changing.

  72. OFM says:

    Every body here who will find this article informative and enjoyable reading. It’s about the transition from hunter gatherer to agricultural existence, as viewed by somewhat of a contrarian, and based on the results of the last few decades of research.


    The author sort of conveniently forgets to mention that we are NOW better off having made the transition, lol, but that’s forgivable in context.

    But the truth of the matter is that nearly all of us old farts who hang out here would be DEAD years ago if we hand been born into a hunter gatherer society, lol.

    • GoneFishing says:

      Wow, fishing and hunting most days and looking like a hero when you get back to the village with that deer over your shoulders. Lots of fresh air, real excitement and occasional bashing of heads. If you made it past the age of five, you could have a good long life.
      So you have a few more years now, but look at all the hassle and paper work you would not have to do. Never having to go to work gives you more life hours than anyone except the rich gets today. Most every day would be what we now call recreation and adventure.
      Certainly far better than life in the cubicle and stuffed into a subway car.

      • OFM says:

        I have ventured into many a cubicle, but never for very long, in the process of becoming a world class rolling stone.

        It’s still possible to live well, if you have a modest endowment of brains and common sense. Today I will be riding my tractor,enjoying the post storm sunshine, in a picture post card setting, and when I get bored with that, I’ll go fishing, or just play with my new border collie, teaching her some new tricks, or amuse myself posting here.

        And maybe in a few weeks I’ll rouse up ambition enough to not only murder Bambi but also to dismember her and eat her. I can get about twenty five pounds of PRIME cuts from a mid size doe, for myself, and donate the rest to somebody less fortunate who is also a better cook, lol. That twenty five pounds would be worth around two hundred Yankee dollars at a supermarket. Half a day to kill and butcher a deer. Four hundred bucks a day, cash value to me of hunting a deer. Plus I own the farmer cubicle, which is a spacious and pleasant one indeed, lol.

        A month from now I’ll pick up a few bushels of black walnuts, free, courtesy of Mother Nature. A couple of retired neighbors will join me, and we will take food and drink and a blanket and make a fine day of it, and later on, we will enjoy an evening of nut cracking and serious conversation about deer rifles and coon dogs and who’s still making a little artisanal brandy, and who’s given that up to grow a little pot.

        We’ll sample some of that artisinal brandy.

        Life can be pretty damned good, even when things are falling apart all around you.

        Nobody will ever catch ME complaining about having plumbing and electricity and central heat and air, or internet, or antibiotics.

        For forty bucks a month, I’m intellectually richer than most KINGS a century ago, because I have free access to more books than most kings ever owned. 😉

        • Nick G says:


          Mac, you have substantial inherited wealth in the form of land, which most people don’t have. How do you think that’s affected your life experience, and your perspective?

          • OFM says:

            I have actually inherited almost nothing at all. My Dad gave almost everything except the old machinery to the younger kids.

            I bought inch of land I own, excepting an acre given to me on one corner of the farm to build my first house, and I have a lifetime interest in the home place, but I don’t own it, and can’t borrow money against it or sell it. That doesn’t put a grin on my face, given that I’m the one who looks after Daddy while the kids of the dead ones , plus my surviving sisters, will eventually get the homeplace. My living sisters are both one percenters.

            But otoh, I don’t really need the home place, lol. I wouldn’t sell it if it were mine to sell, and I can’t take it with me when I depart this old vale of tears anyway.

            When my peers were spending their money on new cars and vacations and fancy clothing, I was spending mine on property. I learned all about basic exponential arithmetic in the eight grade, first year algebra, and got the finer points in college. I’ve always been a BIG PICTURE or systems thinker, and I realized early that INFLATION IS GUARANTEED, as a matter of POLICY, and that one of the very few things that MUST grow ever scarcer as the population grows is affordable land.

            I have NEVER owned a car less than four years old, lol, although I’ve earned six figure money at times. Fifty years ago, the price of a new pickup truck would buy you forty acres of fairly decent land in the boonies in this part of the country. So while everybody else was laughing at my decrepit old truck, I was making land payments instead of truck payments. Nobody gave a shit about a ridge top with a view back then, because there are literally thousands of miles of hill tops in the southern mountains, lol, as opposed to a few hundred miles of beachfront at the most in each coastal entire STATE.

            GROWTH came this way, and now my neighborhood is a DESTINATION. So the land I own is worth a little something these days, lol. That’s mostly luck, there are still places within a hundred miles where land is dirt cheap. It will stay dirt cheap so long as there are no jobs there, and no major highways built to attract the sort of people who want to leave suburbia.

            Anybody who can afford the payments on a new Beemer, or even a top of the line Ford, can afford a hundred beautiful acres in nearby West Virginia. It’s just a question of priorities.

            I’ve been LUCKY in the lottery of life in that I was born to parents who made sure I learned the value of work and investment and long term thinking, and I was lucky again in that I was born with enough between my ears that I was able to get a good education without breaking a real sweat.

            Lots of people like to make fun of the values of the old line conservative people of this country, and some of their values DESERVE being made fun of, but the FACT of the matter is that up until recently, if you played by ” the rules”, you COULD generally do very well for yourself, if you were willing to put off today’s little candy bar for tomorrow’s big one.

            I have a couple of dozen first and second cousins within a few miles that started with nothing who are millionaires today. They’re loggers, building contractors, paving contractors, mechanics who own their own garage, farmers who have lucked out because they own a modest tract of land……. teachers who lived modestly and put a couple of thousand a year INTO the stock market, year after year…….. and never took anything OUT.

            Professor what’s his name , who is so often quoted in reference to the MEANING of exponential functions, was simply repeating something that has been common knowledge among thinking people, from peasants to scientists, for hundreds of years.

            I have the utmost sympathy for people who have little or nothing due to bad luck, such as being chronically ill, and support single payer medical care for everybody in large part because I know a BUNCH of people in that situation. I UNDERSTAND that millions and millions, a hundred million people at least, in this country, WEREN’T lucky enough to be born into a family and a society that taught them the values necessary to get ahead. I understand that these hundred million are trapped by circumstances and their own ignorance, and thus unable to break out of the paycheck to paycheck life style.

            So ……. I would like to see an EQUITABLE tax system, and schools that actually WORK, and economic policies enacted that actually DO SOMETHING especially for the people who are in the bottom quarter or so, economically.

            But I also understand that the world IS a DARWINIAN PLACE, lol.

            My YOUNGEST uncle is a multimillionaire who dropped out of school in the eighth grade, and went to work farming and driving trucks and eventually found his niche as a nickel and dime paving contractor, by which I mean he never had more than three or four employees. But when he was netting a hundred grand in nineties and early oughties, he continued to live in the same house he built PERSONALLY,in the seventies. I mean he sawed the boards and drove the nails.

            PERSONALLY, AFTER he got home from running a dozer at the nearest stone quarry. Over the last sixty years, he has owned precisely FIVE new vehicles, and three of those were used primarily in running his paving business. He still has two of them, both twenty years old now. Both of them are maintained almost like new, excepting faded paint. He will drive them until he can’t drive any more. His wife still clips coupons and cans home grown veggies and dries the laundry on a line outside. He still heats his house with firewood he harvests personally, and he mows his own grass.

            But he’s not a skinflint. He and his wife routinely spend a few thousand bucks on a week on the Outer Banks, etc NOW. He just doesn’t believe in WASTING his money. He believes in WORKING and creating or saving rather than loafing and spending for little or no gain.

            IF you have a few brains, and want to get ahead, and are willing to make the necessary short and mid term sacrifices, you still have a pretty decent shot at doing quite well long term.

            But suppose I had been born to parents like so many people I know……..parents from a different culture, with different values. I would probably be a mid six figure lawyer if my Dad had been a lawyer.
            If my parents had been the sort that work hard but who lived for the day with never a thought for tomorrow, I would probably have owned twenty new cars……… and have visited Disneyland, and that sort of thing..but I would also probably be close to broke.

            You play the cards you have been dealt, Mother Nature does not do redeals. Some people get a bum hand , a hand so bad they have a near zero chance of ever living well.

            Tons of people are dealt a hand that virtually guarantees success, unless they are complete fuckups.

            You can’t fix STUPID. Damned few people are willing and able to really THINK.

            My uncle the successful paving guy said this a while back.

            “Take every dollar in the country, and divide it all up equally, the same amount to every body, and in fifteen years just about every body who is broke today will be broke again, and just about everybody who is well off today will be well off again. ” There’s a LOT of truth in that observation.

            Every once in a while I run into some wrinkled old fat lady who used to be a hot young blossom who would hardly even say hello to me back in our younger days, because I wasn’t the guy driving the flashy car, living the flashy lifestyle, and so forth.

            Now that they are old and broke, and their serial flashy guys have left them a two or three times for newer vintages, they are as friendly as can be, knowing I own a few rental properties and a farm, lol. They failed to think back then, and it’s too late for them to think now. The only kind of women I’m interested in anyway are the kind with brains, and they don’t wind up old and fat and broke because they were stupid enough to spend their lives with that sort of men.

            Bottom line, I’m lucky, but I also played my cards well.

            Some of the regulars here have a great time making fun of religious people , but SOMEBODY has to teach kids values to live by. If I had kids today, I would rather see their values shaped in a Baptist church than by watching tv and cruising the internet.

            They aren’t going to learn much about the value of work or honesty or treating your fellow man decently or looking after your parents and kids or saving for a rainy day or observing the secular law or long term planning or living modestly or goddamned near anything else watching tv and cruising the net.

            A kid with a few working cells between his ears who is raised in a Baptist or similar environment quickly figures out the realities involving the physical sciences, etc, but the values remain.

            The kids WITHOUT working brain cells are as likely as not just as well off NOT figuring it out. They’ve been taught a set of rules to live by that serve them well, given that they aren’t capable of thinking for themselves anyway. The Baptist preacher tries to teach them not to drink, corporate America glorifies beer, wine, and booze, lol. The preacher tries to teach them to live modestly, corporate America teaches them to reach for the credit cards, lol.

            The preacher counsels avoidance of extra marital sex, and a substantial portion of the girls actually follow this counsel, at least until they fall in love, lol.

            People who supposedly know all about the physical sciences including the life sciences betray their ignorance of the value of such social taboos. People who don’t eat pork aren’t going to get the parasites you can get eating pork, and people who have sex with only one person, their spouse, are GODDAMNED unlikely to catch a venereal disease, etc.

            If religions were devoid of positive net survival value, they would fade away, as they ARE fading away, in societies where the welfare state is displacing the NEED for them.

            The churches around here are only sparsely attended by younger people, and the young people who do attend usually have only one or two kids at the most. Where my folks are buried, on the hill right across the valley from MY farm, a hundred adults, and as many kids, attended on a regular basis when I was a kid.

            Now maybe sixty or seventy old people attend, plus a dozen or two younger people, plus a dozen kids. The writing is on the wall.

  73. OFM says:


    We all believe what we want to believe.

    Some of the people who posted pictures of themselves setting up fans to blow Irma away were engineers and scientists, no doubt in my mind. Southerners can and do go in for this Monty Python sort of humor, and can be entirely dead pan about it while carrying it off.

  74. OFM says:

    I copied this line from an article in a major paper yesterday, and was going to post it, but forgot. I think it’s from the Washington Post.
    Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, as she puts it, won “more votes for President than any white man” in American history xxxx

    Is it any SURPRISE that just about every Democrat in the country wishes that she would just shut the fuck up and disappear from the public eye?

    Talk about women the way she talks about the MAJORITY of the people in this country, and you couldn’t get a date in a whore house with a roll of hundreds that would choke a horse.

    How she can be so fucking stupid, after spending her life with Bill, who is imo possessed of the best sense of touch for the mood of the country of any politician alive today, is utterly beyond me.

    She says she recognizes her mistakes, but she DOES NOT, because she keeps right on repeating them, thereby doing more to fuck up the chances of the D party to return to power than a million little bloggers working overtime for the Koch brothers.

    I was in mythical Mayberry, the hometown of Andy Griffith and Sheriff Taylor and Aunt Bee and Barney Fife yesterday. NC is a state that liberal idiots LOVE to make fun of. I saw half a dozen mixed race couples on main street sidewalks , sat between two black guys at a fast food joint, got professional advice from a black woman with the NC ag extension service, watched the kids black white and a few yellowish ones, but NO ORANGE ONES, playing on an elementary school playground.

    Sure there’s some residual racism. There’s still plenty of residual racism in places like NYC and LA as well, and plenty of NEW racism springing up in such places.

    So she feels shivved by the FBI releasing late breaking news about her fucked up secret and totally against the spirit of the rules email system?

    Has it EVER occurred to her that the PEOPLE of this country are ENTITLED to know when such late breaking information comes to light? If the shoe had been on the Republican foot, she would have been stomping her own, and high fiving her homies, and praising the evenhanded work of the FBI.

    So she’s glad Trump fired Comey? Comey would have STAYED on Trump like stink on shit, and now Mueller will be doing the same, with even better leverage , being special counsel. She OUGHT to be glad, because there’s every possibility that the truth about Trump’s countless sins will finally come out in a court of law, I’m laughing out loud about that.

    Her campaign totally insisted, and her DEFENDERS insisted, that all our national secrets were secure, even as it was proven at least some of them were on a computer that could have been stolen or donated to charity or hacked by somebody interested in blackmailing her pervert husband.

    It has apparently never occurred to people like HRC that there are tens of millions of women in this country who DO HAVE BRAINS, economic power, and self respect who would have not only busted a lamp on Bill’s ever so likable and roguish head but also left his ass over his countless betrayals of her? Such women have just about ZERO respect for a woman who stays with such a man, except in cases where she must, because she has children she is unable to support otherwise.

    She had only one kid, a great education, countless contacts among the rich and powerful…….

    To expect them to vote for her is was the height of absurdity. Implying that they and their husbands are racists is rubbing salt into that cultural wound. It blows me away that people who love her accuse the opposition ( correctly of course ) of trying to divide the country so as to win elections while failing to recognize that their wannabe empress routinely does the same thing, out of stupidity.

    NEXT time, hopefully D voters will remember to vote for candidates who are generally liked and respected as INDIVIDUALS in the primaries. Going into an actual election race with a candidate who is distrusted and disliked by half the electorate is a recipe for losing.

    You win in the middle in American presidential elections, and she was not only disliked and distrusted by half of the middle, she went out of her way to gratuitously insult insult the larger portion of the middle, namely white working class people in general and white working class men in particular.

    Trump was worse, in terms of being liked and respected by people who actually knew him for what he was and IS, but he had the advantage of not being in the public eye as a POLITICIAN all his life, and so the people who voted for him did so based on what he SAID during the campaign season. The R’s ran him, true, but not because the R party establishment wanted him. The R establishment hated his guts, and still hates his guts, and would celebrate, quietly, privately, if he were to die of a heart attack today.

Comments are closed.