559 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, July 25, 2017”

  1. NRG Energy Selling Off Its Renewable-Energy Projects: The restructuring is a change of course from NRG’s greener strategy
    http://www.texasmonthly.com/energy/nrg-energy-selling-off-renewable-energy-projects/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=State%20of%20Texas%2007-24-17&utm_content=State%20of%20Texas%2007-24-17+CID_1025a095da97863617b19d063c0c1f0e&utm_source=Campaign%20Monitor&utm_term=NRG%20Energy%20Selling%20Off%20Its%20Renewable-Energy%20Projects

    The restructuring plan received a positive response from investors. Within a day, after the plan was announced NRG stock prices rose, with shares rising about 25 percent….

    “They have some very aggressive cost cuts, and the reason as to why people are buying into them is this business review committee was run by John Wilder, who is pretty much regarded as one of the most powerful and successful names in the power industry,” Mitra said.

    1. Seems like it is more a way to appease investors than a particular energy strategy. If you have to sell assets to keep investors happy, you do it.

      “They have a generation fleet in Texas that’s mostly weighted towards baseload nuclear and coal,” Mitra told CNBC. “Those assets are in a really tough environment largely because natural gas prices are low and wind is crushing the off-peak pricing.”

      1. NRG is long noted for buying old coal burners and running them into the ground. My state and a couple of others along with private groups managed to get one of them shut down nearby that was spewing high levels of SOx over three states. Only buy the cheap high sulfur coal so profits can be higher, that is the deal. 25% of the high school students downwind of the plant have asthma.

        Here is the power plant and results of one of the studies.
        http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/environment/2017/04/04/report-coal-power-plant-pennsylvania-caused-low-birth-weights-nj/100017818/

        Sulfur dioxide report. Note the Martins Creek coal fired power plant was shut down shortly after this report and destroyed, initiated by a huge toxic spill into the Delaware River. They now only have natural gas fired power generation.
        The Portland Power plant was pumping 31,000 tons/year of SO2 into the atmosphere.

        http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/petition/Trajectory%20Analysis.9.7.10v.2.pdf

        NRG bought this plant a few years before it was shut even though it had been under study and lawsuit for years before. Shows the kind of mindset from that company.

        1. I wonder is this is a case where the company is going to cash out while it still can. Maximize profits in the short term and then be gone after investors and management get out.

          1. NRG is one of the largest energy producers in the world, not going anywhere. Probably just moving toward the new regime.

  3. Vestas nabs 502 MW of turbine deals in US

    The Danish wind turbine maker said on Friday it has been selected to supply to US utility MidAmerican Energy Co, owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc (NYSE:BRK.A), 170 turbines for the 2,000-MW Wind XI wind complex in Iowa.

    In the last few days Vestas announced a series of wind turbine orders in Europe, North and South America, and Australia. In the first half of 2017 the company has announced 4,005 MW of orders.

    https://renewablesnow.com/news/vestas-nabs-502-mw-of-turbine-deals-in-us-574354/

  6. AMERICA’S TOP POWER PLANT TOXIC AIR POLLUTERS
    The power plants that generate electricity to run our homes, businesses, and factories are also the
    largest source of dangerous toxic air pollution, including mercury, lead, arsenic, and other heavy
    metals as well as acid gases. These toxics can cause serious environmental impacts and health
    effects, especially for children, developing fetuses, and vulnerable populations. Exposure to the
    air toxics that are emitted from coal-fired power plants can cause cancer,1 damage to the liver,
    kidney, and the nervous and circulatory systems,2 and respiratory effects including asthma,
    decreased lung function, and bronchitis.3
    For decades, the electric power industry has delayed cleanup and lobbied against public health
    rules designed to reduce pollution. But, the technology and pollution control equipment
    necessary to clean up toxic emissions are widely available and are working at some power plants
    across the country. There is no reason for Americans to continue to live with unnecessary risks
    to their health and to the environment.

    http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/documents/Report-TopUSPowerPlantToxicAirPolluters.pdf

    1. And, if you were to price in the cost of cleaning up fossil fuels, wind and solar would be a lot cheaper.

      We just need good, accurate accounting…

      1. There is the cheap price in dollars we pay for the energy, then there is the high price in death and illness throughout the land. The loss of a mother from cancer or father from early heart attack cannot be paid back to the young children and family who experienced it. The asthma and bronchitis attacks that children have to grow up with can never be paid for, the damage is done. We owe an unpayable debt. Our energy is at war with the very people it serves. Our lifestyles are wrecking our lifestyles and our lives
        Get rid of fossil fuel burning, end it, ASAP.

        1. There was a study by a Harvard researcher that put the external costs of coal at about 18 cents per kWh (only 4 cents was from GHGs).

          Add an 18 cent per kWh tax to coal (when the alternatives cost less than 6 cents), and guess how quickly it gets phased out..

          1. Since one ton of coal produces 1841 kWh, that would add $331.38 to the cost of a ton of coal. Might be enough to even convince our POTUS that coal is a bad idea.
            The cost of coal per kWh is about 2.6 cents even with transport costs. Total production cost of fossil steam is about 3.7 cents per kWh including all fuels, operations and maintenance. The power companies are making out like bandits. On top of their 8 to 10 cent generation charge they add a nickel distribution charge. No wonder they don’t want to leave fossil fuels. A sin tax of even a five cents per kWh would end that up quite quickly.

  8. Can someone explain to me the Republican party’s ability to ignore the science behind evolution, air and water pollution, climate change, etc? I’m convinced that some, maybe all of them, believe that this science denial is right but honestly how can you advocate burning more coal when there are alternatives?

    Rick Perry recently said you couldn’t trust natural gas because you need solid hydrocarbons stored on site to have reliable power. Does that mean wood burning is better than natural gas?

    1. First rule, get over thinking they make any logical sense. They only want to make money and acquire power, facts do not get in the way. They move all inconvenient facts out of the room immediately.

      2. Even from a purely pragmatic business point of view, the direction the current administration is going isn’t likely to serve the country well.

        If you have a well-run business, you anticipated and adapt to change. You don’t try to roll back your business to what it was doing 30 or 40 years ago.

        1. True, they are ignoring the biggest business opportunities ever to occur. So far.

    2. Can someone explain to me the Republican party’s ability to ignore the science behind evolution, air and water pollution, climate change, etc? I’m convinced that some, maybe all of them, believe that this science denial is right but honestly how can you advocate burning more coal when there are alternatives?

      IMHO, This pretty much sums it up!

      Commentary: President Trump is lobotomizing America

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-america-stupidity-20170725-story.html

      “The opposite of knowledge is ignorance. But the willful disregard of knowledge — regardless of motive — is stupidity. That is because those who battle facts are at war with reality. It is an unwinnable proposition. Furthermore, specialized knowledge, particularly that of scientists, is essential if we are to do what leaders must, anticipate change, understand its consequences and harness the opportunities it presents. Trump, in waging a systematic campaign to rid the government of the experts and ideas he sees as threats to his agenda, has done more than just usher in a Golden Age of Stupidity. He is unwittingly asking a question it doesn't take an expert to figure out: "What happens when you lobotomize the world's leading power?"

      Away in a madhouse – YouTube
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnG8nOK7nqM

    3. I believe the main issue is the need to reform public schools so kids stop being taught disdain for fossil fuels. This wasn’t always the case. Happened as part of the overall move within the last 20-30 years toward using socialism and sharia to craft all the lesson plans taught in public schools.

      1. You have it wrong Aitken, it’s not sharia or socialism that teaches about the planetary pollution and destructive problems involved with burning fossil fuels, it’s science and scientists. Not just in the schools either. In the universities, the governments, the world. Knowledge spreads despite the efforts of fossil money and treachery to stop it.

      2. I believe the main issue is the need to reform public schools so kids stop being taught disdain for fossil fuels.

        Riiiight! While they are at it, the schools should also stop teaching disdain for tobacco products. After all, if Tobacco companies can’t brainwash young kids and get them addicted to nicotine then their businesses will suffer.

        The main issue is the fundamentalist christian, alt-right fossil fuel loving fascists like you and the Trump administration, who are even worse and only care about their own power and greed at the expense of the public and the health of the planet!

        And fuck off with this bullshit bogeyman about the evils of socialism.

        Social Democracies. A new report released by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) shows that happiness levels are highest in northern European countries. Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively.

      3. Happened as part of the overall move within the last 20-30 years toward using socialism and sharia to craft all the lesson plans taught in public schools.

        That not the dumbest thing I have seen posted on this list in the four years it has been up. But it has to be right up there near the top. Are these right wing idiots so fucking dumb as to think sharia law is actually being woven into US school lesson plans?

        And socialism? Hell, the top 1 percent is taking everything and giving the rest of the nation their middle finger. That’s socialism?
        Income inequality has soared to the highest levels since the Great Depression, and the recession has done little to reverse the trend, with the top 1 percent of earners taking 93 percent of the income gains in the first full year of the recovery.
        The yawning gap between the haves and the have-nots — and the political questions that gap has raised about the plight of the middle class — has given rise to anti-Wall Street sentiment and animated the presidential campaign. Now, a growing body of economic research suggests that it might mean lower levels of economic growth and slower job creation in the years ahead, as well.

        These right wing redneck idiots are being robbed blind by elite business class, the top few percent of the income earners, and they are just too goddamn stupid to realize that fact.

        1. Are these right wing idiots so fucking dumb as to think sharia law is actually being woven into US school lesson plans?

          Yes. Last fall, there was a man here where I live who ran for the local school board on a platform of exposing how Sharia Law underpins everything being taught in the schools these days. He wound up losing the election, but only by a narrow margin.

          Just do a search involving Common Core and Sharia Law (also see the related searches): https://www.google.com/search?q=common+core+sharia+law&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8. There is plenty of concern out there about the teaching of Islam in public schools, and concerns about children being indoctrinated into the ways of both Islam and Communism is the primary reason many states have withdrawn from Common Core standards over the last few years.

          1. Oklahoma banned Sharia law lol just in time! I swear Americans are getting dumber with every breath.

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/americas-devils-game-extremist-islam/

            http://www.npr.org/2010/06/05/127500908/cia-fight-against-communism-bolsters-radical-islam

            U.S. CIA and U.K. MI6 had been bolstering radical Islam and running rat lines to move Islamic fighters towards Soviet front lines throughout much of the cold war. Indeed Islamist fighters shared much of the credit for defeating the Soviet Union.

            Now we got dumb ass Americans that think Islam and Communism are teaming up to take over the school curriculum. What the hell happened to America? How’d so many people get so unbelievably stupid?

            1. “How’d so many people get so unbelievably stupid?”
              I believe it is a great example of effective indoctrination/brainwashing. People aren’t actually much dumber, but they are a product of poor ‘teaching’ by their parents and culture at large. Specifically, it is a combination of the ‘church’ and right wing media (Fox, Rush L., etc) that is the root of the propaganda that results in idiot voters.
              Add to that the culture of sports, nascar, soap operas, idiot TV shows, and computer video games, and you have a large population of distracted and poorly educated (and racist) populace.
              As a side note- UC Berkeley is a highly respected/ desired university to attend, and it is very hard to get in. There is a higher proportion of Asians and Jewish people earning enrollment than their proportion of the overall population. It is not because they are smarter. It is because they study harder than average. Simple. They earn the grades through hard study. It is a form of work that is encouraged by their family life. The parents read a lot and children do too. Over the years it adds up to an educated person. The ‘whites’ who also do this at home perform just as well.

  9. Just when you thought things were bad, you realize it really just got a lot worse.
    Behind the scenes while Trump takes the spotlight.
    I just got this letter from the Center for Biological Diversity

    While much of Washington and the media are distracted by Trump’s scandals and blunders, his administration and Congress have been waging an all-out war on the planet.

    The lives of hundreds of endangered species, from wolves and grizzly bears to the coastal California gnatcatcher, hang in the balance
    The Senate wants to strip protections from wolves in the Great Lakes — and worse, they want to make that decision final, without any legal or scientific review. Meanwhile a new funding bill would freeze federal wolf recovery efforts across the country. Just last week the most anti-environment House we’ve seen took up five bills aimed at tearing down the Endangered Species Act. Utah Rep. Rob Bishop said in December that his goal is to repeal the Act — and these bills are the foundation of that effort.

    If these dangerous bills become law, hundreds of threatened and endangered plants and animals will be put on a fast track to extinction. We must stop them.

    In just half a year, Trump has signed a brutal law ripping away the safety net for wolves and grizzlies in Alaska’s wildlife refuges, greenlighted drilling in the heart of polar bear habitat, put every inch of our coastlines at risk of disastrous oil spills, and opened millions of acres of wild lands to the dirty coal industry. Thanks to supporters like you, we’ve unleashed a swift and fierce resistance to every one of these attacks.

    They have actually set up a Trump Resistance Fund.

  10. the republican party, as part semi-conscious entity, part reflection of larger cultural movements, part elite faction, like the democratic party, is a chaotic, dynamic system. Hard to say why they’ve chosen such an obvious self-obliterating outlook.

    One brief apropos example: the republican party used to be fairly pro-environment. It went along with the idea of “conservatism” – not just knocking everything down (e..g rural america) in the name of “progress” (read: urban). But also, it’s well known that many repubs like to fish, hunt, atv it, in relatively unspoiled terrain. So what happened? Well, no matter how pro-environment they went they kept getting out-flanked by Democrats who were willing to go ever farther in support of pro-green policies. So over time, as a natural reaction, the repubs ceded that territory to dems. Granted that’s just one piece of the puzzle, but you can begin to see, not all these decisions are rational, or completely conscious, or even voluntary.

    1. Vielen Dank!
      A most enlightening presentation!

      I have to wonder, does having a high blood alcohol level change the electrical resistance of the human body?
      My mother built a cottage out in the boondocks in Brazil when I was very young and had an electrician who was known to drink quite heavily. I saw him check a circuit for 220 volt AC with his bare hands, it didn’t seem to phase him… 🙂

      1. I would say salt level would change the conductivity of the body.
        Everyone knows a drunk rarely gets hurt in such situations. More likely to catch on fire though. 🙂

        1. True, the body would eliminate a lot of electrolytes/salts…

          When ethanol is in me, some shows up in my kidneys
          And inhibits vasopressin by degrees
          A decrease in aquaporins hinders water re-absorption
          And pretty soon I really have to pee
          Well my liver breaks it down so my body can rebound
          But my store of glycogen is soon depleted
          And tomorrow when I’m sober I will also be hungover
          Cause I flushed electrolytes that my nerves and muscles needed

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6dzUOYTQtQ
          (A Biologist’s) St. Patrick’s Day Song

      2. If you do it carefully, and especially if your fingers are dry skinned from having calluses on the pads, you can easily test for a live 24o volt circuit just by brushing your finger tips on the wires.

        I know at least three or four trades people who do this routinely, but it is NOT to be recommended, and it’s especially dangerous to use both hands, as the circuit is completed thru the body, and a heart attack is a real possibility.

        Having said this much, I have inadvertently shocked myself numerous times with automotive ignition systems that produce thousands of volts, over the years. It’s no fun, but SO FAR…… no harm, except cussing.

        Sometimes my redneck friends and I arrange for this to happen deliberately, as part of a practical joke.

        Back when I was a kid, I ran two wires, ground and plug wire, from the lawnmower into Daddy’s favorite hounds bed, and when that dog got good and comfortable, I gave the starter cord a yank, and the dog let out the most amazing startled yelp and went straight up farther than I ever saw a dog jump, and disappeared like a streak under the house.

        About a second or two later, I was launched at least a foot off the ground myself, by way of Daddy’s number twelve work boot. Being considerate, he always used the SIDE of his foot, so as not to risk any likely serious injury. I seldom needed it, because just once or twice is enough get the idea across that you LISTEN when Daddy talks.

        Kids these days learn that adult actions are all too often ALL yakety yak, and they soon figure out that sticks and stones break bones, but that words run off like water on a ducks back.

        Talk is the way to go , but FIRST you must have the kid’s ATTENTION.

        I have known a bunch who were punished by such methods as having their tv taken away, etc, who found out the HARD WAY that when they shoot off their mouth away from the house that somebody is apt to stick a FIST in it, or that when you mouth off at a cop, you are apt to wind up handcuffed it the back seat of his car within the next minute or two.

        Bottom line I don’t believe in beating up kids, but I do believe it is good that THEY believe Mom and Dad might give them a good spanking.

      3. Yair . . . .

        “I saw him check a circuit for 220 volt AC with his bare hands, it didn’t seem to phase him… ?”

        Did it alter his frequency though Fred? (grins)

        Cheers.

        1. I used to do that all the time in Europe (220, not 240). You quickly brush / flick the wire with the outside of your hand/finger so even if muscles contract you don’t grab the wire. Not really that big of a deal….
          rgds
          WP

  13. Can anybody explain this:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927817300680

    The study indicates that about a quarter of permafrost would melt with a 1.5 K warming. I think there are numbers of 1000 to 1500 Gt of carbon in the permafrost. At 2.12 Gt per ppm thats about 100 to 150 extra ppm from the melt – isn’t that enough to guarantee that we’d get more than 1.5 K warming (may be a lot more depending on climate sensitivity) and therefore it would suggest we are already past some tipping point, independent of what we do about fossil fuel use?

    1. MASSIVE PERMAFROST THAW DOCUMENTED IN CANADA, PORTENDS HUGE CARBON RELEASE: Study shows 52,000 square miles in rapid decline, with sediment and carbon threatening the surrounding environment and potentially accelerating global warming.

      “According to researchers with the Northwest Territories Geological Survey, the permafrost collapse is intensifying and causing landslides into rivers and lakes that can choke off life downstream, all the way to where the rivers discharge into the Arctic Ocean…
      Similar large-scale landscape changes are evident across the Arctic including in Alaska, Siberia and Scandinavia, the researchers wrote in a paper published in the journal Geology in early February. The study didn’t address the issue of greenhouse gas releases from thawing permafrost. But its findings could help quantify the immense global scale of the thawing, which will contribute to more accurate estimates of carbon emissions.”

      https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia

      1. Meanwhile: Earlier this year Arctic sea ice sank to a record low wintertime extent for the third straight year. Next up – methane bombs!

        SUMMER SEA ICE MELT IN THE ARCTIC
        “Most of the central Arctic Ocean used to be covered with thick multiyear ice that would not completely melt during the summer and reflect back sunshine,” said Nathan Kurtz, IceBridge’s project scientist and a sea ice researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “But we have now lost most of this old ice and exposed the open ocean below, which absorbs most of the sun’s energy. That’s one reason the Arctic warming has increased nearly twice the global average — when we lose the reflecting cover of the Arctic Ocean, we lose a mechanism to cool the planet.”

        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170724133153.htm

        1. But Javier says that open water in the Arctic makes it colder up there. ROFL

          1. Apparently Javier has never heard of albedo. I expect even High School students learn that a typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06, while bare sea ice varies from about 0.5 to 0.7 meaning the ocean reflects only six percent of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest, while sea ice reflects 50 to 70 percent of incoming energy.

            1. And apparently you’ve never heard that polar regions are dark six months a year, radiating heat to space. And when Arctic winter ends, the angle of incidence of solar rays is so high that water reflection (albedo) is higher than at lower latitudes, and solar energy is distributed over a much higher surface reducing its effect.

              If albedo was a primary factor Arctic sea ice would have never recovered from the 2012 low (or from the Holocene Climatic Optimum, when the Arctic was ice free during the summer). The fact that sea ice has increased means albedo is a secondary factor.

              I don’t know if High School students learn that, but clearly you don’t.

            2. Hi Javier,

              That ice has recovered from 2012 indicates that there are other factors, such as wind moving ice and ocean currents that are variable from year to year, when looking at climate this short term variability is less important and is the secondary effect.

              It is very well known that albedo is a very important effect and very far from being a secondary effect.

              That you would argue otherwise is surprising.

              Do you have some peer reviewed research suggesting that albedo is unimportant?

              See for example

              https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html

            3. The ice always covers the Arctic in winter due to the surface water getting cold. It is just thinner each year. Break points for part of summer fully open is around 2025. No idea when the ice won’t reform in the winter. So Javiers assertion of non-recovery stinks of imagination.

            4. 2025? That’s only 8 years away.

              What was the prediction 10 years ago?

              2007 Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski from Dept. Oceanography of the US Navy predicts an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer by 2013, and says that prediction is conservative.
              Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’

              Look we haven’t had any summer ice for four years now.

            5. Either albedo drives multiyear decrease in sea ice or it doesn’t. Evidence shows it doesn’t. But some don’t need evidence because they have faith.

            6. Javier, it’s good to have imagination. Shelves are filled with science fiction. Maybe you should write some books.

            7. Hi Dennis,

              It is very well known that albedo is a very important effect and very far from being a secondary effect.

              Atmospheric albedo is very important. Surface albedo is a very small component of planetary albedo, and thus almost negligible.

              “Although the change in hemispheric average aP,SURF [surface albedo] is negative in all models (abscissa of Fig. 8b) because of decreasing ice and snow cover, the intermodel spread in the aP,ATMOS [atmospheric albedo] overwhelms the change in surface contribution resulting in a total planetary albedo feedback that is ambiguous in sign among the ensemble members. This result is in qualitative agreement with Kato et al.’s (2006) conclusion that the recent decline in Arctic sea ice has a negligible signature on the Arctic radiative budget at the TOA because of atmospheric attenuation and uncertainty in cloud feedbacks.”

              Donohoe, A., & Battisti, D. S. (2011). Atmospheric and surface contributions to planetary albedo. Journal of Climate, 24(16), 4402-4418.
              http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2011JCLI3946.1

              “these results suggest that changes in Arctic sea ice are compensated by changes in cloud cover, perhaps, as a result of enhanced evaporation from the sea surface, therefore, leaving the TOA energy budget unchanged. The implications are that any ice-albedo feedback could be dampened because of increased cloud cover”

              Kato, S., et al. “Seasonal and interannual variations of top‐of‐atmosphere irradiance and cloud cover over polar regions derived from the CERES data set.” Geophysical Research Letters 33.19 (2006).
              http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026685/full

              It doesn’t matter what science actually shows. Any alarmist will continue saying that the Arctic is doomed due to decreasing albedo, according to High School physics.

              Well, the sea ice is not melting for the past 10 years, and albedo isn’t doing much about it.

            8. I guess the sea ice researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center that Doug cites doesn’t keep up with his reading or is not being straight forward.

              If they are not alarmist enough they don’t make it to the newspapers.

            11. Do you interpret that image as evidence that “polar regions are dark six months a year”?

            13. What matters for the issue discussed (albedo effect) is insolation. Show me a graph that says different to the one I showed. Otherwise it is clear that there is no albedo effect 6 months a year. During that time, the less sea ice the more heat lost to space. The cooling at the poles increases when sea ice decreases. It is a natural negative feedback.

              Scientific observations and models back what I say, and Arctic sea ice has not melted in 10 years.

              Climate alarmism is full of myths and memes and that decreasing albedo is driving the decrease in Arctic sea ice is one of them.

            14. The last ten years is too short of a time frame to focus on. How about the trend in sea ice volume since 1800?

              Regarding that question, I find this post by A-Team on the ASIF quite interesting.

              http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1611.msg95658.html#msg95658

              Captain Cook charted the sea ice front along the Chukchi sea in 1778. Based on Captain Cook’s charts and his notes of the sea ice height (10-12 feet), A-Team estimates that the sea ice volume could have been at least 11 times that of today, and perhaps as much as 30-40x!

            15. Chylib,

              It is well known that during the Little Ice Age globally glaciers reached their maximum Holocene extent (maximum in 11,700 years). I don’t find it surprising that sea ice was also at its maximum.

            16. Hi Javier,

              You said:

              If albedo was a primary factor Arctic sea ice would have never recovered from the 2012 low (or from the Holocene Climatic Optimum, when the Arctic was ice free during the summer). The fact that sea ice has increased means albedo is a secondary factor.

              The papers that you cite do not say that albedo is a secondary effect.

              They say that the surface albedo is a smaller effect at present than changes in the atmospheric albedo.

              I am not going to do a literature review to see if the publications you picked are representative of the mainstream view.

              Looking at the data for the past 30 years it is pretty clear that sea ice is decreasing.

              You often choose a minimum and then say see, now it’s higher (if that is what you are trying to argue). In other cases, you say climate is variable and we don’t know.

              I agree climate varies over time, but the trends in the data support the current understanding despite your claims to the contrary.

            17. Hi Dennis,

              I am not going to do a literature review to see if the publications you picked are representative of the mainstream view.

              Fine, but then do not consider that your opinion on the matter prevails over the information I have presented.

              The trend depends on the period considered as usual. However you cannot claim that it is still decreasing until the downward trend is resumed. For as long as September ice is above or the same as 2007 the ice is not decreasing no matter what the 30 year trend says.

            18. Hi Javier,

              Your knowledge of statistics is appalling.

              In a noisy data set you must look at all the data, this is so basic it is amazing that it needs to be pointed out to you.

              Can you explain what is significant about 2012 that we must use that as the starting point for a trend analysis?

              Why not 2011 or 2005 or 1995?

              Chart below has natural log of 9 year centered average of Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Minimum, data from NSIDC.
              Yearly decline about 1.6% per year.

              Click on chart for larger image.

            19. Dennis,

              The statistics won’t make the ice melt. They only tell us about what was happening before, not what is happening now.

            21. Changing the metric considered is a way of goalpost moving. As ice grows variably every winter, the September average minimum extent has been considered the measure of how far are we from loosing Arctic ice in the summers. Last 9 years:

            22. Hi Javier,

              Yep there is natural variability, which is why we should use 15 to 20 years, or 1979 to 2016.

              Chart below has natural log of September Sea Ice Extent from 1979 to 2016, an average rate of decline of 1.46% per year.

              Click on chart for larger image.

            24. Javier, why should we take your word over say, Nobel Laureate Steven Chu’s? Or the word of the vast majority of climate scientists? Heck, I have a hunch that even most reputable Microbiologists probably accept anthropogenic climate change as an indisputable fact and that the consequences are extremely concerning.

              http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/36854/2017-chem-keynote-chu/meeting-2017

              Text of his keynote address:
              http://www.lindau-nobel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Keynote-Steven-Chu-LiNo17-25-June-2017.pdf

              https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nobelists-students-and-journalists-grapple-with-the-antiscience-movement/

              Nobelists, Students and Journalists Grapple with the Antiscience Movement
              The annual Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings in an ancient German city takes on an extremely timely problem

            25. Javier isn’t anti-science, his delusion is that he actually believes that he is a scientist and knows what he’s talking about, despite all evidence to the contrary (but actually a special kind of scientist who simply knows the answer without having to do any of the boing stuff like mathematics, peer review, data validation, literature surveys that weigh all the evidence rather than just picking the things that support your preformed conclusions, thesis defence etc). I doubt if that is ever going to change no matter how much real science you put in front of him.

            26. You really gotta hand it to Javier. He knows just how to trigger the autistic ones here. lol

            27. You might hate it, George Kaplan, but I support my views on real science.

              What I have showed is the mainstream scientific understanding on the lack of importance of surface albedo, and particularly Arctic albedo, on total planetary albedo. Ice albedo is a secondary factor in the melting of sea ice.

              If you think otherwise, then you are the one that is unsupported by real science.

              The scientist Doug was citing was prudently saying that ice albedo is a factor (not even attempting to quantify it), but then he was misleading to believe that ice albedo is a significant positive feedback that endangers Arctic sea ice. Multiple lines of evidence (satellite measurements of sea ice extent, CERES measurements at polar regions), and modeling, show otherwise.

              I say that article is simply fake climate news. A real plague these days, not an exception.

            28. why should we take your word over say, Nobel Laureate Steven Chu’s? Or the word of the vast majority of climate scientists?

              I already answered that to you, Fred. You should not take my word, nor anybody else’s. The evidence is the one speaking for science. It is often the case that interpreters of the evidence are wrong.

              Anybody can see what has happened with Arctic sea ice for the past 10 years. When the observations are contrary to the hypothesis, we need to change the hypothesis, not the observations.

              It is clear that Arctic sea ice is subject to cycles, and the last downward part of the cycle has coincided with our satellite observations. Prior data was discarded and the decrease was fully attributed to warming and CO2. This was a mistake. Now at a different part of the cycle the ice is not melting, indicating that a good deal of the melting was due to natural factors.

              We have overestimated the effect of temperatures and CO2 on Arctic sea ice. The main conclusion is that Arctic sea ice is in no danger of disappearing for the foreseeable future. A conclusion not to the liking of alarmists.

              What does Steven Chu have to say about Arctic sea ice? Is it supported by evidence? Otherwise his opinion is irrelevant.

            29. It is often the case that interpreters of the evidence are wrong.

              That is absolute bullshit and you know it!

              While an individual interpreter may certainly be wrong, the way science works is that a consensus generally evolves around reality and the truth due to the scientific method and peer review.

              That is what Steven Chu, a Nobel prize winning physicist, is saying. I’m not particularly interested in what he specifically knows about the the physics of planetary albedo. Though I’m willing to bet he knows a lot more than you do.

              What I’m saying is that I trust him to be an honest scientific broker with a deep understanding of how science works. You on the other hand hold a fringe view and consistently come here to insult our intelligence by telling us over and over that data show us that black is white and up is down. When it does nothing of the sort!

              The overwhelming majority of Climate scientists and most reputable scientists in all fields who look at the climate data agree the volume of polar ice is steadily diminishing and open water reduces albedo which can only increase ice melt and trigger more warming and therefore further disrupt the long term stable dynamic of the planet’s climate system.

              While you flat out deny this reality and continually twist yourself into illogical pretzels to defend your points.

              The majority of Climate scientists tell us that the data and the analysis is showing that 2 + 2 = 3.999, while you keep insisting that it equals negative four.
              .

            30. Science is not related to the concept of consensus. Consensus is a political term, and when you use it with science you get into political science. It is irrelevant the number of scientists that hold an opinion. Group thinking is actually a bad way of conducting scientific research. Nearly all great discoveries were made against the consensus of the time.

              Some examples of wrongly held consensuses:
              – Stress theory of ulcers
              – Immovable continents
              – Only 4 glacial periods
              – Saccharin is a carcinogen
              – Dietary fiber reduces colon cancer
              – Fusion energy reactors are a few years from a breakthrough
              – Acid rain from coal electricity plants sulfur dioxide destroys vast swathes of forests and lakes
              – Protons and neutrons are fundamental particles
              – Prions must have nucleic acids to infect
              – Our species could not have interbred with Neanderthals
              – Genes cannot jump from one position in the genome to another
              – Unrelated species cannot exchange genetic material

              And the list goes on, and on, and on. Scientific consensus means nothing.

            31. Quit the BS!!!!
              Science absolutely depends on consensus! It is not the same as political consensus.

            32. No. What is essential for science is to stick to what the evidence shows.

              It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the evidence, it’s wrong.

            33. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS FOR DUMMIES!!

              https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/developing-supporting-scientific-consensus/

              There are three criteria for an evidence based consensus, as distinguished from a typical political or group consensus:

              Consilience of Evidence – Many different fields of science all contribute to the understanding of major scientific principles, such as anthropogenic climate change–ranging across biology, geology, chemistry, and other natural sciences. Our acceptance of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is supported by research in diverse fields like epidemiology, public health, microbiology, immunology, virology and many others. It’s not one subspecialty of science that builds the consensus, it’s several.By contrast, the support for homeopathy, as an example, is restricted to just advocates of that pseudoscience. They don’t published their findings in any outside journals because they’re lacking a plausible mechanism to explain inverse dose-response, and they are incapable of providing favorable results in double-blind randomized control trials, nothing more than a placebo effect.In fact, since homeopathy would require a wholesale restructuring of our knowledge of quantum mechanics, chemistry, physics and other non-biological fields, the only way we would ever see consensus that homeopathy works would require broad support in numerous fields of science. And frankly, no one is on board, except the pseudoscience pushing crowd.
              Social calibration – The experts involved in the consensus agree on standards for evidence–and this standard is ridiculously high, which is why it is so powerful.Those in the pseudo-medicine world reject certain gold standards of clinical research, like double-blinded, randomized clinical trials, which places a large barrier to having their “alternative medicine” ever reaching a scientific consensus. Moreover, there is broad and power evidence that creates a scientific consensus that many of these junk medicine beliefs are simply useless. We have consensus that homeopathic remedies lack any active ingredients and have no plausible biological mechanism.So the consensus does work both ways, to support scientific knowledge that is evidence based, and reject beliefs that lack similarly powerful evidence.
              Social Diversity – Having researchers from many cultural and economic backgrounds provides diversity that helps eliminate social biases as a cause of error. For example, the published literature on the safety of agricultural biotechnology (GMOs) has provided agreement from researchers in countries around the world from various cultural backgrounds.If the evidence of safety only came from middle-class white scientists, whose parents are farmers, and who live in St. Louis, Missouri only 5 blocks from Monsanto headquarters, we might rightfully suspect the consensus. But in general consensus is formed by the weight of evidence, and to get that weight requires research from nearly everywhere on the planet.

            34. Hi Javier,

              How did the incorrect views change? From a combination of observational evidence and better theories to explain the observational evidence.

              Yes protons and neutronss are no longer understood as fundamental particles, they still are understood to exist and the properties are largely unchanged by the fact that the protons and neutrons consist of quarks which may in the future be found to consist of yet smaller now unknown particles.

              Can you explain how ice ages occur without resorting to the effect of surface albedo and the levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and NO2 in the atmosphere.

              Changes in solar insolation alone cannot explain the changes in the Earth’s temperature in the past. All of these effects act together (along with thermal lags in the warming and cooling of the ocean of 500 to 1000 years).

              Mainstream climate science explains this quite well, if a better theory comes along it will replace current theory.

            35. Hi Dennis,

              Can you explain how ice ages occur without resorting to the effect of surface albedo and the levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and NO2 in the atmosphere.

              It has been explained quite convincingly based on Milankovitch orbital changes without any special role for albedo or GHGs:

              Tzedakis, P. C., et al. “A simple rule to determine which insolation cycles lead to interglacials.” Nature 542.7642 (2017): 427-432.
              http://eprints.esc.cam.ac.uk/3856/1/nature21364.pdf

              It explains why interglacials only can happen during obliquity cycles as it is very clear from the evidence.

            36. Hi Javier,

              One needs to explain how the Milankovitch cycles result in the temperature change using geophysics.

              You will need to do a little better than that.

              Also we are interested in Global temperature rather than the temperature in Antarctica.

            37. One needs to explain how the Milankovitch cycles result in the temperature change using geophysics.

              Read the paper provided. Tzedakis et al., 2017 calculate ‘caloric summer half-year insolation’, which represents the amount of energy integrated over the caloric summer half of the year, defined such that any day of the summer half receives more insolation than any day of the winter half. This was Milutin Milankovitch method when he explained his interglacial hypothesis.

              Alternatively Peter Huybers, (2006, 2011) calculates total summer energy at 65° N integrated over all days for which insolation exceeds 350 W m−2

              Both methods give a very similar result and account for shorter northern hemisphere summers due to precession when perihelion takes place in the summer, but the Earth moves faster due to Kepler. Now winter is about 4 days shorter than summer. The opposite occurs at precession peaks. The higher eccentricity, the shorter NH summer when at perihelion.

              This explains interglacials in terms of energy. Look at the figures in Tzedakis et al., 2017 (link provided above). Other factors (albedo, GHGs, dust, rising seas) are recruited and contribute as positive feedback to the melting but they do not decide when interglacials happen, and thus are secondary factors.

              Also we are interested in Global temperature rather than the temperature in Antarctica.

              That’s a given when discussing interglacials. Interglacials are global. They can be seen the same in EPICA as in LR04.

              Interglacials have been defined by the Past Interglacials Working Group of PAGES:
              Berger, A., et al. “Interglacials of the last 800,000 years.” Reviews Of Geophysics 54.1 (2016): 162-219.
              http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/512265/1/PAGES-2016-Reviews_of_Geophysics.pdf

              They are as I showed in the graph above, and they coincide with a lag in temperatures of a few thousand years with obliquity.

            38. You can’t have it both ways buddy!

              According to you, melting ice causes more open water which increases heat loss into space with negligible heat gain from the change in albedo. The question then arises as to why the ice is melting and leaving more open water in the first place? Then you say the ice is not actually melting and there’s more ice now than the last recorded minimum.

              Which is it? Is the ice melting or not?
              You’re confusing me hombre!

            39. The facts are:
              – Arctic sea ice decreased between 1979-2007 (28 years)
              – Arctic sea ice hasn’t decreased since 2007 (10 years)
              – 2016 was the warmest year

              The evidence shows that hypotheses that decreasing albedo and/or increasing temperatures are driving Arctic sea ice melting are incorrect. They probably contribute, but natural factors are more important, because they can stop the melting.

              In the light of evidence, expectations for Arctic sea ice decrease have to be substantially reduced. It is highly improbable that anybody alive will see an Arctic free of ice.

            42. “You Sir, are truly amazing! That is all I can say!” ~ islandboy

              “Thank you. My grandmother was of the same opinion.” ~ Javier

              LOL

            43. FAIL!

              Arctic sea ice has been decreasing since 2007. It’s been decreasing in THICKNESS. Perhaps you’ve heard of the difference between a crepe, a pancake, and a cake. All look much the same when viewed from above. Their thickness is not apparent. But when you get down beside it, or in an oblique view, you can see that a crepe is quite thin, a pancake is thicker, and a cake is even thicker than that! I know. Mind-blowing.

              “PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites.”

              http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

              Now usually I don’t like those navy folks. They usually just waste taxpayers money, sing stupid songs, and slam their dicks together. But in the case of examine Arctic ice, they might just have done something important for a change.

              Now before you try to tell us that piomas is too uncertain, let’s take a moment to consider certainty. Let’s do it mathematically. How certain is piomas? Now let’s compare the answer to that question to the certainty of your own little favorite graph.

              https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/extreme-cherry-ice/

              It seems you are subscribing to some very uncertain interpretations and as well disregarding some that are more certain. You should know javier that the truth does not very much depend on your ability to stomach it. Perhaps you need more maths class.

              http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/validation/

              Here’s a nice little video too.

              http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/piomas-monthly-thickness-map

              “polar regions are dark six months a year” – Javier
              Oh let me count the fails lol

            44. Survivalist,

              Thickness is not measured. It is modeled from extent and temperatures. There is an important difference.

              If extent and thickness do not agree, I go with extent, because it is measured.

              And as long as extent doesn’t decrease it is impossible that the Arctic would become ice free, no matter what PIOMAS says.

          2. You’re actually encouraging Javier to hijack another thread with his lies?

            1. Sorry for questioning the dogma, but that is supposed to be our duty. I didn’t start the comments, and my science-based opinion on the role of albedo in the Arctic was brought up by others.

              Perhaps with this discussion some people have learned something. Others, I am sure, are unable to learn anything that contradicts the dogma, even if peer-reviewed, published in scientific journals and accepted by specialist scientists.

            2. Javier,
              I wonder what evidence it would take for you to shift you thinking on global warming?
              I suppose it may take 2 to 3 more decades of strong trend evidence?
              Maybe a few major metropolii(?sp) getting historic floods?
              I’ll quiet down and let you answer.

            3. I already shifted my thinking on climate change a few years ago. What it takes is very simple, that the evidence supports the hypothesis. We were nearly all convinced of the CO2 hypothesis until the rate of warming unexpectedly decreased at the beginning of the 21st century. I didn’t check the evidence until around 2012-13, so I am a late comer to skepticism.

              But once you abandon an hypothesis, to come back a second time does require quite a lot more evidence.

              If warming resumes vigorously over the next 5-10 years I would reconsider my position. But so far the only significant warming we got this century was from a big El Niño in 2014-2016.

              The real test for my views will come in 2019-2021, when the cooling from El Niño will have ended. If temperatures don’t go up I will be very convinced that my current position is the correct one.

            4. “You’re actually encouraging Javier to hijack another thread with his lies?”

              Javier applies a mix of numerology and approximating periods from a single millenial-length cycle. Very crude.

            5. Fair enough Javier. Thanks for the answer.

              I see 2 big wildcards to what looks like a very early trend (towards warming). One being natural variability/gyration that swamps human CO2 and methane effects.
              The second being a sudden uptick in volcanism. That could certainly change the predicted outcome of things.

              In the meantime I would suggest foregoing those property investments below 10′ above sea level or near the river bottoms. Build your rail lines on higher ground also.

        2. Doug – on ice albedo, I’ve tried to find some info. on the impact of the last couple of years’ sudden drop in Antarctic ice extent, but haven’t. It looks like the drop is similar in magnitude to the Arctic trend, but there are differences in effect – e.g. the ice is further from the pole (which I think would mean a bigger impact), but in the past it has tended to melt out fully each year anyway (just that now the area reduction is for longer). The sudden drop this year may be a trend or just big variations, the general warming would probably support a trend, with the increases in a previous years some kind of shorter term impact from wind and precipitation pattern variation. The Antarctic doesn’t get the same attention as the Arctic (non military for one thing and shut up for six months of the year for another), but often UK research I’ve seen in the past, so I’m expecting a Royal Society or meteorological office paper some time – probably after that get back in our summer.

        3. I took the projected permafrost melt projections from the paper and plotted the expected melt against CO2 for RCP 8.5 and 4.5 (there isn’t enough spread in the melt to get much for 2.6). The curves fit pretty close, which indicates there isn’t much impact from the time taken to melt, which is a bit surprising, but maybe the chart only shows the amount exposed to melting temperatures. Either way I fitted an exponential curve and then used it to predict the melt proportion based on any CO2 number.

          The Colorado climate center gives 1692 Gt of carbon in the permafrost. There doesn’t seem to be much research on how much gets into the atmosphere when the land melts, so I looked at 600, 1000 and 1400 and assumed a linear ratio for the amount released to the melt area (in fact there might be more in lower or higher latitudes, I don’t know), and that half got into the atmosphere, all as CO2, and the rest absorbed in the sea. I used the RCP 4.5 profile to give fossil fuel and other land use sources for CO2 and added in the permafrost release.

          All the curves exceed RCP 8.5 until about 2050, however they do flatten out once the fossil fuel emissions stop (i.e. there’s a new permafrost equilibrium), and if the CO2 was drawn down the permafrost would grow again.

          There’s lot’s missing in this analysis of course: I’m pretty sure the melt rate is important, the actual carbon released might be much lower than I’ve assumed, RCP 4.5 may already include some allowance for permafrost (I don’t think so though), there are big spreads either side of the average melt numbers the paper uses depending on the model,, some of the release will be methane rather than CO2, there may be hydrates and N2O released with the permafrost , coal use doesn’t diminish fast enough and we exceed RCP 4.5 fossil fuel emissions, etc. However the results aren’t very encouraging, for a climate sensitivity of 2.5 K the 1000 Gt case gives 3.2 K warming by 2100, but for the higher sensitivities in some recent papers of 4.5 and 6.5 K it gives 5.8 and 8.4 K.

          2. May I ask you a question? This stuff all goes way over my head, but do you actually do this scientific work for free without mass amounts of tax payer funding? if so I really have to give you respect and a tip of a hat to you for putting your chosen science ahead of personal profit/fame.

            1. Charles — I, for one, am a retired professional geoscientist (geology/geophysics) who’d like to see a few more people made aware of the ways we (humans) are destroying the planet, in the name of progress. This goes with being a parent/Granddad, nothing more.

            2. This isn’t scientific work, just a bit of data analysis, all for free. I’m retired, I worked in engineering and software development for 40 years and more, mostly for the oil and gas industry, though if I’d known what I know now of climate change I might have done something else. I used to do real science and engineering and teach it (or try) at quite a high level but was in straight industry for over 25 years and the maths is beyond me now. I quite like to keep my hand in a bit and learn (or relearn) some Excel. I’ve been trying to do a bit of VBA to see how much the data analysis can be automated – quite a lot out turns out – and I like the way some of the charts look, not quite Rothko or Barnett Newman yet, but maybe the next Excel release will get a bit closer.

            3. I’ve been trying to do a bit of VBA to see how much the data analysis can be automated – quite a lot out turns out – and I like the way some of the charts look, not quite Rothko or Barnett Newman yet, but maybe the next Excel release will get a bit closer.

              LOL! Maybe look into Python for data analysis.

              https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2016/01/complete-tutorial-learn-data-science-python-scratch-2/

              BTW, for some reason your charts make me think more of an Ellsworth Kelly. Rothko is a bit too dark and morbid.

              Among the many hats I’ve worn throughout life I did a stint as an art handler and used to go up to Ellsworth Kelly’s studio in Spencertown, N.Y. to pick up his paintings for exhibitions.
              .

            4. I think Rothko’s Chapel in Houston is one of the most spiritually uplifting places I’ve ever been, and not one bit dark (not metaphorically anyway, definitely literally) and morbid, and so too his room in the Tate Modern which I think is beyond great (I think designed for a restaurant, but thought to be likely to put the diners off). I wonder how much his art is judged in relation to his death.

              Kelly’s good, and another chap who painted with primary streaks but without the sharp perpendicular edges, closer to a fuzzy area chart maybe, forgotten his name.

              I was thinking about having a look at Python and there’s another (can’t remember the name either), but I’m not looking for productivity, just keeping interested if there’s no cricket and after I can reasonably pretend I’ve finished the crossword.

            5. I tried my hand at a little Python a while back and found some samples of off the shelf code for doing data analysis on DNA strings, I did it just for fun. I found that even an old fogey like me, could learn the basics pretty quickly. Haven’t done much with it since.

              BTW, I did find Rothko’s work quite dark even before I knew about his manner of death. His purple and black paintings always depressed me.

          3. The high sensitivities from those recent papers are earth system sensitivity which includes feedbacks from permafrost, and other land and ice changes, so including permafrost would be double counting.

            It is unlikely that anthropogenic emissions will be higher than RCP4.5 due to limited fossil fuels. Also keep in mind that the 2.5 K climate sensitivity takes 400 to 500 years to be reached due to the thermal lag of the ocean, for the short term (to 2100) one would use the TCR which is about 1.5 K for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

            On your chart below, why not use 400 Gt, the paper suggested about 25% of permafrost would melt for RCP4.5 so only your 600 Gt case seems reasonable based on the results of the paper and an assumption of RCP4.5.

            With a TCR of 1.5K and your 600 Gt permafrost release, we would get about 1.7 C of warming by 2100. If fossil fuel emissions are limited to between RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 (say about 1000 Gt of total carbon emissions including land use change), then we might remain under 2 C, but we may need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the future, either through burning biofuels with carbon capture and storage or other methods due to permafrost melt.

            1. “The high sensitivities from those recent papers are earth system sensitivity which includes feedbacks from permafrost, and other land and ice changes, so including permafrost would be double counting.” – I don’t think that makes any difference to what I did. The melt is a function of CO2 levels not temperature directly, but only what is implicit in the RCP path. The RCPs are used so that all that constant feedback looping is taken out. If the sensitivity is higher then the actual feedback would likely lead to faster permafrost melt, I think, but you can go on like that for ever, which is why the RCPs were fixed as reference cases.

              The paper suggested 25% would melt for a 1.5 K temperature increase, I was looking at what might happen at higher temperatures or bigger releases, and in particular whether there could be a runaway effect with all the permafrost melting, which I don’t think there is.

            2. Hi George,

              I guess I misunderstood your model. The paper gave amounts of melt for different RCP scenarios in 2100 for a set of GCMs, some of these models already include permafrost melt, so it seems there might be some double counting for those models if we add CO2 from permafrost melt (when the Earth System models already include that CO2 in the model).

              In fact part of the wide differences between models is that some of them include that effect and others do not.

              In any case, I may be wrong and your model is excellent.

              The 600 Gt carbon release might be reasonable for RCP 4.5. By 2100 we would use TCR rather than ECS, maybe about 1.7 C. That would result in about 2 C of warming by 2100, the GCMs already account for reduced snow cover extent, though adding permafrost would reduce this further. The slow warmup of the ocean causes the delay in reaching full ECS (3C for doubling of CO2) for roughly 500 years (assuming atmospheric CO2 is unchanged at 560 ppm over those 500 years).

            3. The models are different, taking the average is the best we can do – which is what they did. As I pointed out there are big error bars, from that, from response times and many other things. I don’t think it matters much whether things happen by 2100 compared to being already baked in on the level I was looking at, and I think the esearch is all pointing at higher sensitivities and/or faster responses so I don’t think it worth the details you are going into.

            4. Hi George,

              Much of the research that points to higher sensitivities is about Earth System Sensitivities that operate over 10s of thousands of years.

              You need to distinguish carefully between transient climate response (TCR) which is about 1.7 C per doubling of CO2 and operates over 50 to 100 years.

              Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) which includes the effects of “fast” feedbacks but takes about 500 years to reach “equilibrium” if atmospheric CO2 is held constant and is in the range of 2.5 to 4 C for most Global climate models.

              And finally earth system sensitivity (ESS) which includes all fast and slow feedbacks and is probably 3 to 6 C, but will take 10,000 years or so to be reached.

              I think these distinctions matter, but clearly you disagree.

              The science on the exact values of these various sensitivities is far from settled.

    2. Yes, CO2 and methane will be released from melting permafrost, as well as from cracks leading down to methane reservoirs. This in itself will lead to further warming. The snow line moving further north will also cause further warming. This in turn increases melt rate of glaciers and Arctic Ice, increasing warming as land is exposed. And so on….. It stops when the ice and snow are gone. Well, not really, as the ocean becomes a source of CO2 and methane. Further manmade GHG will only encourage the situation.
      Of course we could encourage some mountain building and volcanism but that might take too long.
      Time to put the reflectors up in space and stop worrying about living on Mars so much. 🙂

      Nothing much to worry about, the magnetic field is falling and may flip.
      Seven times as many large comets than previously suspected. Bigger and hit harder.
      https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6902

      Guess we don’t really know much after all. Always new things to discover and test.
      Do you like being part of the test?

      1. Don’t forget about the Nitrous Oxide.

        Study suggests melting of Arctic permafrost may release massive amounts of nitrous oxide
        https://phys.org/news/2017-05-arctic-permafrost-massive-amounts-nitrous.html

        “the GWP for methane over 100 years is 34 and for nitrous oxide 298. This means that emissions of 1 million metric tonnes of methane and nitrous oxide respectively is equivalent to emissions of 34 and 298 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent

        1. Hi Survivalist,

          For methane it is not as long lived in the atmosphere as CO2, for any greenhouse gas GWP is a better measure over 500 years and for methane it is considerably lower over longer time periods about 7.6, and for NO2 about 153.

          The NO2 release amounts to about 3 Gt of Carbon dioxide per year, not really that massive.

          1. DC,
            First, those numbers represent the effect if the gas is decomposing and reducing in concentration. They are not they are rising and continuous.
            The instantaneous effect of methane is about 100X that of CO2 and since it will be persistent in the atmosphere for a long time (and rising), the 34 number is wrong.
            You don’t get it yet, the amount of these gases is rising. They will continue to be fed by natural sources for a long time. Residency time in the atmosphere for a given molecule is unimportant, it is the concentration that matters. The sources are very large for CO2, methane and probably N2O (not NO2). That means a long term existence in the atmosphere. You seem to be stuck on human produced gases and think the valve will shut off soon and the gases will dissociate. Doesn’t matter when new ones are constantly being emitted.
            Better to think about what a static 700 to 1000 ppm equivalent would do combined with decreasing albedo. Might be closer to future reality.

            That is the pleasant view of the situation. Where emissions stabilize below 1000 ppm. As the ocean warms in general, it could get a lot higher.

            Today scientists can estimate fairly accurately how much carbon is stored in the individual reservoirs. The ocean, with around 38,000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons), contains 16 times as much carbon as the terrestrial biosphere, that is all plant and the underlying soils on our planet, and around 60 times as much as the pre-industrial atmosphere, i.e., at a time before people began to drastically alter the atmospheric CO2 content by the increased burning of coal, oil and gas. At that time the carbon content of the atmosphere was only around 600 gigatons of carbon. The ocean is there­fore the greatest of the carbon reservoirs, and essentially determines the atmospheric CO2 content. The carbon, however, requires centuries to penetrate into the deep ocean, because the mixing of the oceans is a rather slow
            http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/co2-reservoir/
            So as the ocean warms not only does it not absorb as much CO2 it will eventually become a major source of CO2. The study mentioned below indicates 200 years or even less for the turnover of CO2 during warming periods.

            https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/

            Basically we are entering new unknown territory with just about every change pointed in one direction= warming driven by natural feedbacks.

            2. Sure DC, Archer does present a case but no experimental proof. Even Einstein’s theories and calculations needed proof. Until experimental proof occurs, it is pretty much all talk.
              NASA is still standing by model predications of up to 6C surface average change by 2100.

              If you don’t see the extreme rapidity of climate change happening right now, you are not looking at the physical evidence. The Arctic, the temperature differentials, the changes in atmospheric humidity, changes in plant life, lowland birds moving to higher altitudes and shifting migration patterns. Temperature sensitive agriculture changes that have already happened. Plant shifting along Central American mountainsides. All in a century or less.

              Look at the ice production regions. Mountain lakes that consistently produced ice for refrigeration lost their ability in less than one hundred years, now giving good ice only occasionally and sometimes barely freezing. Lower elevations lost their production around 1910.

              You and others can ignore the feedbacks, the loss of ice and snow in the Arctic and other areas. It’s all going to be good if we just ignore the whole bus full of feedbacks and the fact that no one knows the sensitivity.

              Or we can all just go by the actual occurrences and realize that climate change is happening fast. Changes in the Arctic were first seen in the 1970’s. Now ships can cross the Arctic Ocean in the summer. Glaciers are in fast retreat, temperature distributions barely overlap in a 50 year change. Heat waves, increasing droughts, increased flooding and storm intensity, megastorms, all recent changes. We are seeing these changes in less than one lifetime, a phenomenal rate of change compared to paleo records.

              The epic journey of storks is now becoming a journey within Europe due to warming.
              Maybe Archer needs to learn from the birds.
              http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/04/27/525830183/climate-change-and-shifts-in-the-migration-patterns-of-birds

            3. The epic journey of storks is now becoming a journey within Europe due to warming.

              Simplistic analysis as usual. They stay because they find food all year round due to the expansion of open air dumps. Also conditions in Africa are becoming so appalling that many birds don’t make it back, so the trait to stay is reinforced through natural selection, as they are protected in Europe.

              In fact forest birds and intra-Europe migrating birds are expanding in Europe, while inter-continental migrating species are still declining.

              Climate change if anything is helping due to the forest expansion as trees grow faster with more CO2 and better temperatures, and more birds survive mild winters than harsh winters that are awful killers for birds.

              I understand it is hard for you to understand the beneficial effects of global warming on ecosystems since you are so biased.

            4. Hi Gone fishing,

              The models are not perfect, but they include many of the feedbacks. Better modelling of glaciers and permafrost are needed.

              Yes experiments on future warming have not been done. So we do not know. There are many climate experts who believe that 1000 Gt of carbon emissions may keep us close to 2 C above pre-industrial.

              Much is unknown, Archer’s claim is that we should be more concerned with CO2 because it accumulates in the atmosphere and is reduced very slowly.

              I believe he is correct and we should focus on reducing carbon emissions as rapidly as is feasible.

              Depletion of fossil fuels will help, but we also need good public policy.

    3. Hi George,

      I think they used the various RCP scenarios to drive the expected temperature changes in the model, so a reduction in fossil fuel use would move us from RCP4.5 towards RCP2.6.

      In figure 3 in the paper, permafrost area rises towards the end of the study period (2100) so that permafrost in 2100 is about 10% lower than in 2010 and is not decreasing any further. I estimated 14.3E6 sq km for 2010 from figure 3 and used 12.8E6 sq km from table 3 for 2100.

      It is unclear if they considered feedbacks however, I did not delve too deeply into the paper.

      1. Hi Dennis,

        The problem is that alarmism is unsustainable under any kind of realistic scenario. But if you say that RCP4.5 is the upper limit reasonable emissions scenario based on fossil fuel reserves you are going to be attacked as a denier. Surprisingly alarmists consider RCP8.5 as the business as usual scenario, probably because they have low analytic capacity. They need it to be alarmists.

  14. Another amazing piece of journalism from Michael Lewis, this time about the Department Of Energy, what it does, and what is happening to it under the Trump administration:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis

    What happens when you elect people who don’t believe in government to run the government?

    “The election happened,” remembers Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, then deputy secretary of the D.O.E. “And he won. And then there was radio silence. We were prepared for the next day. And nothing happened.” Across the federal government the Trump people weren’t anywhere to be found. Allegedly, between the election and the inauguration not a single Trump representative set foot inside the Department of Agriculture, for example.”

  15. I will be the first person not only to admit but to point out how corrupt the Trump administration IS, and have posted more links to this effect by far than any other TWO members of this forum.

    But this does not mean I am willing to overlook ( possible ) corruption on the other side of the political fence for partisan purposes.

    Now the BACK GROUND to the POINT of this comment is to say that I just read this link in my Google news feed, and then went to full coverage at the bottom, and scrolled thru every thing Google listed, just about twenty minutes or so again.

    A couple of dozen right wing leaning sites had coverage, plus a couple of reasonably non partisan web sites. NOT A SINGLE major leftish or liberalish leaning paper had yet mentioned it, including the NYT.
    I went to their site and searched for IT aide arrested. Nothing.

    The BASIC political problem we have in this country boils down to a combination of two factors, ignorance and the culture war.

    The people on the right wing aren’t any more willing to read the NYT or listen to NPR than folk on the left are to read and listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

    WHY?

    Because they don’t believe the coverage they read there is fair and balanced, and they know of examples enough of the sort I use here to keep them convinced this is so.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/26/so-many-questions-opponent-calls-out-wasserman-schultz-over-arrest-of-it-aide/

    1. Hi OFM,

      Of course there is corruption on both the left and right.

      Is this surprising?

      No.

      Right criticizes left and vice versa, not surprising.

      There is bullcrap on both sides, but to me the crap on the right seems far deeper, PhD levels as they say. (Referring to the old BS, MS and PhD joke and what the letters stand for, bull, more and piled high and deep).

      1. Hi Dennis,
        As usual, I agree with you, and the crap IS far deeper on the right.
        NO QUESTION.

        My point is that when those people on the right are looking for evidence that the larger major papers and NPR, etc, are biased towards the leftish interpretation and coverage of the news, they find it very easy to believe it, because it’s easily demonstrated.

        Next time I run across an example of a high level Republican staffer getting arrested in a similar fashion, I will demonstrate that the leftish leaning sites and papers jump on it INSTANTLY, and that the rightish leaning ones delay and devote a lot less coverage to it.

        MY real point is that BRAINS, or EDUCATION, are not the criteria that are best suited to measuring why people believe what they believe, when it comes to politics and the environment, or politics and any other particular issue.

        I know a number of men and women who are FIRM BELIEVERS in global warming, although they know about as much science as an average hound dog.

        THEY believe because their political IN GROUP or CULTURAL CAMP believes.

        It’s merely an accident that the party known as the D party happens to be the one that is correct on this particular issue.

        In some other country it is altogether possible that a party known as the R party could be right, and the D party wrong. Names don’t prove anything, but they indicate a lot.

        My LARGER general point is that if people who do understand the science will refrain from talking down to and making fun of those who do not, they can move some voters from one end of the scale to the other. It doesn’t take a lot, just two or three out of a hundred is enough most of the time, sometimes one out of a hundred is enough.

        I could get a dozen people I know to read this site at least occasionally, and maybe often, who are hard core social conservatives, but they WON’T, so long as some of the regulars insist on making fun of them simply for the fun of it.

        They might as well be voting for Trump themselves, in terms of their political impact, because those who understand the science are already in the D camp anyway.

        Even the dumbest back woods PREACHER understands that his best shot at winning converts is in bars and cat houses, rather than among his deacons and Sunday School teachers, lol.

      1. Hi Nick,

        Go to the archives of the Washington Post, and the NYT, and search for coverage of this little scandal. You will find that it was pretty damned close to NON EXISTENT until the actual arrest.

        Of course they reported it once it was more or less impossible to ignore it any longer.

        The right leaning press was covering it months ago.

        Now I am NOT arguing that the leftish leaning or middle ground press is MORE partisan than the rightish leaning press, but it’s still quite obvious to me, from reading omnivorously for many years right across the board that papers such as the WP and the NYT tend to ignore dirty D party laundry when they can get away with it, while doing a better job of covering such news as this if it involves a REPUBLICAN politician .

        I fully acknowledge that both the NYT and the WP are superb papers, judging them on their OVERALL quality. Two of the very best!

        But this does not mean there isn’t a deliberate ( I can’t see it as otherwise !) effort made to minimize some dirty D laundry.

        The Atlantic is a SUPERB magazine, judged all around.

        But when the Atlantic ran a long article some time back supposedly impartially examining HRC’s ethical record, they ran it WITHOUT EVEN FUCKING MENTIONING CATTLE GATE. They did what they could to bury the evidence that she was ( is ) guilty of outright fraud, as reported by the WP and the NYT.

        And I stick by my point about the liberal establishment being just as subject to being more interested in partisan unity, or tribal loyalties, express it as you will, as the conservative establishment.

        SO FAR, I have yet to be able to turn up even ONE person with a professional reputation as a mathematician, or a solid knowledge of mathematics, such as is considered necessary to practice engineering, or any physical science, who is a self identified political liberal, who will discuss the facts, as reported in the NYT, etc, about Cattle Gate, in public.

        But my close personal friend ( fifty years ) and attorney is a hard core self identified big D Democrat, and when he is in the select company of a few lifelong friends, he refers to HRC as UNQUESTIONABLY guilty of outright fraud and theft.

        It’s perfectly obvious to anybody who is acquainted with the basic physical and life sciences that the D Party / liberal establishment is pretty much in or near the bullseye in respect to the overall environmental question, and the R Party/ conservative establishment has it’s head so far up it’s ass that it won’t pull it out so as to experience daylight until you can fry an egg on the sidewalk in Vermont, lol.

        My big picture point stands. Our real problem is basically best explained as the result of ignorance and the ongoing cultural war.

        YA SEE, there are literally MILLIONS of R voters who DO possess the necessary technical education to easily and quickly comprehend the climate and environmental issues, without even having to spend more than a few hours scanning the news to come to the same conclusions as the climate and environmental science establishments. These conclusions are after all pretty much INESCAPABLE.

        MY POINT is that these millions of technically knowledgeable R voters simply fucking REFUSE to acknowledge that the evidence for forced climate change EVEN EXISTS. They cannot discuss it, because if they DO discuss it, then they must either admit it exists and admit its validity , or expose themselves as either partisans or technical incompetents.

        Bottom line, our environmental problems, in terms of political solutions, are mostly or more about the fucking CULTURE WAR, and secondarily about ignorance and dug in special interests, such as the fossil fuel industries, the real estate industries, etc.

        It’s extremely, extraordinarily, colossally unfortunate that the environmental question has evolved into a political football, but it’s a fact that it has.

        Be CAREFUL about what you wish for. There are ALWAYS strings attached.

        I used to, believe it or not, have long hair, and I used to smoke dope, and I was once upon a time of the ACLU, and the NEA, and my second wife was Jewish, from NYC. I told all the girls it was nothing but male chauvinism and religious repression that kept them from screwing around just like us guys, lol, if they were so inclined.

        I hung around in the Fan District, a sort of Greenwich Village wannabe , for a LONG time, over a decade, and hung out in the political and cultural circles that are the norm among the students and faculty of any largish university, VCU in my case. I got my ass in hot water with the school board when I was teaching by advocating for real professional recognition as a teacher, and I marched in a couple of protests about nuclear power plants, mostly because a hot girl I was dating wanted to, to be honest. LATER ON, I actually worked intermittently in nukes, because there was very well paid short term work available for me during maintenance shutdowns.

        Back then, I just wasn’t giving the environment much thought, being young and carefree with some money in my pocket, the world mine oyster, so to speak.

        SO- I HAVE been there , and done that, politically and intellectually.

        Back then, I approved of using the courts to get what I wanted, and what my cultural in group wanted, which was social change.

        Well, WE GOT IT, to a very substantial extent.

        What we didn’t EXPECT to get was the backlash. Well, that backlash is the best one word explanation for Trump being president. That backlash is the best one word explanation for the R’s controlling Congress, and most small towns and cities, and just about all of rural and huge expanses of prosperous suburban America.

        Now of course if you are a self identified liberal, you will either FAIL to see that ALL I AM SAYING is true, or deny it, just as a self identified conservative will fail to see that the climate science consensus is factually sound, and /or deny or ignore the evidence.

        And the reason I keep on ranting about these things is that I am determined to do whatever little bit I can to get leftish leaning people to understand that if they want the votes of rightish leaning people, they need to first off give up the nose in the air holier than thou rhetoric, and quit making fun of socially conservative people, and then WORK ON THE COMMON GROUND.

        There is PLENTY of common ground.

        But you couldn’t get a date in a whorehouse with a horse choking roll of hundred dollar bills talking about women the way some liberals talk about conservatives.

        Ya gotta decide which is more important, winning elections, or preening your moral and intellectual feathers.

        These comments are directed RHETORICALLY at the liberal establishment, rather than any PARTICULAR member of this forum.

        This comment is addressed to Nick, but I am not pointing it at him.

    3. Who would have guessed that what finally upset conservative Republicans on Trump is the attacking of racist Jeff Sessions ?

      “Allies Warn Trump of Conservative Revolt Unless He Backs Off Sessions”

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/white-house-aides-think-trump-will-let-sessions-stay-for-now.html?mcubz=0

      “I thought those guys [the Ku Klux Klan] were OK until I learned they smoked pot.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/02/jeff-sessionss-comments-on-race-for-the-record/?utm_term=.10c7ff9d1e72

  17. Hey Glenn, how about this?!

    https://www.oilandgas360.com/ep-bankruptcies-tapering-off-2017/

    Five companies default in Jan-Feb brings total bankrupt E&Ps to 119
    Five oil and gas companies have gone bankrupt in the first two months of this year, according to the most recent edition of Haynes and Boone’s Oil Patch Bankruptcy Monitor. Currently 119 E&P companies have entered bankruptcy since the beginning of 2015.

    I guess fossil fuel companies are going bankrupt faster and at a much higher rate than alternative Energy Companies…

  18. Is anyone monitoring how public opinion about global warming changes in the US as summer temperatures rise and stick around longer? If my local weather is any indication, if this is what we can expect, and worse, it’s going to be a daily reminder of climate change.

    Even if you are a climate change skeptic, if your lawn is baking, and it is too hot to outside for days or weeks on end, you’re likely to at least perceive that there is a problem.

    1. You might perceive it, but that doesn’t mean that your perception is true.

      1. You only pulled one image from that page. There are others. See the link below.

        I probably won’t continue to respond to you because other than this time, I don’t see your comments. I’m not interested in the endless climate debates. I was just asking if researchers are studying how hot weather in people’s own lives affects opinions.

        This chart shows how hot weather in the US has been rising since 1990.

        Figure 2. Area of Contiguous 48 States With Unusually Hot Summer Temperatures, 1910–2015

        https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/high-low-temps-download2-2016.png

      2. Key Points
        Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1). The spike in Figure 1 reflects extreme, persistent heat waves in the Great Plains region during a period known as the “Dust Bowl.” Poor land use practices and many years of intense drought contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.5
        Nationwide, unusually hot summer days (highs) have become more common over the last few decades (see Figure 2). The occurrence of unusually hot summer nights (lows) has increased at an even faster rate. This trend indicates less “cooling off” at night.
        The 20th century had many winters with widespread patterns of unusually low temperatures, including a particularly large spike in the late 1970s (see Figure 3). Since the 1980s, though, unusually cold winter temperatures have become less common—particularly very cold nights (lows).
        The two maps show where changes in the number of days with unusually hot (above the 95th percentile) and cold (below the 5th percentile) days have occurred since 1948. Unusually high temperatures have increased in the western United States and in several areas along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, but decreased in much of the middle of the country (see Figure 4). The number of unusually cold days has generally decreased throughout the country, particularly in the western United States (see Figure 5).
        If the climate were completely stable, one might expect to see highs and lows each accounting for about 50 percent of the records set. Since the 1970s, however, record-setting daily high temperatures have become more common than record lows across the United States (see Figure 6). The most recent decade had twice as many record highs as record lows.

        https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures

    2. Big parts of the country actually have had a cool summer. Global warming, indeed.

      2. Who looks at that chart and sees a cooler than normal condition?

        1. The areas in green on that map are all having below normal temperatures.

          1. Right, and everywhere else is having higher than normal temperatures.

            Compare yellow to light green.
            Compare dark green, of which there is almost none, to the light orange which blankets the entire western region.

            There doesn’t appear to be any areas that are experiencing lows greater than -4 degrees, but all of the dark orange and red areas are experiencing temps +4 or more above normal.

            Pretty roasty overall.

      3. Here in Albuquerque we have felt some of that heat. So far my electric bill has been about the same as always for summertime, so I can’t say my wife and I have ran the AC more than usual. Global warming impacts are extremely minimal or nonexistent to us.

        1. “Global warming impacts are extremely minimal or nonexistent to us”
          Well, that makes me want to re-evaluate the whole issue.
          Let me make sure I get what you’re saying right.
          Your electric bill for AC this year in Albuq is stable! And this is the indicator of global warming effects that we should use to help understand the ramifications of global warming?
          OK, I am feeling a great sense of relief over this.
          Let me know if your bill goes up. I may have to start learning more about the issue then.
          Until then, I’ll consider Trump a smart hero, [even if he doesn’t know what the symbol H2O means- not a scientist.]

      5. Interestingly, the slightly cooler than normal areas on that map are also having much much wetter than normal conditions as per this map.
        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/drought/2017/06/noaa-hprcc-pcp-pct-us-0630-01m.png

        Both maps, Bob Frisky’s and the one I posted, are from this link.
        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/synoptic/201706
        The web site states the following with regards to the map Bob Frisky Posted:
        “The upper-level ridge over the western CONUS brought above-normal temperatures to the West and much of the Plains states, while cold fronts, clouds, and rain associated with upper-level troughing in the eastern CONUS brought near to below-normal temperatures to much of the South and East. Above-normal temperatures dominated much of Alaska.”

    3. June was a mostly chilly one, here in the Great lakes region. Some of my vegetables out in the Garden are running a week or two behind normal growth. It just goes to show us, the climate change we get from year to year, month to month, day to day is completely unpredictable. We just must go with the flow as we can’t know if warmth or cold is right around the corner the next minute. In any case at least its always, Another Great Day To Be Alive.

      Regards,
      -Ralph
      Cass Tech ’64

      1. You guys who are saying that because the heat isn’t bothering you in your locations, and therefore global warming isn’t happening, are making my point.

        The converse would be as locations start getting unusually hot, people in those locations WILL believe in global warming.

        Once people personally get affected by weather, their opinions are likely to follow. An occasional change in the weather can be shrugged off. A continuing change, not so much.

      2. The Difference between Climate and Weather (Statistics 101)

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePL-uOg9hSU

        Published on Aug 13, 2014
        This 1-minute animation cleverly explains the difference between trend (climate) and variation (weather). Produced by Teddy TV, broadcast on NRK, animated by Ole Christoffer Haga, written by Magnus Nome.

      3. Hey, you have a great day too R.Rut.
        I read the farmers almanac.
        They said it may get cold, and have some frost or snow in the winter.
        There you have it.

      4. It was cold in the beer cooler at the Monster Truck Rally.
        Proves a new Ice Age is on the way.
        Don’t you know the truth!

      5. As we can’t know if warmth or cold is right around the corner the next minute. In any case at least its always, Another Great Day To Be Alive.

        Regards,
        -Frog in the pot.

  19. In other news… Tony Seba seems to have been on the money once again. And no, it doesn’t mean he predicted this! In any case I’m not interested in philosophical arguments or quibbles about semantics.
    Look at the data once, look at the data a second time, look at the data a third time… I think it was Matt Simmons who said something like that.

    https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/03/this-is-the-biggest-news-in-electricity-since-the.aspx

    This Is the Biggest News in Electricity Since the Light Bulb — Seriously
    If the world can generate and store energy from the sun for less than the cost of fossil fuels, it literally changes everything about the energy industry.

    The dream of using the sun’s abundant energy 24/7 took a major step closer to reality recently when utility company Tucson Electric signed a power purchase agreement last week for solar plus storage at a price of less than 4.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) over 20 years. That’s less than half the price of retail electricity power and a price low enough to compete with natural gas, coal, and nuclear power head to head in wholesale markets for what some might call “baseload” power.

    It’s hard to overstate what a big deal this is for solar energy, energy storage, and disruption in the grid overall. This makes the market for solar exponentially larger, married with a massive storage market, and could eventually lead to a fundamental change in the way we think of the electric power industry. Investors need to make sure this trend is a tailwind and not a headwind, because the solar-plus-storage train is coming faster than anyone expected.

    1. Who would want to be on the wrong side of the fence for the most massive change in the world ever done. Converting a world-wide energy and transportation system on a huge and growing scale will give vast business and social opportunities. No wonder people are working hard to make it work.

      Of course those in the know were fairly sure that this would happen and keep happening. We knew the secret, the big edge over fossil power. Here it is, don’t tell anyone.
      BIG SECRET: Imagine having your fuel delivered to you on site for free. Not just free delivery but free fuel for your power generation station. How can they beat free? Not only that but there is no need for pipelines, railroads or delivery trucks to get the energy to the user. Simple wire cables will do that (with a few doodads attached).

      No need for mother nature to spend millions of years storing an extremely small amount of energy deep in the earth and then we have to find it, dig it up, change it and purify it, then transport it again. Just put up the panels and watch the electrons roll along.

      1. Who would want to be on the wrong side of the fence for the most massive change in the world ever done. Converting a world-wide energy and transportation system on a huge and growing scale will give vast business and social opportunities.

        How about these two guys?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skVrKVJb1Sc
        Climate Change Deniers’ Anthem

  20. In the last day there have been numerous articles about declining sperm counts in men living in America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. If it keeps up, humans won’t be able to reproduce. So humans may do themselves in anyway.

      1. Boxers and jeans definitely have something to do with it, lol.

        Yer testicles hand down because they need a cool environment, not because it’s advantageous to have them exposed in a fight.

        I have never been able to find out if it is true, but expert martial artists are supposedly able to retract their testicles. I have been scared badly enough that my own have tightened up and made themselves snug against my crotch, so maybe it’s true, lol.

        Bulls are quite noticeably more capable of keeping their numerous girlfriends pregnant in cool weather.

    2. Related to the declining sperm count. I came across 2 recources here lately that have added more dimentions to my comprehension of some of the causes of degenerative disease from autisim to altzheimers, gluten intolerance, heart disease, cancer and on and on.

      One is the critical importance of the intestinal membrane function/integrity and how the loss of biodiversity in gut microbe populations and other environmental agents such as gluten and toxins such as glyphosate negatively affect membrane function. Dr Zack Busch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgKlX6rC4EQ

      Entomologist and researcher Jonathan Lundgren https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-CSyx213ag&t=45s https://

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqXt_We7Gk4

      Just my simple take from his presentations. The widespread and reckless use of Nionicotinoids in crops is leading to an unprecedented loss of insect populations and consequently the birds and frogs etc that rely on those insects for food. What are we thinking? Without healthy populations of predatory insects we are only setting ourselves up for plagues of pest insects that adapt to our pesticides and the knee jerk reaction will be to come up with more toxic pesticides.

    1. They may be right for the wrong reasons. Private vehicles might become a thing of the past. But then road maintenance would also become a thing of the past.

      1. Unless someone comes up with the bright idea of charging people to use the roads. For example, there could be congestion charging in large cities, and tolls on roads.

        1. Hi alimbiquated,

          It was my impression of Javier’s comment was that he was in denial of EV’s and not the mechanics of financing road maintenance. At this point, trying to figure out what’s going on in the grey matter between his ears. Really isn’t worth the time spent. I think that should be left for the professionals.

            1. “The younger folks” do seem to be moving away from car ownership. But, it has little to do with the economy – kids with good jobs are just as uninterested in cars as those kids living in their parents’ basements.

            2. “EVs can’t be denied”

              But climate change can, right Mr. ColderThanYesterday ?

            3. Climate change is a fact. Climate has always changed and will always change. Whoever thinks we can control climate is a fool.

            5. Of course we affect climate. Just by having lots of cows, cultivating lots of rice, or clearing lots of forests we have been affecting climate for a very long time. But that doesn’t mean that we are the main factor affecting climate, and it doesn’t mean that by stopping doing those things the climate is going to change in a preferred direction.

            6. Whoever thinks we can control climate is a fool.

              Maybe not ‘Control’ it, but as Bob Nickson suggests we certainly are already affecting it in a major way!

              Just like how even a decade ago anyone who thought we could safely edit a human genome to cure genetic defects and disease were fools too…

              Then along came some foolish scientists who figured out a way to hijack a bacterial defense system and apply it to genome editing technology.

              Now we are on the cusp of controlling biological evolution by using CRISPR to edit germ cells and create gene-drives…

              One person’s foolishness is another’s challenge.

              The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later.

              https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science/

  22. I’m still interested in methane (probably) because undersea clathrates were a bloody nuisance to Arctic seismic surveys I used to run for oil companies many moos ago. Bear with me on this.

    MASSIVE CRATERS FORMED BY METHANE BLOW-OUTS FROM THE ARCTIC SEA FLOOR

    “A new study in Science shows that hundreds of massive, kilometer-wide craters on the ocean floor in the Arctic were formed by substantial methane expulsions. Even though the craters were formed some 12,000 years ago, methane is still leaking profusely from the craters. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and of major concern in our warming climate.”

    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-massive-craters-methane-blow-outs-arctic.html

    1. Interestingly,

      ARE METHANE SEEPS IN THE ARCTIC SLOWING GLOBAL WARMING?

      “Good news about climate change is especially rare in the Arctic. But now comes news that increases in one greenhouse gas—methane—lead to the dramatic decline of another. Research off the coast of Norway’s Svalbard archipelago suggests that where methane gas bubbles up from seafloor seeps, surface waters directly above absorb twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2) as surrounding waters. The findings suggest that methane seeps in isolated spots in the Arctic could lessen the impact of climate change. “This is … totally unexpected,” says Brett Thornton, a geochemist at Stockholm University who was not involved in the research. These new findings challenge the popular assumption that methane seeps inevitably increase the global greenhouse gas burden.”

      http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/are-methane-seeps-arctic-slowing-global-warming

      1. DougL,

        The researcher does point out that we don’t know yet how widespread this situation may be. He may have said that there could be a seasonal aspect too but I’m going on memory for that.

        1. Synapsid,

          True enough. Meanwhile…….

          PHOTOS REVEAL MORE THAN 200 BRIGHT BLUE ARCTIC LAKES HAVE STARTED BUBBLING WITH METHANE GAS

          “Satellite images have revealed more than 200 strange, bright blue lakes in Russia’s Arctic regions that are bubbling “like jacuzzis” as a result of leaking methane gas. The lakes are a type of thermokarst lake, which form when thawing permafrost causes the surface to collapse and fill in with meltwater. But unlike normal, dark thermokarst lakes, these ones are bright blue and bubbling, because of methane that’s leaking into them before escaping into the atmosphere.”

          https://www.sciencealert.com/photos-reveal-more-than-200-bright-blue-arctic-lakes-have-started-bubbling-with-methane-gas

          1. And, for your ongoing reading (plus viewing) pleasure,

            SIBERIA’S ‘DOORWAY TO THE UNDERWORLD’ IS GETTING SO BIG IT’S UNCOVERING ANCIENT FORESTS

            “It’s no secret that Siberia’s permafrost has been on thin ice lately. Conditions are varying so much that huge holes are appearing out of nowhere, and, in some places, tundra is quite literally bubbling underneath people’s feet. But new research has revealed that one of the biggest craters in the region, known by the local Yakutian people as the ‘doorway to the underworld’, is growing so rapidly that it’s uncovering long-buried forests, carcasses, and up to 200,000 years of historical climate records.”

            https://www.sciencealert.com/siberia-s-huge-doorway-to-the-underworld-is-getting-so-big-it-s-uncovering-millennia-old-forests-and-carcasses

            1. DougL et al.,

              Oh dear, oh dear–the word “crater” carries a lot of baggage. We know about impact craters and volcanic craters and blowout craters (look up new ones in the Yamal region) but this is just a slump, nothing to do with cratering. Blasted journalists.

              Where it says “crater” read “slump” so’s to avoid the implications of the first term that do not apply to the second.

              Thank you for your attention. (beep)

            2. The geologist in me agrees with you (sort of), the dictionary not so much: A large, bowl-shaped cavity in the ground or on the surface of a planet or the moon, typically one caused by an explosion or the impact of a meteorite or other celestial body: hollow, bowl, basin, hole, cavity, depression; caldera. Of course we have microscopic craters, bomb and bullet cratering, coating defects (i.e., paint craters), micrometeorite craters, acne (skin craters), drywall craters, sinkhole craters … 🙂

            3. Besides the article itself giving the corrected term of “slump”, some of the holes that have formed in the permafrost have ejecta, making the term crater more usable.
              This one looks more like a forming rift anyway. 🙂

            4. I can’t imaging much of a rift forming between Synapsid and me. Temporary misunderstandings perhaps! 🙂

            5. I can’t imaging much of a rift forming between Synapsid and me.

              Oh, now I understand, the Mid Atlantic Rift, is just a gigantic misunderstanding between tectonic plates…

              For example:
              Like the West Antarctic Misunderstanding 😉

            7. DougL,

              There will be no rifts between anyone hooked on pulsars and anyone posting as Synapsid.

            8. GoneFishing,

              True the article does contain “slump” but then we get “crater” again and again.

              I may be the only Quaternary geologist posting here, I don’t know, but a slump is a tightly defined phenomenon and one that I’ve worked with for years, and what is depicted in the image is a slump, pure and simple. You cannot know the agony (snif) of this misrepresentation. (snif)

            9. I remember when hardware was nuts and bolts and software was worn by women. 🙂

              Would pit crater or subsidence make you feel better?
              Not talking about the ones with obvious ejecta.

            10. GoneFishing,

              A slump is gravity driven, often facilitated by ground water or ground ice. An arcuate break along the edge of a topographical high, or part of a slope, marks the upper edge of a slump. Slump blocks rotate back into the slope as material moves downward, and the lower part of the slump mass can become landslide or debris flow that continues to move down slope.

              So, material along or at the top of a slope breaks loose and moves downhill first as a series of blocks of material that then break up as they continue to move down slope. The whole thing is open toward the lower part of the topography. That’s clear in the image. A slump isn’t caused by some agent from elsewhere–what is already there breaks loose under gravity.

    2. If we start getting a lot of methane hydrate blows in the Arctic we will have Russian nuclear powered drilling ships on the bottom. You know what happens when the area around a ship is mostly bubbles.

      1. As someone who worked on semi submersible oil rigs doing BOP hydraulic systems maintenance as a deep sea saturation diver I kinda have some inkling… I assume that here on POB I don’t have to spell out what a BOP is, does, or how it works, let alone what happens should the BOP fail, eh? 🙂

    1. Holy weapons cash Batman… & which wallet did this ba Billion come out of?
      125 million Tons of ammo / weapons and 8000 evacuated?
      100 kg per person would result in 1 point 2 5 ba Billion causalities.
      Many videos of this have been silenced.

  24. For those who enjoy Google Street View, Lagos Nigeria is now visible. Now the African countries with street images are Botswana, Ghana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, Swaziland, South Africa, Tunisia, Uganda.

    Sample Image

          1. Cute little three wheeled taxis if you follow out onto the main thoroughfare.

  25. Interesting way to visualize climate change.
    ‘Joy Plots’
    Doug, you might find the background on Joy Plots especially interesting…

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/07/joy-plots-for-climate-change/#more-20524

    Joy plots for climate change
    Filed under: Climate Science Communicating Climate Instrumental Record — gavin @ 22 July 2017
    This is joy as in ‘Joy Division’, not as in actual fun.

    Many of you will be familiar with the iconic cover of Joy Division’s Unknown Pleasures album, but maybe fewer will know that it’s a plot of signals from a pulsar (check out this Scientific American article on the history).
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/pop-culture-pulsar-origin-story-of-joy-division-s-unknown-pleasures-album-cover-video/
    The length of the line is matched to the frequency of the pulsing so that successive pulses are plotted almost on top of each other. For many years this kind of plot did not have a well-known designation until, in fact, April this year:

    1. World corn production is going up, as always. So instead of a victim of climate change it appears a beneficiary of climate change.

      And it appears a summer particularly hot or dry somewhere is climate change, but a winter particularly cold is just weather. Bias anybody? You get to see only what you want to see.

      Globally this summer is cooler than past so far. You won’t read that anywhere but is the truth as far as our measurements can be trusted.

      1. The King of FAIL strikes again. You ever meet one of those guys that hit straight A’s in school but failed at life?

        “Globally this summer is cooler than past so far. You won’t read that anywhere but is the truth as far as our measurements can be trusted.” – Javier

        If it can’t be read anywhere then how do you know it? Perhaps provide us with a source to this knowable but unreadable information you have referred to.

        Summer in the NH started on June 21st. That’s 38 days ago.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer

        Here’s the June data so far.

        “June 2017 extended the spell of exceptional global warmth that has now lasted since mid-2015, but was closer to normal than any month since July 2015. It was:
        -0.38OC warmer than the average June from 1981-2010;
        -the second warmest June on record, though only marginally warmer than June 2015;
        -0.06OC cooler than June 2016.”

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

        “The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in June 2017 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.36°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.71°C above the 20th century average), and was the 3rd warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.70°C per century.”

        http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jun_wld.html

        Can we have some more FAILS please Javier? I’ve seriously lost count of how bad your predictions are. (I’m starting to suspect someone is aping Javier. I don’t remember him being this daft).

        1. You should work for NASA Javier and sort out those dumb dummies. I’m sure they’ll be mesmerized with your intellect and knowledge base. Especially all that stuff you know that can’t be read anywhere. Also you can update them on the six months of darkness thing lol.

          https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/customize.html

          “chart shows that with nearly two months still left in the melt season, sea ice area is already below what would have been a yearly low in the 1980s.”

          http://www.businessinsider.com/arctic-ice-melting-chart-2017-7

        2. but was closer to normal than any month since July 2015

          You seem to have a problem reading what you post. Your info just agreed with me. This summer is cooler than the last so far. Temperatures are going down since February 2016.

          1. “Globally this summer is cooler than past so far” – Javier

            Summer began on June 21 in the NH.

            See the part about “the second warmest June on record”
            So far the only year that summer 2017 is cooler than is 2016. It’s hotter than all the rest. That’s what the “second place” thing is all about.

            You have trouble understanding basic definitions and reading basic sentences.

      2. “World corn production is going up, as always.” – Javier

        FAIL lol one more for the list of fails eh Doc!

        “Corn Production last year (*) was 1067.21 million tons. This year’s 1031.86 estimated million tons could represent a decrease of 35.35 million tons or a -3.31% in corn production around the globe.”

        https://www.worldcornproduction.com

        More FAILS please Javier. You’re a hoot!

        https://youtu.be/Ex2r86G0sdc

        “All in all it looks like 2015 will be the year of Peak Warmth for quite some time.” – Javier

        https://archive.is/F9a1N#selection-1995.0-2021.289.

        August 12, 2016- “I betcha next winter will see a larger than usual sea-ice growth. It tends to happen when the melting has been intense, like in 2013 after the 2012 melt.” – Javier

        https://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/arctic-alarmists-screaming/#comment-16796

        A list of Javier’s past pronouncements:

        01/02/2017 AT 8:19 PM
        “2017 will again show more Arctic sea ice than 2007, because the trend has changed”

        01/07/2017 AT 11:43 PM
        “Arctic sea ice is not decreasing. There will be more of it in 2017 than in 2016. You should be happy about it.”

        03/13/2016 AT 8:24 AM
        “If you are capable of tracing a straight line you will see that Arctic sea ice volume has been going nowhere since 2007.”

        01/10/2016 AT 8:45 PM
        ” it is easy to predict that in two years time, during a La Niña year that is likely to take place you are very likely to get quite a lot more Arctic sea ice.”

        01/09/2016 AT 3:48 PM
        “Once this El Niño is over by about 2017, Arctic sea ice will go back to growing”

        1. You are the one having a problem with trends. Did you see the figure above?
          There’s yearly variability but corn production is going UP.

          Corn is doing good with global warming so far. That’s a fact.

          And regarding Arctic sea ice this year, so far so good. It looks like I will be adding another point to that graph in October.

          1. 2017 is in fifth place. Yeah big recovery! The trend is clearly turning towards massive increases in arctic sea ice lol sarc :/
            https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/blog/polview.html

            https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop.ver1/data/graph/plot_extent_n_v2.csv

            Here’s a link to a map similar to what you posted but with a little more data for context.

            http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/SICE_curve_extent_LA_EN_20170728.png

            Here’s one for volume.

            http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20170728.png

            And here’s the thickness map.

            http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_map_thick_LA_EN_20170728.png

            Fortunately, we only have to put up with your inane blather for another 12 months or so before your comedic predictions fail, unlike your “cooling until 2030” predictions.

            1. Survivalist, I have Javier x’d out (I have no interest spending any time on that inane drivel) but some of your rebuttals are pretty good. Generally the DMI numbers seem to be considered less accurate than PIOMAS. PIOMAS issues numbers twice monthly now and was still lowest last time, though 2012 was getting close.

              All the agencies now indicate that there is very little thick ice left in now, the US Navy site shows it most strikingly I think (see attached).

              Last year there was a paper that compared various volume numbers from direct satellite measurements of thickness (e.g. SMOS and CryoSat) or from models (PIOMAS) for one, with direct measurements using the NASA IceBridge flights, and concluded:

              “All satellite-retrieved ice thickness products and PIOMAS overestimate the thickness of thin ice (1 m or less) compared to IceBridge for which SMOS has the smallest bias (0.26 m)”

              I think they are assuming the flight measurements are the standard to judge others.

              http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/8/9/713/htm

              PIOMAS and CryoSat match pretty well through winter (CryoSat goes off line in May as it’s sensors don’t work with melt ponds around). SMOS has only really been up for a couple of years so this summer might be the first time to get decent comparison. There are also two US Army mass balance buoys and, while that’s not much of a sample, they tend also to show thinner ice in their area than currently measured or calculated by most agencies.

              So if PIOMAS does overestimate and as there is more thin ice now, it is likely that it is biased high compared to previous years.

              The chart below shows the US Navy thickness chart and is a prediction for next week. There used to be lots of blacks and reds (4 and 5m) and they’ve pretty much gone, and the greens and yellows have gone really fast this year as well (3 to 3.5m). Apart from it’s thinness the ice left is young, porous and smashed up so it’s easy to push around and melt. This may be issue with the satellite measurements and calculation models – they haven’t really seen these sort of widespread conditions so haven’t had much chance to be calibrated for them.

            2. Thanks George. I like the work the navy does on arctic ice thickness. US and UK have been keeping a close track of it for a long time. It seems to me that they likely have a good grasp on it.
              It’ll be interesting to see how the next few years go.

            3. 2017 is in fifth place. Yeah big recovery!

              It doesn’t need to recover. Not melting is enough to falsify the hypothesis and leave those predictions of Arctic doom in ridicule.

              The problem with alarmism is that it leaves very little room for failure so it usually dies from its own exaggerations.

            4. Speaking of falsifying the hypothesis.

              “Arctic sea ice is not decreasing. There will be more of it in 2017 than in 2016.”
              http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-january-1-2017/#comment-591556

              “We are having a cool spring”
              http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-176/#comment-28996

              “All in all it looks like 2015 will be the year of Peak Warmth for quite some time.”
              https://archive.is/F9a1N#selection-1995.0-2021.289

              “next winter will see a larger than usual sea-ice growth. It tends to happen when the melting has been intense, like in 2013 after the 2012 melt.” ~ Javier
              https://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/arctic-alarmists-screaming/#comment-16796

              Face it Javier. You are a complete and total failure.

      3. False argument on corn Javier.
        What kind of trick/fool argument are trying? Why?
        Did you consider that global corn production is up for reasons such as more fertilizer applied or more acreage planted?
        You belittle yourself with stupid stuff like that.

        2. Whatever the reasons, corn production has been going up during 40 years of global warming. Your prediction that corn production is going to decrease due to global warming is inane and lacks support.

          I wonder what you would be saying if like Arctic sea ice, corn production hadn’t changed in 10 years.

          The problem with global warming alarmism is that it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It is all vacuous doom predictions.

      4. “Globally this summer is cooler than past so far.” – Javier

        April 2017 was second-warmest April on record
        https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2587/april-2017-was-second-warmest-april-on-record/
        May 2017 was second-warmest May on record
        https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2600/may-2017-was-second-warmest-may-on-record/
        June 2017 was fourth-warmest June on record
        “Last month was 0.69 degrees Celsius warmer than the mean June temperature from 1951-1980. It is surpassed by June 2016 (+0.79 °C) and June 2015 and 1998 (+0.78 °C) and only insignificantly warmer than June 2005 (+0.68 °C).”
        https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2607/june-2017-was-fourth-warmest-june-on-record/

        My question is this Doc: globally summer 2017 is cooler than past what summers so far; 2016, 2015, 2005, and 1998? Is that what you mean? Because it’s pretty much warmer than all the other summers so far, except those 4, in 137 years of record keeping. 137 minus 4 equals 133. So, hotter than 133, cooler than 4. Is that what you mean when you write “Globally this summer is cooler than past so far”?

        1. Cooler than last. The p/l was a typo.

          2015-16 El Niño has clearly helped the alarmist argument. But is gone now. Since February 2016 temperatures are going down. Get used to the end of temperature records for quite some time.

          1. “Since February 2016 temperatures are going down” – Javier

            Do you understand the difference between a temperature going down and a positive temperature anomaly decreasing? I’m guessing you do, but from reading what you write it seems that you don’t. You should learn to communicate more precisely. My guess is that obfuscation is your agenda so this inprecise communication is part of your M.O. It seems to me that as your argument gets more desperate in light of the facts you are ratcheting up the obfuscation and the imprecision of your words. Your agenda is not science, truth seeking, or analysis of the facts. Your agenda is conflict seeking and obscufation.

            “Although the global temperature anomaly peaked in February 2016 and declined steadily until June that year, it rose again in July and August, and has remained high since. February and March 2017 were the most anomalous months since April 2016. April 2017 was less extreme, but still:

            0.51*C warmer than the average April from 1981-2010;
            the second warmest April on record;
            0.18*C cooler than April 2016.”
            https://climate.copernicus.eu/resources/data-analysis/average-surface-air-temperature-analysis/monthly-maps/april-2017

            “Get used to the end of temperature records for quite some time.” – Javier
            Yes. Now were merely in second place, behind 2016. Is that what you consider a victory for your argument Javier? You think you’re a winner because 2017 isn’t another record year and is only in second place? You’re pathetic doc.

  28. About all that methane tied up in the sea floors thawing and being released……

    I try to maintain the ability to think as much like a child, deliberately, as possible, because this enables one to avoid some cultural and yes technical prejudices. Occam’s Razor is a superb rule of thumb, a very useful TOOL, but it’s utterly foolish to rely on it as if it were a physical law, because the simplest explanation is NOT by any means always the simplest one.

    And as Sherlock Holmes put it, when you have eliminated the impossibilities, one of the remaining possibilities, no matter HOW UNLIKELY, must be the explanation.

    A few years back, I speculated that in my opinion, which incidentally I still hold, some ships and maybe a few aircraft have probably been lost because a largish quantity of methane water ice broke loose from the sea floor, for one reason or another.

    It seems likely that this hydrate would melt pretty fast, especially if it breaks loose in many separate pieces, thus having LOTS of surface area.

    The rising columns of bubbles might easily be reason enough that some ships. Iron ships can sink very quickly, and low flying aircraft would experience stalled engines within a matter of a few seconds, depending on the methane concentration, if they fly into a methane cloud.

    The pilot of an old piston engined fighter who might have flown into such a methane cloud at a few hundred feet altitude could be in the water before it even occurs to him to try to radio a message, because he would be too busy trying to figure out why his engine stalled.

    Generally speaking, I was roundly ridiculed for these obviously speculative thoughts.

    But so far as I know, there is still no other likely explanation for various LARGE pits observed in the sea floor, pits that are obviously not impact craters, lol.

    Anybody keeping up on such questions as WHY some ships have inexplicably sunk, and some aircraft have been inexplicably lost? What are some other possible explanations for these craters?

  29. And about that methane seepage and CO2 uptake by sea water mentioned upthread:
    https://www.usgs.gov/news/ocean-absorption-carbon-dioxide-more-makes-methane-emissions-seafloor-methane-seeps

    “The ocean waters near the surface of the Arctic Ocean absorbed 2,000 times more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than the amount of methane that escaped into the atmosphere from the same waters, according to a study by the USGS Gas Hydrates Project and collaborators in Germany and Norway. The study was conducted near Norway’s Svalbard Islands”

    A really key fact is not mentioned. How much CO2 is absorbed in other waters NOT OVER OR NEAR a methane seep?

    The ABC’s of oceanography tell us that cold upwelling nutrient rich waters encourage the growth of the micro organisms that are the base of the ocean food chains, but this upwelling would be happening anyway, methane seepage or no.

    A methane molecule is easily metabolized by many species found in sea water, this is also ABC level.

    But understanding why methane rich waters would absorb a couple of thousand times more CO2 than nearby waters at the same temperatures, same light levels, same nutrient levels ( other than methane of course ) is a great puzzle, to me at least.

    OTOH, I have never studied marine biology in a classroom, or read very deeply into the lay literature.
    If anybody can recommend a great recent book on marine biology, one accessible to somebody with the basics, thanks in advance. One that does not cost two hundred bucks, lol.

    1. ” … upwelling would be happening anyway, …”

      I think that is their point – upwelling typically only happens due to currents colliding with land or wind-driven surface waters being blown away from an area, thus pulling cold waters up – why would colder (denser) water rise up into warmer waters otherwise?
      The rising methane bubbles entrain the cold (dense) nutrient rich waters, causing them to rise to the surface – like an airlift: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlift_(dredging_device)
      These waters mix with water containing hungry algae which now can utilize _more_ sunlight and CO2 since there is now more iron, phosphorous, etc. to build their cellular machinery.

      There’s not so much light down there at the “shallow” (260-295 feet; 80-90 meters deep) methane seeps.
      (depth per the link you gave). “Shallow” being relative I guess. These depths are pretty risky for scuba diving.

      from:
      http://www.pnas.org/content/114/21/5355

      “… Continuous sea−air gas flux data collected over a shallow ebullitive methane seep field on the Svalbard margin reveal atmospheric CO2 uptake rates (−33,300 ± 7,900 μmol m−2⋅d−1) twice that of surrounding waters and ∼1,900 times greater than the diffusive sea−air methane efflux (17.3 ± 4.8 μmol m−2⋅d−1). The negative radiative forcing expected from this CO2 uptake is up to 231 times greater than the positive radiative forcing from the methane emissions. Surface water characteristics (e.g., high dissolved oxygen, high pH, and enrichment of 13C in CO2) indicate that upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich water from near the seafloor accompanies methane emissions and stimulates CO2 consumption by photosynthesizing phytoplankton. … ”

      So the key fact is that twice the CO2 is absorbed over the seeps, or as you prefer, half the CO2 is absorbed NOT over the seeps.

      1. Thanks !

        Methane would indeed contribute to faster and more extensive upwelling, and that would be a key part of the puzzle , if this contribution is significant.

        So- I think your answer nails it down, CO2 is absorbed twice as fast over a methane seep as it is AWAY from a seep, under similar conditions.

        That’s about three orders of magnitude different from the impression created by the author of the link.

  31. I am not so optimistic as some of the other regulars, but energy saving technology is marching right along, and there’s really no predicting just how well we will be able to do when it comes to getting more value from every dollar spent.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/07/28/scientists-just-discovered-material-cools-roofs-homes-zero-energy-required/#2dfec15158da

    If this stuff can be manufactured cheaply, and it LASTS, it will be a real game changer, eventually.

  32. https://www.wired.com/story/mexico-city-killing-parking/

    Some cities are experimenting with the idea that less parking means a more livable city. It appears to be working.

    And it’s something that will mesh very well with self driving cars for hire.

    Sprawl means a car is mandatory, and a car requires a parking space, and parking spaces go a very long way towards CREATING sprawl, and sprawl means mass transit is either less economic , or that it’s not economic at all, due to not having enough riders.

    Get rid of some parking, and you get rid of some cars as well, and tighten up the geography of a city, driving up density. High density means effective and economical mass transit..

    1. Here is what a driver does when his license plate number won’t let him into the city on a certain day. He buys and old clunker with a different plate that pollutes even more. Then drives into the city anyway.

      Reduce parking spaces, kill business. Reduce parking spaces, business goes outside the city limits.
      I see no provision in the plan to increase mass transit, just increase the resident density.
      Good luck with that Mexico, one of the most polluted cities in the world. Maybe you should mandate electric cars and more Uber type systems.
      Hey, you already have the second largest metro system in Norte Americano, moving four million people a day. Only a quarter of a dollar to ride, heavily subsidized.
      Maybe you should look at why people drive in the city, it can’t be very pleasant.

      Realistically, since this only affects new building, it won’t change the sprawl already there and won’t change the pollution much. Good luck to the largest city in North America, Hope you finally figure out the real problems.
      Car ban fails to curb air pollution in Mexico City:
      http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38840076

      1. Here is what a driver does when his license plate number won’t let him into the city on a certain day. He buys and old clunker with a different plate that pollutes even more. Then drives into the city anyway.

        Dunno know bout dat, I have first hand experience with license plate number rationing use of private car driving in Sao Paulo Brazil, while I’m sure there are a few people who opt for a second car to bypass the system, the studies show that the system works pretty well overall. In any case what really works is making the public transport system better and making the entire urban environment more friendly to walkers and bikers or maybe electric scooters…

        https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/28/gogoro-solar-charging-station/

        Gogoro’s solar-powered scooter battery charging station is here

        I still think electric bikes and scooters will be even more disruptive than the four wheeled self driving EVs.

        1. I will find the source reference for the second car problem, gotta run now.
          Too many horses, too many cars, too many people, too much stuff. Sounds like a problem of too much in one place. Spread it out and use EV’s. No air pollution and more parking places.
          Is the future for most of mankind just living in tight little places all congested? Maybe that is the present? At least with EV’s (two or four wheeled), electric trolleys or buses and electric trains the air is cleaner. As long as the source power is clean too.
          Walking is fine, for those who can. There are large numbers of people who can’t walk the long distances needed to even use the subway system. If you are on your feet all day at work, it must be nice to look forward to that long walk home.
          City life is a remnant of the past, from a time when walking was the major mode of transport along with horses. Everything had to be closer.

          Now that we have the ability to spread out due to modern technology, most people live in cities and crowded towns. Go figure.

          1. “Spread it out”

            Sorry Fish, I disagree. Urban sprawl is not the answer. It just puts more pressure on the natural environment and wild life. Humans need to be contained to minimize their impact. Virgin land should not be consumed for more urban development. Instead, old warren out development should be replaced with new more efficient development. Can I say, “the sky is the limit”.

            http://www.ocregister.com/2016/08/24/500-million-project-plans-to-turn-huntington-beach-oil-tank-farm-into-housing-businesses/

            1. Looks like they are using up the last of the available land in a high cost area. I bet they all will have cars. Next will be the build upward, if the ground can handle it.

              That photo of the beach with oil derricks crowding the skyline right behind is just great, humans will do anything.
              Hate to tell you but the urban sprawl/suburban sprawl already happened starting back in the 1950’s.
              The key now is to keep as many watersheds and natural areas protected as possible. Growth will happen, migration will happen.
              I agree, most of the growth should be limited to already developed areas. But we know that will not happen.

              I merely look at the technological innovations that not only allowed the original growth but are now developing to further it.
              Below is a photo of the present, we should choose better than hive living.

            2. Hives are cool, literally.

              On a slightly different note paper

              “It’s unnerving to discover a wasp’s nest dangling outside your house, but perhaps it would be a tad less so with the help of biology student Mattia Menchetti who cleverly realized he could give colored construction paper to a colony of European paper wasps. By gradually providing different paper shades, the wasps turned their homes into a functional rainbow of different colors.

              This isn’t the first time scientists have encountered insects producing colorful materials with the aid of artificial coloring. In 2012, residue from an M&M plant caused local bees to make blue and green honey.”

              Here’s what the paper wasps did with colored paper…
              .

          2. City life is a remnant of the past, from a time when walking was the major mode of transport along with horses. Everything had to be closer.

            Now that we have the ability to spread out due to modern technology, most people live in cities and crowded towns. Go figure.

            Not so fast, sir!

            Cities are the basis of all civilizations. They are, in some ways a natural consequence of scaling laws because as they scale they are much more efficient users of scarce environmental resources.

            Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies
            by Geoffrey West

            From one of the most influential scientists of our time, a dazzling exploration of the hidden laws that govern the life cycle of everything from plants and animals to the cities we live in.

            Visionary physicist Geoffrey West is a pioneer in the field of complexity science, the science of emergent systems and networks. The term “complexity” can be misleading, however, because what makes West’s discoveries so beautiful is that he has found an underlying simplicity that unites the seemingly complex and diverse phenomena of living systems, including our bodies, our cities and our businesses.

            You can listen to West and Sam Harris on Harris’ Podcast, discuss his work and recent book.

            I’ve also been following an organization called Resilient Cities for a couple years, they just had their 8th Global Conference this past May in Bonn Germany.

            http://resilientcities2017.iclei.org/

            Don’t get me wrong, I love wilderness, small towns and country living but I’m also a product of a city of 20 million inhabitants, namely, Sao Paulo and lived in NYC for many years. So I have first hand experience with both the benefits and the down sides of big densely populated urban centers, IMHO the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

            On this one I’ll have to side with HB above.

            1. I too have lived in cities, suburbs and rural.
              I will look into West, think I already have been there.

              Yes, Fred, cities are the basis of civilization in a way. A historical artifact. Actually agriculture is the basis of civilization and cities are a byproduct of agriculture, fishing, and transport (ports, railroads). They are supported by external food, materials, products, transport, water and energy. Totally dependent upon the towns, suburbs and agriculture and external roads that support them. Unsustainable in themselves.

              But more importantly cities are no longer necessary. Your reasoning is that cities are better because things are closer. We no longer need that, we have the disruptive technologies of transport and highways as well as aircraft. And if you look closely at cities, they are filled with vehicles, so they don’t even work very well from a closeness perspective.

              We really don’t need cities anymore, except to put a bunch of people in one place. There is no reason that cities must exist other than overpopulation and poor energy practices.
              Even anthills are not that crowded or nasty. But if people want to live that way, great, more room for the rest of us. Problem is the reach of cities is very wide, way out into rural country.

            2. Your reasoning is that cities are better because things are closer.

              Nope, close, (pun intended) but no cigar… that’s not exactly my reasoning! Neither is it West’s.

              The central observation of “Scale” is that a wide variety of complex systems respond similarly to increases in size. Mr. West demonstrates that these similarities reflect the structural nature of the networks that undergird these systems. The book identifies three core common characteristics of the hierarchal networks that deliver energy to these organisms — whether the diverse circulatory systems that power all forms of animal life or the water and electrical networks that power cities.

              Larger cities tend to use resources more efficiently.

              Granted there are significant downsides to big cities as well due to the same scaling laws.

              Mr. West also provides an elegant explanation of why living organisms have a natural limit to growth and life span following a predictable curve, as an increasing proportion of energy consumed is required for maintenance and less is available to fuel further expansion.

              When he turns to cities, Mr. West shows that infrastructure growth scales in analogous sublinear fashion. Hence, the number of gas stations or length of roads needed when a city doubles its size reflects similar economies of scale. But relevant socioeconomic qualities actually scale superlinearly by the same factor. And while it is good news that large cities produce higher wages and more patents per inhabitant, they also generate relatively greater crime and disease. This conundrum is at the heart of Mr. West’s sustainability concerns. Theoretically, unbounded growth of cities generated by superlinear scaling “if left unchecked, potentially sow[s] the seeds of their inevitable collapse.”

              So at the end of the day we are left with the good, the bad and the ugly.
              Right now our entire global civilization might already be on the verge of collapse due to humankind being in biological overshoot. However cities are better at using less resources for the same amount of people if they were all spread out over wide areas.

              If it is true that we will have 10 billion humans living on this planet a very large percentage of them will by necessity need to use resources more efficiently and that is best accomplished by concentrating them in high density large cities.

            3. I don’t buy it. On my way out, will respond to this later. Should be fun.

            4. I still don’t buy it. Cities run heavily on externalities. Simple local efficiency calculations don’t cover the reality.
              Do they eat less energetic food. Does it have to be transported shorter distances. Is their food waste lower or higher? Does the water have to be transported long distances. Is sitting in city traffic really more efficient than driving a longer distance elsewhere?
              I have questions, lots of them. 🙂

              China has used more concrete in just a few years lately than the US used in all of the twentieth century. Much of that went into their city building craze. Concrete is highly energetic and GHG producing. Considering those high rises might have a 30 year life span, not good at all and certainly not efficient building.

              http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/26/news/international/china_energy_efficiency/index.htm

            5. Hmmm, looks like a daily migration to the cities. Then escape at night. Transport makes the city run. Probably be better if the business was more distributed.

            6. Fish, I disagree with you again. I my book, everything in the maps above is all city. What I see is the movement between residential zoning and office zoning in a city. Without this consideration being done in a city atmosphere. It would only increase energy needs and could destroy up to 100 times more natural space. I also don’t disagree with zoning that separates residential from industry.

            7. Manhattan’s population nearly doubles during the day. Sure many of them commute from the five boroughs but it sure is not a walk. Also about 270,000 come from outside the city each day.
              Some other cities are much worse, such as Houston, Dallas and San Diego.

              There are 128 million US commuters. Here is how they travel.
              Drive Alone 75.7 %
              Carpool 12.19 %
              Bus 2.52 %
              Walk 3.26 %
              Bike 0.38 %
              Subway 1.45 %

              Get over it, cars are here to stay and they will only become more popular when they go EV.

              Not surprisingly the largest group of commuters travel suburb to suburb (about 41 million) . While you guys were not looking a lot of industry and business moved into the suburbs. Even in the semi-rural areas highly specialized small industry is scattered around.

              Suburb to Suburb Commuters 40.8 Million
              Within City Commuters 27.4 Million
              Rural to Rural Commuters 20.4 Million
              Suburb to City Commuters 18.2 Million
              Central City to Suburb Commuters 8 Million
              Outer Suburb to Inner Suburb Commuters 3.6 Million
              Outer Central City to Inner Suburb 2.6 Million
              Central City to Rural “Extreme Commuters” 0.4 Million

              So the within city commuters are far outnumbered by the other commuters. Even the in city commuters travel miles to work.

              It’s not the good ole days when the company put up a big clock tower and whistles so the employees who lived in the company housing nearby could get to work on time by marching a few blocks. Nope those days are over here. Now we have cars and can drive to work listening to whatever on the latest electronic gadget. Then we drive home in the evening. A migration every day due to tech advances.

              Where would they all live if they lived in the city?

            1. What the energy break point for car commuting versus walking to work?
              Using and EV supplied by local PV, we get 255 kcal per mile without pollution.
              A walker uses about 3200 kcal per 30 miles. But wait the food had about 5 times that input to be grown, processed, transported etc. So they use about 533 kcal per mile with pollution.
              So if a walker had to commute one mile to work, a car could go about two miles for the same energy, but with less overall pollution. If the car has 4 occupants it could travel 8 miles.
              But wait, the food uses a lot of land space, machinery and infrastructure to be produced and delivered. So maybe the car can go 10 miles each way and have far less effect on the environment than supporting all that exercise.

              Even simple acts on our part are networked backward into many industrial and energy actions. Each action within those links is linked outward to other actions.
              I agree, a total systems analysis is needed to even find out what is important and what is not.
              Since we may have much more ability and control very soon, CRAZY questions need to be asked.
              Is walking in a city more efficient than driving an advanced EV in a city?
              Does it matter if neither pollutes or has a deleterious effect?
              Is working at home more efficient than commuting?
              Is work even necessary in an advanced civilization?
              Will energy become so plentiful and use so low that it will essentially be free?
              What do you pay self-maintaining machines to produce products?
              What do we want our future world to look like and be like?
              What if almost all the space between houses and buildings was natural growth (or near natural growth).
              What if our food grew wild or just grew like weeds?
              Do we actually need roads/highways? (oops, gone even further into my view of the future).
              Do we want to invest a lot of material/time and energy into cities that will probably be devastated by sea level rise and storms?

            2. Ooops, forgot that EV’s are generally even more efficient in slower city traffic.

            3. Or, as the Austrians were discussing in 1913- “Who is our next Habsburg Ruler going to be?”

            4. Such are the loser’s fate. They ask the wrong questions, though they believe they are asking the right ones.

            5. You forgot to ask if people are even necessary? 😉

              But seriously, those are exactly the kinds of questions that need to be asked and we may or may not like the answers depending on whose ox is being gored and under what circumstances.

              Maybe we can bring back a few Aurochs from extinction and gore those instead.

              One thing is for sure, we need a scientifically literate population and deep systems thinking leadership. Not sure where we’re going to get either of those on short notice. But my sister in Germany told me that Yuval Noah Harari’s Homo Deus a Brief History of Tomorrow is on the best sellers list there, after I made her aware of it.

              Your wild food corridors might double as habitat for E.O. Wilson’s Half Earth idea and so on. We could educate more people to work on projects like the next LHC and not have people working in stupid meaningless office jobs. Civilized societies could find ways to provide benefits like free universal health coverage and pay people a living stipend even if they were unemployed… etc… etc… Sounds like a lot of crazy ideas right now but there is a slim chance that such things may be considered normal in the future.

            6. Rooted in cutting edge biology and materials science, as well as contemporary art, Armstrong’s account of how we’d build biological cities feels at first like a thought experiment but evolves into a plausible vision of tomorrow’s cities.
              How to Grow a City
              The inspiration for the idea of biological cities comes from experimental architects, materials scientists, and synthetic biologists who are all coming to question the idea that a robust city is built like a machine. Now, it’s beginning to seem that cities can also be grown like plants, or baked like bread

              What’s truly exciting about Armstrong’s essay, however, is her research on “protocells,” or cell-like chemical packages without DNA that can metabolize and transform other chemicals. These protocells, which can be manipulated to have a number of different features, have already been used to “heal” crumbling bricks by synthesizing limestone in the presence of water. And in a group project called Hylozoic Ground, which Armstrong works on, protocells have been used for carbon capture inside a biomimetic framework that moves and changes in response to the people walking through it.

              https://io9.gizmodo.com/5894571/how-to-grow-a-biological-city-of-the-future

            7. Yeah, I read about that in some biomimicry blog… Self healing concrete. Not sure we can discuss such ideas here because it might upset some people who think that is symptomatic of evil technologies underpinning the capitalist plutarchy… 😉

              Rachel Armstrong : Experimental Architecture – 22 Jan ’15
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJGi4ro47Aw

    1. LOL!

      Insects Unlocked… says the little spider lurking on the home page, eh?!
      I guess they don’t discriminate against many legged Arthropods… 😉

      In any case it’s nice to know that there are naturalists in Texas…

      1. It’s GOOD to be open minded and accept that all Texans, and all southerners, and all old Baptists, etc, are not necessarily either stupid or ignorant, and that not all such people are entirely preoccupied with their own self interests.

        http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/trumps-approval-rating-sinks-forty-two-percent-texas-texas-roundup/

        “Not Winning
        Donald Trump won Texas by a decisive nine points in the November election, but now the president’s approval rating is underwater. According to a new Gallup poll measuring the average job approval rating over his first six months in office, only 42 percent of Texans approve of his performance. Texas is among 31 states across the country where the majority of poll respondents disapprove of the job Trump has done since the election, according to CNN. And the Lone Star State is one of ten other states where Trump’s approval rating has flipped after voting for him in November, joined by Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, Georgia, Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina. The only states with a larger net loss than Texas are Michigan and North Carolina, and Texas is tied with Indiana for the biggest gap between Trump’s margin of victory in November and his net job approval—a difference of eighteen points. As Vox notes, Gallup’s method of polling “all adults” might inflate the impact of Texas’s Hispanic voters, who historically have lower election turnout rates (in a recent poll by Texas Lyceum, 61 percent of Texas Hispanics disapproved of the job Trump is doing). But the overall numbers are still pretty shocking for a state that’s been solid red for decades.”

        And FURTHERMORE, Texas is a leader in wind energy, and will soon be a leader in the solar energy field as well. Of course it’s a geographical accident Texas has such great wind and solar resources, and is so LARGE…….. but then it’s also a geographical accident that Texas has so much oil and gas.

        The politics of New York state would be ENTIRELY unrecognizable if New York had size, and oil and gas, on the Texas scale.

        Both Texas and New York arguably EXIST as political entities as the result of historical accidents, when you get right down to bedrock.

        I remain firm in my belief that one HELL of a lot of people who voted FOR Trump did so in order to vote AGAINST HRC, and the culture war she epitomizes in their minds.

        Big D Democrats, and environmentalists might conclude differently, but they sure as hell ought to give my arguments some serious thought-IF they want to win back control of the country.

        When you can’t have everything you want, you have to make some hard decisions about what you want the most, and electoral politics in this country are such that the D’s will continue to lose, overall, for some years yet, unless they back off on forced cultural change, and emphasize the economic issues that matter so much to so many voters. The greens, the racial minorities, the sexual minorities, etc, are all ALREADY ON BOARD, and there isn’t even a snowball’s chance in hell more than a minute fraction of these voters will vote R, EXCEPT maybe if they are scared about their JOBS.

        I can’t see any body who really knows the environmental score preferring the cultural changes wanted by the liberal establishment over sound environmental policies.
        Now if you can’t have BOTH, then you have to decide WHICH is more important to you, as a voter, and as a political advocate.

        I advocate for environmentally sound policies, and for any Democrat that I think is ethically qualified for high office, as opposed to any Republican, except occasionally at the local level. Where I live, there’s not a lot of difference between the policies advocated by local district supervisors, sheriffs, etc, in respect to party lines, so it’s more important to vote for whichever candidate seems the most competent and energetic. I consistently vote D in state level elections.

        I live so close to North Carolina that I spend almost as much time in the Tar Heel State as I do in Ole Virginny, on business, or shopping, and I KNOW that the PEOPLE of NC are far more liberal, far more tolerant, far more forward looking,etc, than anybody who doesn’t spend time there would ever guess, based on what they can read in the msm.

        The Tar Heels I know personally who voted for Trump are generally those who are as ignorant as the day is long, the sort who dropped out of school, and work as laborers, or farm hands. That sort of people never read a paper, and if they watch the news, it’s Fox News.

        The Tar Heels who are better educated, better informed in terms of the BIG PICTURE, voted for Trump primarily in order to vote AGAINST HRC, among my acquaintances, for one or more of several reasons. They were scared about their jobs, or they were sick and tired of being made fun of in the national press, and in forums such as this one, or they simply hated her guts because she in their opinion was arrogant as hell and acted like a spoiled princess, waiting to be crowned Empress, etc.

        Big D Democrats will do well to run candidates in future elections that are not pulling career long baggage trains. It doesn’t even matter if the baggage is real, as a practical matter, in terms of winning elections. What MATTERS , in the minds of voters, is what they BELIEVE.

        Now as it happens, I also believe, and have often said so, that the IMPORTANT demographic trends are all in favor of the liberalish leftish leaning establishment, especially in terms of cultural and environmental issues, and that in the long term, barring bad luck, this country will have a government much more like the ones that prevail in places like Canada, the UK, Germany, France, etc.

        …………

        But not until the two older generations are either mostly all dead or in nursing homes, and the voting rolls are saturated with the young people HRC and her mouthpieces made fun of for going for Sanders. If she hadn’t been so arrogant and condescending in talking to and about them, and had spent less time making secret speeches to banksters, she would be president today.

        If she hadn’t felt ENTITLED to write and rewrite the rules to suit herself, there wouldn’t have been any significant email scandals, because any stinks so exposed would have been trivial enough that the voting public would have soon forgotten about them. Her secret server cost her the White House, because the stream of little stinks kept coming and growing.

        It takes a goddamned partisan nincompoop to blame other people for HER mistakes.

        But even partisan nincompoops are capable of learning from experience, and can do better next time around.

        1. OFM, you are correct that not all southern/ baptists are necessarily ignorant or stupid, of course. What percent of the white ones didn’t vote for the trump embarassment? Some of those are smart ones.

  34. Here something to chew on, climate sensitivity as determined from Pliocene carbon dioxide concentrations is much higher than previously suspected.
    Data
    and modelling for the middle Pliocene (!3–3.3 Myr) indicate
    that the global mean temperature was 2.4–2.9 “C warmer than
    preindustrial conditions3,4, and !4 “C warmer during the early
    Pliocene (!4–4.2 Myr; ref. 5). If changes in carbon dioxide and
    associated feedbacks were the primary agents forcing climate over
    these timescales, and estimates of global temperatures are correct,
    then our results imply a very high Earth-system climate sensitivity
    for the middle (3.3 Myr) to early (4.2 Myr) Pliocene ranging
    between 7.1 ± 1.0 “C and 8.7 ± 1.3 “C per CO2 doubling, and
    9.6±1.4 “C per CO2 doubling, respectively.

    http://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Pagani/1_2009%20Pagani_NatureGeosci.pdf

    Isn’t it nice to see a paper based on actual field research into a time when CO2 was much higher than pre-industrial levels and the system was much more stable than now?

    1. Here we reconstruct atmospheric carbon
      dioxide concentrations for the early and middle Pliocene, when
      temperatures were about 3–4 ◦C warmer than preindustrial
      values3–5, to estimate Earth-system climate sensitivity from a
      fully equilibrated state of the planet. We demonstrate that only
      a relatively small rise in atmospheric CO2 levels was associated
      with substantial global warming about 4.5 million years ago,
      and that CO2 levels at peak temperatures were between about
      365 and 415 ppm. We conclude that the Earth-system climate
      sensitivity has been significantly higher over the past five
      million years than estimated from fast feedbacks alone.

      Some might find that piece of information somewhat alarming… I wonder how many of our so called resident climate science skeptics have an understanding of complex nonlinear dynamics and chaos math?

      Daily CO2

      Mauna Loa Observatory | Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations

      July 26, 2017 406.60 ppm NOAA-ESRL

      July 26, 2016 403.95 ppm NOAA-ESRL

      Daily Records (by Year)

      Highest-ever daily average CO2 | Maua Loa Observatory

      2017 (so far)

      412.63 ppm on Arpil 26, 2017 (NOAA-ESRL)
      411.27 ppm on May 15, 2017 (NOAA-ESRL)

      2016
      409.44 ppm on April 9, 2016 (Scripps)
      409.39 ppm on April 8, 2016 (Scripps)

      If you are not alarmed you must be on some really good shit!

      1. I gave up being alarmed, Wastes too much energy. Need it for kayaking.

  35. Sediment cores from an undisturbed Siberian lake reveal a warmer, wetter Arctic

    A study published yesterday in the journal Science analyzed the longest land-based sediment core ever taken in the Arctic and found that during this period, from 3.6 million to 2.2 million years ago, the area around the North Pole was much warmer and wetter than it is now.

    In the middle Pliocene, summer temperatures in the Arctic were around 60 degrees Fahrenheit, which is about 14 degrees warmer than they are now, the study found.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-free-arctic-in-pliocene-last-time-co2-levels-above-400ppm/

    1. Another key point: “The Earth’s system is kind of a sluggish beast. It takes a while for the ocean and atmosphere to respond to this rapid rise in carbon dioxide.” Glacier ice is a great climate buffer but one that is rapidly disappearing, at least on the scale of centuries.

      1. But, sea levels, which were more or less constant for the past 2,000 years, have climbed at a rate of roughly 1.7mm a year in the past century; in the past 25 years, that rate has doubled to 3.4mm a year, already enough to create adverse effects in coastal areas. A conservative estimate holds that waters will rise roughly 0.9 metres by the year 2100, which will place hundreds of millions of people in jeopardy.

            3. Let’s hope the endangered species act does not get destroyed.

        4. Do you really believe the bullshit that you write?

          The rate has not doubled. The way we measure it has changed. With satellites, including a significant Glacial Isostatic Adjudtment, it is 3.4 mm/yr. But tide gauges still give ~ 1.9 mm/yr. So no acceleration of sea level rise. Nice trick to stitch both and claim an nonexistent acceleration.

          Bruce Douglas in 1997 found:
          “The mean trend of 9 groups made up of the newly-selected records is also 1.8 mm/yr ± 0.1 for global sea level rise over the last 100+ years. A somewhat smaller set of longer records in 8 groups (minimum 70 years, average 91) gives 1.9 mm/yr ± 0.1 for the mean trend.
          Douglas, B. C. (1997). Global sea rise: a redetermination. Surveys in Geophysics, 18(2-3), 279-292.

          His data was extended by Robert Rohde to 2005 (figure bottom right below) and shows no sign of acceleration.
          https://www.nap.edu/read/12675/chapter/6#31

          M.N. Bouin & G. Wöppelmann in 2010 used GPS to estimate vertical movements of tide gauges and reached the same result:
          “We, in turn, confirm the value of 1.8 ± 0.5 mm yr–1 for the 20th century average global sea level rise”
          https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/180/1/193/598078

          J.A. Church & N.J. White in 2011 used coastal and island sea-level measurements from 1880 to 2009. Their result:
          “The global average sea-level rise from 1880 to 2009 is about 210 mm. The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1 and since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year−1. There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year−2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year−2, respectively.”
          https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1

          That rate of acceleration is tiny, and considering that there is about 0.1 mm/yr difference between studies, not as certain as they claim.

          That’s why in 2016 Fasullo et al., published:
          Fasullo, J. T., R. S. Nerem, and B. Hamlington. “Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?.” Scientific reports 6 (2016): 31245.
          https://www.nature.com/srep/2016/160810/srep31245/full/srep31245.html

          Clearly the acceleration hasn’t been detected as of 2015. Another big fail of the global warming scare.

          1. – Some deniers will never concede anything, even the obvious. No matter how many times they’re shown wrong, they’ll keep repeating the same nonsense endlessly. That’s why some of their “arguments” are better described as “zombie arguments” — even if you kill them, they just come back from the dead.

            – Deniers tend to use the “change the subject” tactic — a lot. When the topic under discussion gets too hot for them, rather than admit any mistake they just switch to another.

            – Focusing on a single issue, until it’s dealt with anywhere near completion, is anathema to deniers. That’s why they tend to argue about as many issues at the same time as they can get away with. Sometimes it becomes ridiculous, raising so many criticisms that it would require massive amounts of time just to discuss them all — it’s a rhetorical technique called the “Gish gallop.”

            – One of the most effective ways to counter denier propaganda is to force them to stay on topic. When they can’t change the subject to avoid it, they either devolve into ludicrous claims, or just go silent.

            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/understanding-sea-level-rise/

            Sea level rise has accelerated
            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/07/25/sea-level-rise-has-accelerated/

            A few other stations
            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/07/25/a-few-other-stations/

            1. Tamino is a blogger. Whatever he says is irrelevant for science. Go look what the specialist scientists are saying. Church & White are very well known names in sea level measurements. Their 2011 article:
              Church, J. A., & White, N. J. (2011). Sea-level rise from the late 19th to the early 21st century. Surveys in Geophysics, 32(4-5), 585-602.
              http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1
              Has been cited 780 times according to Google scholar.

              You are trying to combat science with disinformation and personal attacks.

              Sea level rise acceleration is minimal. 300-400 mm are projected by IPCC for 2100. We’ll probably get even less. Go scare some children with that.

            2. Tamino is a blogger. Whatever he says is irrelevant for science. Go look what the specialist scientists are saying.

              Really now, do you think nobody here knows how to Google?! That’s not only bullshit it is blatantly ad hominem!

              Grant Foster aka Tamino, is an actual climate scientist. With many published peer reviewed papers.

              Here’s one he co-authored with Patrick T. Brow

              Time and tide: analysis of sea level time series Grant Foster • Patrick T. Brow

              Received: 13 March 2014 / Accepted: 18 June 2014ÓSpringer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

              Abstract:
              A number of recent papers have examined sea level data, both local tide gauge records and regional/global averages, to estimate not only how fast sea level is rising but how the rate has changed over time, i.e. its pattern of acceleration and deceleration. In addition, a number of claims of cyclic/quasi-periodic variations have been proposed. However, many of these papers contain technical problems which call their results into question. In particular, the issue of auto correlation is often ignored, and even when it is addressed its impact has sometimes been misinterpreted. Auto correlation does more than just affect the standard errors of regression analysis, it can also make the spectrum of a noise process distinctly ‘‘red’’ and therefore be highly suggestive of low-frequency periodic or pseudoperiodic behavior when none is present. If any analysis is applied which acts as a band-pass filter, it can further exaggerate the illusion of oscillatory behavior. These issues are highlighted in a small number of recent papers, in order to improve the quality of future work on this subject.

              Time and tide: analysis of sea level time series (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265467321_Time_and_tide_analysis_of_sea_level_time_series [accessed Jul 30, 2017].

              Why don’t you go read some of his papers, Javier?

            3. He is piggybacking on real scientists. Not clear he even has a PhD. He gives his affiliation as Tempo Analytics Dover Foxcroft USA, an unknown company with unknown activity. Everything looks fake in him.

            4. “And apparently you’ve never heard that polar regions are dark six months a year” – Javier

              http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-july-25-2017/#comment-609734

              He’s smarter than you. Up until a few days ago you thought polar regions has 6 months of total darkness every year. I assume you thought the other 6 months was 24 hour sunlight. Good job doc lol you thought the polar regions fluctuate between 24 hour darkness and 24 hour sunlight every 6 months. Good job doc! Where’d you get your PhD, Trump university?

              https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/extreme-cherry-ice/

            6. Old Javier sometimes gets his propaganda so mixed up, Trump U might actually be of some help– it was founded by a con man.

            7. 163 days of total darkness at North Pole.
              94 days of total dark at 78.3 degrees N latitude.
              No days of total dark at Arctic Circle. 30 days of 24 hour sun.

            8. And what matters for Arctic ice and ocean is the amount of insolation, that is negligible during six months a year in the polar regions.

              During that period the polar regions are losing energy to space and not gaining any significant energy from the sun, and the warmer it is and the less sea ice there is in winter, the more energy is lost through infrared radiation. The albedo effect doesn’t work for six months as there isn’t enough insolation to begin.

              It seems something so simple is difficult to understand by some here, that rather debate on the number of days with a little bit of light.

            9. A question. Isn’t the greenhouse effect attributed to CO2, supposed to result in reduced radiation out into space in the absence of incoming radiation, trapping the heat absorbed by the ocean from the sun? I though that was what the greenhouse effect was all about. Guess I had it all wrong!

    1. Don’t worry the coming solar eclipse will take care of the problem one way or another…
      I guess we really do live in rather dark times… 😉

      Newsweek reported that Astrologer Marjorie Orr noted that the Aug. 21 solar eclipse is part of the Saros series, which has included eclipses that have coincided with major political events like the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the death of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a period of unrest in Chicago — known as the Pineapple Primary — that involved bombings, and an attempted assassination of President William Taft while on a trip to Mexico. Coincidence? You decide.

      WTF?! Newsweek, et tu Brutus?

      1. It is on my birthday.
        And I’m perfectly located in Central Oregon.

        1. Well Happy Eclipse B’day to ya! I’ve been debating driving to the nearest town with a full eclipse. I’d have to drive to someplace in South Carolina. That’s about 580 miles from where I live or about an eight and a half hour trip one way. I might go with my son.

          1. Hi Fred,

            Breakfast, lunch or dinner, as the occasion suits, is on me if you want to join me watching in South Carolina. I’m not staying overnight, just driving down and back probably with three or four friends.

            You can get me using my handle here at gmail, or post an email address of your own, and I will get in touch with you.

            This invitation applies to any other regulars here who may be able to get to South Carolina. It’s going to be a four hour or so drive one way for me, depending on the location I choose.

            Incidentally one of the VERY best viewing tools is a welding helmet with a GOLD lens. You can get a helmet starting at twenty or thirty bucks new, on up to a thousand or more. I have a couple of expensive ones that are electronically operated and will bring them both.

            A gold COATED lens cost about thirty five bucks MORE at just about any REAL welding supply store. Most likely you will NOT find one in the welding section at a big box store.

            After the eclipse, you can put it in a little frame, and save it as a gift for the special woman in your life. I make my own frames, or used to, back before old age cured me of doing anything more than TALKING about women.

            Cleopatra used gold mirrors, so they say.

            Do a GOOD job on a unique frame, and this will likely be the most unusual useful and durable gift a given woman ever gets. Unique’s the word.

            I made the frames out of stainless wire, very carefully twisted and tig welded, and buffed to a super shine. Took me a full day to do a good job on four inch frame, time stolen a few minutes here and there when work was slow for some reason.

            1. Aluminized mylar sheets doubled with the two aluminized sides facing each other does a good job in a pinch.

            2. An ordinary welding filter lens works just fine, of the sort made out of specially formulated glass, which has a green tint.

              These lenses ordinarily sell from about two to five bucks each, depending on where you buy them. Any big box store that sells to contractors and tradesmen usually keeps them in stock. Get one labeled not less than shade 10 that’s TEN, and twelve is better. Having two is a good idea.

              Either shade will effectively filter out the uv, but the ten will let thru a lot more visible light, maybe enough to be uncomfortable for the viewer. It depends on how well the viewer can deal with really bright sunlight. Some people have a hard time with full sun and white sand and water for instance.

            4. Breakfast, lunch or dinner, as the occasion suits, is on me if you want to join me watching in South Carolina. I’m not staying overnight, just driving down and back probably with three or four friends.

              Appreciate the offer and I do have your email already. It kinda depends on what my son will be up to. Especially since I wouldn’t really want to stay overnight either and for me it’s a 17 hour round trip drive, that might be a bit much if my son doesn’t help with the driving so I’ll let you know. Unfortunately not many of my friends down here seem even remotely interested… Especially since it falls on a Monday!
              Hmm, I wonder if there is a train from Miami to Charleston then I could just sleep or drink beer on the ride 😉

          2. If it’s very humid that day, expect a strong storm to be following right on the heels of the event.

  37. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a56706/reince-fired/

    The headline says it all.

    “With Reince Out, Trump’s Plan for Survival Is Clear
    Simply hire more thugs.”

    If they advertised more pickup trucks and guns, and fewer fancy clothes and such, and had articles about coon dogs, etc, I would read Esquire regularly. 😉

    I will say they have run a few good pieces on American liquors, including some on the excellent bourbons that are made in my neck of the woods.

    I wish old HB would help me out and post more links about how bad Trump is.

    1. Disclaimer: The atmosphere is composed of about 78% Nitrogen and 21% Oxygen by volume. No other gas constitutes more than 1%. CO2 is, in fact, a trace gas representing approximately 0.04% of the volume of dry air in the atmosphere. Below, one will find some references, as well as a figure, which place these recent CO2 measurements into a sufficiently proper context. NOAA’s CO2 measurements alone are meaningless without a physical and historical understanding of how CO2 behaves within the atmosphere.

      Wikipedia, Atmosphere of Earth entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth: The concentration of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) varies significantly from around 10 ppm by volume in the coldest portions of the atmosphere to as much as 5% by volume in hot, humid air masses, and concentrations of other atmospheric gases are typically quoted in terms of dry air (without water vapor). The remaining gases are often referred to as trace gases, among which are the greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

      Climate and the Carboniferous Period, http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html: There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

      2. DISCLAIMER:Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.

        So why do we have people like Louis Tennessee, who are composed of 100% bullshit?! They think they know shit, they don’t know NIBIRU!

        http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/simple_ways_to_see_nibiru_is_totally_nuts_and_limits_on_planets_hiding_in_our_solar_system-168838

        In case you haven’t heard of it, Nibiru is a totally nuts idea. Yet it gets many people very scared. I started to get messages about it as a result of writing articles about asteroid impacts, and how we can detect and deflect asteroids. It is possible to have beliefs that don’t make any sense if you look at them closely. For instance, if you believe that you can have a square with every point on its edges equally distant from its center in ordinary geometry – that’s impossible. That’s a square circle. Nibiru is a belief of this sort…

        Brian Cox colourfully called Nibiru “the imaginary bullshit planet” (“bullshit” is a mild word in the UK often used on TV). Neil deGrasse Tyson called it “A marvelous work of fiction” by people who flunked physics at high school.

        This shows an apparent 25.8 million year cycle in cratering records.
        .

        1. Hasn’t Louis’s ignorant ass showed up here before?
          He seems incapable of being embarrassed.

    2. Hi Survivalist, you need to observe this graph. Worldwide CO2 emissions have been mostly stable for the past 3 years, therefore something else is going on to result in the increased CO2 concentration measurements you posted. Most likely there’s a kind of equipment error on NOAA’s part. Perhaps they need to re-calibrate the sensor or there is a local CO2 source causing inaccurate readings. Then again, the sensor may just be old and in need of replacement, but they don’t have the money, because all public grant money these days is getting used up to prove the theory correct.

      1. Apart from being created by human activities, carbon dioxide is also released into the atmosphere by natural processes. The Earth’s oceans, soil, plants, animals and volcanoes are all natural sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Over 40 percent of naturally produced carbon dioxide emissions come from ocean-atmosphere exchange which increases as oceans become warmer.

          1. BTW, It’s estimated that wildfires in the contiguous US and Alaska release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is about 4 to 6 percent of the amount of the greenhouse gas that the nation releases through fossil fuel burning.

      2. Hello, Earth to Jeffrey,
        There are a number of reasons other than humans for CO2 to rise but putting that aside I will try and make it clear in a simple way. Stable emissions (from fossil fuels) means that much is being added to the atmosphere. Let’s call it three bags of fertilizer per year. If you have 400 bags of fertilizer already and you keep adding three bags of fertilizer each year you will have more than 400 bags of fertilizer.
        Now let that grow into a thought.

        1. …you will have more than 400 bags of fertilizer.
          Now let that grow into a thought.

          CHORTLE!! 🙂 🙂

      4. I hadn’t realised there was only one sensor in the entire world capable of measuring CO2 and it never gets calibrated (that’s really opened my eyes) and no other country in the world spends any money on climate research (wow, all news to me), and acceleration and velocity are exactly the same thing (crikey).

        “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” – George Carlin

        I actually think the endless tripe from Javier and his like contribute to this kind of idiocy and is definitely a reason why banning them should be considered.

        1. I don’t mind Javier’s comments – they appear to provide a good teaching opportunity.

          The problem is the volume. If there was someone who could volunteer the time to moderate, I’d suggest a limit on the number of comments that are obviously unrealistic.

          Then, other people could provide thorough, respectful, clear answers to unrealistic ideas, pursuing specific topics to a conclusion.

      5. Jeffrey, there are two misunderstandings from your part:

        – That emissions do not grow means that we are adding the same amount as last year, not that we are not adding any. Therefore atmospheric CO2 should still increase for as long as sinks remove less CO2 than sources add.

        – Natural processes also affect atmospheric CO2. During El Niño years more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, and during La Niña years less CO2 is added to the atmosphere, from natural sources. There is no direct relationship between emissions and atmospheric CO2.

        Despite it, we are still responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2. The only thing under debate is the magnitude of its effects.

  39. Tendency for warmer winters is increasing
    “A new study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters by Robert Graham at the Norwegian Polar Institute shows that warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to. Warm events were defined by when the air temperatures rose above -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). While this is still well below the freezing point, it is 20 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. The last two winters have seen temperatures near the North Pole rising to 0 degrees Celsius. While an earlier study showed that winter 2015/2016 was the warmest recorded at that time, the winter of 2016/2017 was even warmer.”

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    1. Decreased activity by the sun in the forms of sun spots is suppose to usher in a new small ice age very soon, perhaps by the beginning of this winter. The liberals coming up with these studies are going to look mighty foolish when all the cold sets in.

      1. Hey Adam, I have a fool proof business idea! I’m starting a snow plowing business in Miami Florida and I’d like to offer you a ground floor investment opportunity to put some money into it. If you provide your email address I will be happy to send you a prospectus. I guarantee I can make you rich!

      2. It’s too late, the best you can hope for is lots of pollution. The sun is not going to help you.

        This village is full of Mr. Bills.

    2. warm winters in the Arctic are becoming more frequent and lasting for longer periods of time than they used to

      Yes. And what is the effect? During the Arctic winter the air is cold and dry and therefore has lower heat capacity. That’s why it shows such big swings. It takes very little energy to change the temperature under those conditions. But the effect is that all that heat is radiated to space. However when spring came, temperatures this year were below average, and have been for most of the past 4 months. Not very conductive to sea ice melting.

      1. It would seem that the warming is occurring because less heat is being radiated into space. Who woulda thunk it?

        Arctic winter warming amplified by the thermal inversion and consequent low infrared cooling to space
        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n11/full/ngeo1285.html?foxtrotcallback=true

        Low clouds suppress Arctic air formation and amplify high-latitude continental winter warming
        http://www.pnas.org/content/112/37/11490.full
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26324919

        Interannual Variations of Arctic Cloud Types: Relationships with Sea Ice and Surface Temperature
        http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rmeast/BarrowPresI.pdf

      1. The Arctic has been completely ice free in the summers according to quite a lot of predictions from 2007-2012. This includes Al Gore who bagged the first Nobel prize for bullshitting.

        1. Speaking of bullshit.

          “All in all it looks like 2015 will be the year of Peak Warmth for quite some time.”

          https://archive.is/F9a1N#selection-1995.0-2021.289.

          “I betcha next winter will see a larger than usual sea-ice growth. It tends to happen when the melting has been intense, like in 2013 after the 2012 melt.”

          https://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/arctic-alarmists-screaming/#comment-16796

          “Arctic sea ice is not decreasing. There will be more of it in 2017 than in 2016.”

          http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-january-1-2017/#comment-591556

          1. 2016 is close enough, isn’t it? February 2016 saw peak temperatures.

            It is good that you keep track of what I say, because you can show how close I am compared to alarmists. They never get anything even remotely close to what they predict.

            After 3 temperature top record years (2015, 2016 & 2017) Arctic sea ice extent is still above 2007 levels. 10 years of no melting regardless of temperatures. How many alarmists got that correct? None. Not even close. They actually predicted the opposite. You make me look good, thanks.

    1. Correct. Temperatures raised fast with El Niño and are going down slowly afterwards.

      1. Let me fix that sentence for you Doc.
        The rise in temperature had a higher anomaly with the recent El Niño, but as El Niño ended temperatures have continued to rise but at a lower anomaly. Temperatures are not going down. They are continuing to increase. However since the end of El Niño they are not increasing as much. As is to be expected when an El Niño ends.

          1. I agree.

            Imagine your in an elevator with Javier. The elevator is going up rather quickly. After some time the elevator starts to slow down in its accent. The elevator is still going up, but not as quickly as it was before. Javier looks at you and says ‘Ah I see what’s happened. We’re going back down now.’

    1. More like 0.6-0.8°C. And the warming started ~ 1840 when the LIA ended.

        1. Alarmists are so full of it that it is going to be fun to watch your heads explode when Nature refuses to comply with your silly predictions.

          1. Deniers are so full of it that it is going to be fun to watch Javier’s head explode when Nature refuses to comply with his silly predictions.

            Oh let me count the FAILS.

            “All in all it looks like 2015 will be the year of Peak Warmth for quite some time.” – Javier
            https://archive.is/F9a1N#selection-1995.0-2021.289.

            FAIL! 2015 is third hottest. Behind 2016 and 2017.

            First half of 2017 ranks 2nd hottest globally, behind 2016
            https://phys.org/news/2017-07-2nd-hottest-globally.html

            “We are having a cool spring” – Javier
            http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-176/#comment-28996

            FAIL! However that wasn’t a prediction you made about the future. It was an observation you made on May 4th 2017 about the present. You don’t even get observation about your present reality correct.

            “the second warmest February on record”
            https://climate.copernicus.eu/resources/data-analysis/average-surface-air-temperature-analysis/monthly-maps/february-2017

            “the second warmest March on record”
            https://climate.copernicus.eu/resources/data-analysis/average-surface-air-temperature-analysis/monthly-maps/march-2017

            “the second warmest April on record”
            https://climate.copernicus.eu/resources/data-analysis/average-surface-air-temperature-analysis/monthly-maps/april-2017

            “the second warmest May on record”
            https://climate.copernicus.eu/resources/data-analysis/average-surface-air-temperature-analysis/monthly-maps/may-2017

            If you believe that we were having a cool spring then you’re delusional Javier. Pathetic. As usual.

            1. April-June average temperature anomaly was ~ 0.2°C lower than January-March average temperature anomaly. So compared with the winter that was unusually warm in terms of anomaly, the spring was significantly less warm. 0.2°C is a big drop.

              The fact that I was comparing the spring with the winter in terms of anomaly escaped you. You now bring other springs for comparison, and I obviously agree with you, but that was not my comparison. I remind you that cool is a relative term, and since I was the one writing I got to choose the comparison, not you. Bringing up a different comparison is raising strawman fallacy.

              Getting things out of context won’t advance your cause. Since February 2016 temperature anomaly has been decreasing in all databases.

              I was expecting a decrease in temperatures after the 2015-16 El Niño and that is what we are getting. I am expecting that the temperatures reached during the 2015-16 El Niño won’t be surpassed for at least 5-10 years, maybe more. I was expecting no significant decrease in Arctic sea ice below 2007 levels and that is what we are getting.

              Compared to climate alarmists, I am getting things surprisingly correct.

              We have entered a multidecadal period during which little (if any) warming is going to be observed, and little (if any) Arctic sea ice melting is going to be observed. By 2025 we will be able to look back to the first quarter of the 21st century and see that temperatures will have barely increased and Arctic sea ice will have barely decreased, and that will be poison to the CO2 hypothesis, that will have to be changed to a lot less alarmist formulation.

              And all of you, alarmists here, will have to rationalize that you were so wrong in uncritically accepting the alarmist propositions. Specially those with enough age to have gone through several of these fake alarmist crisis without having learned much. Of course you will place the blame on the media, the politicians, and the alarmist scientists. You will conveniently forget that you were showed a critical alternative also supported in science but you rather had fun ridiculing it.

            2. “Since February 2016 temperature anomaly has been decreasing in all databases.” – Javier
              Yeah no shit doc. You think I need you to tell me that. Does it make you feel like a big man?
              El Niño is over. Anomaly will decrease. As was expected. Nobody here had argued any differently. All you have is your bullshit straw man arguments. Your pathetic predictions are the laughing stock of this blog.

              “next winter will see a larger than usual sea-ice growth. It tends to happen when the melting has been intense, like in 2013 after the 2012 melt.” ~ Javier
              https://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/arctic-alarmists-screaming/#comment-16796
              FAIL! You couldn’t predict your way out of a wet paper bag.
              In October 2016, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 6.40 million square kilometers (2.5 million square miles), the lowest October in the satellite record.
              http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/11/sluggish-ice-growth-in-the-arctic/
              In November 2016, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 9.08 million square kilometers (3.51 million square miles), the lowest November in the satellite record.
              http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/12/arctic-and-antarctic-at-record-low-levels/
              Arctic sea ice extent for December 2016 averaged 12.10 million square kilometers (4.67 million square miles), the second lowest December extent in the satellite record.
              http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/01/low-sea-ice-extent-continues-in-both-poles/
              Arctic sea ice extent for January 2017 averaged 13.38 million square kilometers (5.17 million square miles), the lowest January extent in the 38-year satellite record.
              https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/02/2017-ushers-in-record-low-extent/
              Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record.
              https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/03/another-warm-month-in-the-arctic/

              Why should anybody take seriously the inane blather of a person with such pathetic track record of failed predictions? It’s unfortunate that you feel alarmism and pointing out what a failure you are are synonymous. It’s hard to believe you have any scientific integrity at all. You certainly weren’t captain of the debate team.

            3. And yet Arctic sea ice extent is larger than 10 years ago, against all institutional predictions.

              10 years of bullshit and failure by the Arctic “experts”

          1. But there is a cure for the never ending drivel spewed by Javier, the X him out option. Works like a damn.

            1. I have not considered censoring free speech in the past even if it was to protect myself from the drivel. I’m quickly moving towards having a change of heart on that because I’d really like to be able to have intelligent conversations about a number of topics without the constant distraction. To be honest I’m not all that interested in constantly rehashing accepted and known science or pointing out that up is not down and black is not white. And I don’t think it is my job to have to educate the ignorant even if they are sincere…

            2. Fred — I don’t see “the X him out option” as censoring free speech but rather, as you suggest, removing distractions to the acquisition of new data and hearing opinions by people who have enough wisdom to admit it when they’re wrong. For example, I’ve Xed Jehovah Witnesses from my life because to argue with them is more-or-less like arguing with a CD, a waste of time. I think I’m right about some topics (i.e., volcanology, complex fourier transform solutions and neutron star physics) more than 60% of the time and others (like medical diagnosis) almost never. I would never seriously argue with you on any aspect of biology even though through some accident of fate there may be some minuscule area where I have knowledge unknown to you. Nor would I argue with a REAL climate scientist other than possibly on his/her interpretation of some point where I’ve had contradictory real life experience (and even then not be dogmatic about it). I can’t stand dogmatic people!

            4. …I can’t stand dogmatic people!

              I have to admit I feel very much the the same way.

              But seriously, what kind of an imbecile argues against an entire field of science without having any background whatsoever in said field?!

              Unless he or she were a Jehovah’s Witness, would they ever question the diagnosis of multiple medical experts and decide on their own that such diagnosis was wrong?

              Anyways my hand is hovering over the X …

            5. Deniers, and Cabbages For Christ, have similar aversion to reality.
              Science is Satan!

            6. LOL! I just found a couple of really good reasons for an old guy like me to take up crochet…

              https://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_wertheim_crochets_the_coral_reef#t-616906

              Raise awareness about the damage caused to corals by warming oceans, learn about the mathematics of hyperbolic geometry, of which corals are living examples, do some mathematical art and maybe even get to impress some ladies who have more than one firing synapse. 😉

              Maybe it will also help to keep my mind off all the stupidity in the world at large. Sure beats dealing with climate science denying trolls!

            7. Actually, it is a bit entertaining, watching the deceitful gymnastics and selected data.
              You need to be a bit twisted and sociopathic to do it, but Bagdad Bob is up to the task.

    2. I find the NH land surface temp most interesting as this is where most of the food is grown.

      “The first six months of 2017 have each ranked among the top three warmest months on record, giving way to the second highest January–June period in the 138-year record at 0.91°C (1.64°F) above the 20th century average of 13.5°C (56.3°F), behind the record year of 2016 by 0.16°C (0.29°F), but ahead of 2015 by 0.05°C (0.09°F).

      Much of the world’s land and ocean surfaces had warmer to much-warmer-than-average conditions during the January–June 2017 period, with limited areas experiencing near to cooler-than-average conditions. Record warmth across the land surface was observed across much of Mexico, western Europe, eastern Russia, South Korea, Madagascar, and some areas across northern and east central Africa, eastern China, and eastern Australia. Across the oceans, record warmth was present across parts of the Pacific Ocean, specifically western, central and south-eastern areas, western parts of the Gulf of Mexico, and western Indian Ocean. No land or ocean areas experienced record cold June temperatures.

      According to NCEI’s Regional Analysis, five of six continents had a top ten warm January–June period, with South America experiencing its second highest January–June temperature (tied with 2010), behind 2015. The global land surface temperature was 1.49°C (2.68°F) above the 20th century average of 7.3°C (45.0°F) and the second highest value for the year-to-date, behind 2016 by 0.31°C (0.56°F). The global ocean surface temperature was also the second highest such period at 0.70°C (1.26°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F).”

      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201706

      1. I have updated my Climate Model Machine input assumptions/data to double weight the sources of information and analysis from the resident climate skeptics like Javier, Glenn, Bromberg, etc.
        The results are in- (50 yr percentage probability global)
        Cooling- 7%
        No Sign Change- 19%
        Heating- 74%

        note- the results more specifically show that if cooling were to occur it would be “barely significant”. If heating were to occur, 60% of the simulation runs indicate levels well above the moderate trend line [precautionary measures strongly advised- repeat…]

        Take your chances.

  42. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/29/is-american-republic-built-to-withstand-malevolent-president

    My personal guess is that the republic will withstand the Trump presidency, but that as a nation we are going to fall a couple of years or more farther behind the rest of the world, in terms of protecting our environment,transitioning to renewable energy, and so forth.

    But this is only a guess, not a prediction.

    HB ought to be helping me out with posting the truth about the Trump administration.

    1. Ever see a film called “They Live”? The Mooch is definitely one of the “They”, and you don’t even need the special sunglasses to spot him.

    3. “To abandon facts is to abandon freedom.” —Timothy Snyder

  45. Change the climate, change history:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAhmyl8hQ0g

    Keys’ story of historical connections pinpoints the year AD 535-36 as the crisis point when a catastrophic natural disaster, identified late in the book, blotted out much solar heat for eighteen months and caused climatic anomalies around the world. Unusually heavy rainfall in tropical Africa led to higher rat and flea populations, and thence bubonic plague, which spread across the Mediterranean world and Europe in the sixth century, decimating Constantinople. In AD 537 and 538, a severe drought killed numerous Chinese and affected wide areas of the Mongolian steppe, triggering widespread population movements across Eurasia, and ultimately the creation of an Avar empire in eastern Europe and the western Ukraine. The Avars came in conflict with the Roman Empire.
    And much more, all done by one large volcanic explosion.
    http://www.historytoday.com/brian-fagan/catastrophe-investigation-origins-modern-world

    A nice model to remind us that changing climate can bring civilizations to their knees.
    Of course global warming’s effect on history and the earth could play out over several thousand years not just a century or so.

    1. Well, there might still be a surprise or two out in space unknown to us.

      http://earthsky.org/space/asteroid-2017-oo1-close-pass-undetected

      A space rock now designated as asteroid 2017 OO1 was detected on July 23, 2017 from the ATLAS-MLO telescope at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. An analysis of its trajectory revealed it had been closest to Earth on July 20 at 11:33 pm EDT (July 21, 03:33 UTC).

      This means the asteroid’s closest approach occurred 2.5 to 3 days before it was seen. Asteroid 2017 OO1 flyby had passed at about one-third the Earth-moon distance, or about 76,448 miles (123,031 km).

      Although that’s still a safe distance, a fact that stands out is that asteroid 2017 OO1 is about three times as big as the house-sized asteroid that penetrated the skies over Chelyabinsk, Russia in February, 2013, breaking windows in six Russian cities and causing more that 1,000 people to seek treatment for injuries, mostly from flying glass.

      The late discovery of asteroid 2017 OO1 is a reminder that a Chelyabinsk type event can clearly repeat. However, bear in mind that it is still a small asteroid, too small to cause an extinction level event.

      Enjoy every day as if it were your last folks because it just might be!

      1. Get your cameras ready folks, it could be a skimmer!

        So it’s about 100 to 200 feet across. That could hurt people if it hit. Anything under 82 feet is more likely to break up than hit the ground. This might have hit but would have only done some local damage. Now when you get up to kilometer size, now that should get our attention. Probably big enough to see so we can have our cameras ready.
        Above kilometer size, think of the first three letters in kilometer. Serious damage with global effects. Biggest one we know about that can hit earth is about 5 k across. Very serious.
        Still time though folks, about once every 2000 years a football field size one hits and does impressive local damage.

        We can’t stop them so just do what comes natural.

        1. “Still time though folks, about once every 2000 years a football field size one hits and does impressive local damage. ”

          Yes, IMPRESSIVE LOCAL damage, lol.

          Say up to maybe fifty million people dead within a few weeks or months, or even minutes, depending on where it hits. There are cities with twenty million plus populations these days. Direct hit, all dead. Countless millions more within a hundred miles or even farther might die of dehydration,starvation, exposure, disease, fire, etc. It’s for dead sure that at least a million people would be murdered by other people struggling to survive, or just taking advantage of the crisis to rob and steal.

          Maybe two or three billion would die, if the knock on effects include WWIII.

          I don’ think a hit would likely trigger a nuclear exchange between the existing nuclear powers right away, but when circumstances get to be DESPERATE, politicians, especially authoritarian politicians, have a HABIT of starting wars in order to maintain themselves in their own privileged positions.

          It’s true there is almost nothing we could do about one with our name on it TODAY, but if we are collectively smart enough, and lucky enough, that the space industry continues to grow, before too long we will probably be able to send out a missile of one sort or another to intercept and divert an incoming so that it misses us. It won’t take very much, in terms of delivered energy, to divert an asteroid, even a big one, if we implement the diversion far enough in advance.

          Most people with an opinion seem to believe that blasting one with a nuke would be a mistake, because they say that lots of large fragments would do more damage than one big hit.

          I’m not convinced by this argument, personally, because depending on the size of the asteroid, the power of the bomb, how far away it would be when intercepted, etc, are all important considerations.

          Most of the fragments might either miss us altogether, or else be small enough that they wouldn’t do any REALLY serious damage.

          In any case, we will probably have options other than the nuclear sledgehammer by the time we have rockets capable of delivering an interceptor package.

          1. Nice disaster movie. Odds of it hitting even any developed area are about 2 percent. Odds of it hitting an urban area are about 0.7 percent. Only about 16 percent of the land is developed. So figure a few thousand if it hits on land.
            If it did hit a city, total devastation. Then a new lake forms and the area is again inhabited in a few years. No radiation effects.
            No global effect from one that small.

            Most likely will hit in the water, which could cause some bad effects like tsunami and temporary weather changes. Otherwise an area the size of Rhode Island would be wiped off the map.
            Since the meteor crater in Arizona was made ( a good model) there should have been 25 large strikes to the earth. Where are they?

            1. Where are they and who got killed. Soddom and Gomorra? Other mythical cities that disappeared? Probably not but would make a good grade B movie or pseudo documentary.

            2. where are the 25 strikes?
              are you saying 25 land strikes or can we eliminate 70% of them that hit oceans?
              also, you mentioned that a new lake might form.
              are many of the remaining 7 or so land strikes now lakes?

  47. For July 29, 2017:
    2012 1st place 6203033
    2007 2nd place 6362515
    2011 3rd place 6404355
    2017 4th place 6572674
    Point spread between 1st to 4th place is 369,641
    That’s about a 3 or 4 day lag at current seasonal rate of decline.
    Point spread between 2nd place and 4th place is 210,159
    That’s about a 2 day lag at current seasonal rate of decline.

    Get your snowblower and parka ready! Arctic is on the rebound! sarc :/
    https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop.ver1/data/graph/plot_extent_n_v2.csv

  48. Anticipating the End

    A democracy works only if the electorate are 1) intelligent1, 2) knowledgeable2, and 3) informed3. None of these criteria are true of the United States of America today (or actually of any country). It should be no surprise that the governance of the country is in such a shambles. We have low intelligence, are ignorant of how reality works, and are poorly informed people both in terms of electing officials and those elected and running the country. For the most part we are motivated by personal greed, senses of entitlement, and inability to grasp the big picture of how we are suffering a diminishing capacity to do work and produce (what they think of as) wealth; a physical fact of reality. We are running on emotional charges. We believe that we are entitled to increasing material wealth and do not realize that the growth in material wealth was a fluke of the 1950s, 60s and early 70s due to a huge influx of free energy. That concept is totally beyond our capacity. All we know is that once we had it, now we don’t. And we were promised, by unbelievably stupid politicians and economists, that we would have it into the future.

    http://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2017/07/anticipating_the_end.html

    1. As all our living plants rely on carbon dioxide to grow, if we even began an attempt to remove this life-sustaining molecule from the atmosphere, all our greenery–including what we eat as food–would suffer. This would lead to food shortages and death becoming too common. Therefore–in conclusion–increasing carbon dioxide levels are more desirable than decreasing ones.

      2. That is what is called a strawman logical fallacy. You have picked one part only and put an argument against it. You have completely missed the actual problem which you should be considering (I’ll let you try to work out what that is, it’s pretty easy, think of the second word in the expression global warming). You’ve also got a slippery slope fallacy in there, an argument from ignorance, and a red herring. Not bad but there are about 30 or more other types of recognised fallacy you could probably get in next time, without even thinking about it, and we could all have an even bigger laugh.

      3. As all our living plants rely on carbon dioxide to grow, if we even began an attempt to remove this life-sustaining molecule from the atmosphere, all our greenery–including what we eat as food–would suffer.

        Yup, get rid of them ol’ debbils Oxygen and Nitrogen- all you need is Carbon Dioxide! As much as you can get! The idea that there is some kind of balance…that you need all three…that there is some nuance to the argument…is liberal media balderdash!
        QED!

      4. Nahh, the stomata increase in number. You think plants haven’t been around for a while? They survived well at less than half of what we have today and so did the animals including us. Sure some plants grow faster in rich CO2 environments, but others do not.

        High CO2 levels also reduce human cognitive ability. Fast plant growth (sometimes), dumb people all the time.
        Also the ocean life has major problems during high CO2 events. It’s not all about us you know.

        1. High CO2 levels also reduce human cognitive ability.

          But that’s the point, put as many people as possible into a vegetative state… 😉

          1. Too late, Nathan, too late! (Indian Chief to Calvary captain)

            Some areas about 60 miles from me have hit well over 500 ppm at times, and that is outside. Makes it tough to reduce those classroom levels when even the outside air has too much CO2.

            I thought electrical lobotomy was performed by televisions. Who needs CO2?

            Sadly even our chairs are killing us so if you want to conserve energy, do as little as possible but do it standing up.

      5. The farmers in my state really love all the extra growth they’re getting from increased CO2.

        Drought Takes $2.7-Billion Toll on California Agriculture
        6/3/15

        The record-breaking drought in California—brought about by a severe lack of precipitation, especially mountain snows—has exacted a $2.7 billion toll on the state’s economy because of agricultural losses, researchers said Tuesday.
        During a briefing for the California Department of Food & Agriculture, scientists from the University of California, Davis, told officials that based on their preliminary research and modeling, the drought is resulting in a harder economic pinch this year than it was in 2014.
        The drought, they found, will lead this year to 32 percent more acres of land laid fallow, an increase in groundwater pumping to make up for the lack of water in rivers and reservoirs, and total job losses of 18,600.

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drought-takes-2-7-billion-toll-on-california-agriculture/

        1. This comment is not about the very real consequences of the drought in California. We get one hell of a lot of our food from there, especially fresh winter produce.

          But there aren’t many FARMERS in California who aren’t quite well to do, in terms of the total acreages under cultivation. Those who have them can generally sell their water rights for a small fortune, more than enough to live like the wealthy people they are, just about forever, unless they put the proceeds into bad investments.

          Now there are plenty of EMPLOYEES of these ( mostly ) rich folks who deserve our sympathy.

          It irritates me that the msm often has a way of presenting these one percenters as if they were poor people who just lost everything they own in a house fire.

          1. Actually, Iowa Farmers are some of the biggest Welfare Whores you can imagine.
            A good friend, who is a lawyer in Iowa, explained the shenanigans and outrageous “pigs at the trough” that is the bedrock of Iowa farming.
            Primary experience, with family members and friends doing the looting.
            But the CA Corporate guys are sometimes in a class by themselves.

    2. Disclaimer: My disclaimer about what contemporary CO2 measurements really mean continues to go unread. Please refer here for all the details. Thank you.

      2. I’m sure a lot of people have read it, and I should think most have decided it’s rubbish:

        “Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming” – that is true, the strength of the sun has an impact, and so does the earth’s orbit and albedo, water vapour, cloud cover, N2O etc., these are all fairly well understood, and knowledge is improving all the time.

        “According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot.” – that is wrong, the sun was weaker in the past when CO2 was high, the greenhouse theory includes these factors, your source does not.

        Without CO2 the Earth’s temperature would be well below freezing, a snowball, and there would be no complex life, that is how import and impactful your “trace” gas is.

        Please try to imagine how totally tedious some of us here find your monotonous repetition of misunderstood bullshit and apparent unwillingness to even try to educate yourself.

        1. It’s not education, it’s understanding. I have known PhD’s in the physical sciences who knew a lot but understood little about how the world works.

        1. As the climate news gets worse, the trolls do seem to get more desperate to convince us that “all is well”.

  52. About Javier and trolling :

    I thought he was gone for good, but personally I am not sorry to see him back, because his comments, and the replies from other forum members , are very handy research grist for MY mill. I won’t have to go any farther than RIGHT HERE at POB to find as many good quotes as I will want to use in my book.

    Now aside from this being useful for me, here are some thoughts about what his sort of arguments mean, and what impact they will have on anybody who is new to this forum, as a PRACTICAL matter.

    First off, if there are any real social conservatives reading this forum, the vast majority of them never post a comment. I doubt there are more than a few dozen who read it, and there are only two or three out of that small number who ever post a comment. The only likely reason they are here, lurking, is that they read it because they are either IN the energy industry, or else they invest in the energy industry. Otherwise, it’s safe to assume that any STRING of comments indicating social conservatism are from trolls. A REAL social conservative won’t post more than once or twice before giving it up in this sort of forum.

    Conclusion: There is no reason to expect these occasional conservatively oriented comments to be taken seriously by the existing audience. Simple minded trolling just doesn’t work here.

    BUT…….. there are LOTS of people who are open minded at least to some extent, and who think for themselves, at least to some extent, who search out forums such as this one, being interested in the subject matter, or by discover such forums by accident, and become interested in the subject matter.

    And HERE is an iron clad fact about these people, one you can take to the bank, one from a person ( yours truly, with documentation to prove it! ) professionally qualified to make it. The average or typical man or woman you meet at random on the street doesn’t really know doo doo from apple butter about fossil fuels, or about the environment. I’m DEAD SERIOUS. A lot of eight to ten year old kids know more about the environment than tens of millions of registered voters, and close to half of those millions are registered (GASP!) DEMOCRATS. Anybody who doesn’t know a number of people such as accountants, lawyers, musicians, etc, who are more or less scientifically illiterate simply doesn’t know a wide enough variety of people.

    When such a person discovers the exchange of comments between Javier and the other regulars here, it will be quite an educational experience for him, in more ways than one. He will learn all about sophisticated trolling, for example the trick of cherry picking data from real honest to Jesus scientific research documents. He will discover the world of climate and environmental research.

    There’s a significant possibility that he will become a dedicated environmentalist, and that means he will be voting D, as a general rule. There is only a near zero possibility he will take Javier seriously, unless he is already totally convinced that the climate science camp consists of money grubbers out to get a salary out of their work.

    So- We don’t need to be in any hurry about running Javier off, lol.

    The many replies to his comments have actually resulted in significantly increasing my own understanding of climate, which is after all a field that I have never studied in the classroom. Ag majors didn’t take climate courses back in the dark ages. We were assigned reading describing the various climates and agricultural practices used in different climates, and that was about all. We learned climate incidentally as it applied to specific crops, etc.

    The rest of you guys are helping educate ME, in part, because Javier is here, lol.

    1. Yep, when we see crap in the toilet, we flush it down. Still, not the real objective just a necessary duty and not to be glorified or set up as a learning experience.
      We can spend time looking in the toilet and then time and energy flushing, or we can actually talk to each other.

      1. Yup, nothing will choke a (science based) Blog to death faster than filling it with crap.

        1. Unfortunately, very true.
          I wonder if this is a premeditated action to reduce effective communication?

      2. Yep, when we see crap in the toilet, we flush it down.

        Unless you have a composting toilet, then you add a little sawdust and just let it naturally decompose on its own… Either way, the less you interact with it, the less it stinks…

        1. OK,

          There’s at least one argument that I used myself when dealing with Javier that he has no answer for, and when I posted it several times, he more or less disappeared, which may or may not have had something to do with my argument.

          He apparently either does not believe in observing the precautionary principle, or else he is a troll.

          I find it hard to come up with any explanation as to why a real scientist would disregard the concerns of the large majority, of let us say for instance, the tenured professors of physics at respected universities.

          So maybe he is not a real scientist, or maybe he IS, but one who for one reason or another is either trolling or obsessed with his own interpretation of the climate science data.

          It’s not unheard of that a person who is generally recognized as competent in his field, or is even recognized as an expert, occasionally decides that the rest of the band is out of step with the music, and that he’s the only one marching in time, lol.

          And once in a long while , such a scientist will prove to the world that he was right, and that everybody else was wrong.

          My personal opinion is that the odds of Javier being right are vanishingly small, but not ZERO.

          I’m learning something about the art of trolling, and the art of cherry picking data , etc, on a regular basis, due to his being here, but maybe he OUGHT to be gone.

          1. If I want to learn about farming I’ll listen (primarily) to farmers, especially successful ones; when I want to learn about climate I listen (primarily) to climate scientists. A non-climate scientist who is consistently deriding 97% of REAL climate scientists is not a creditable source of climate information — he’s a joke.

            BTW, I’ve yet to meet a “non-geophysist” who could organize, run and interpret a seismic survey. Of course such people must exist but in 40-odd years, working around the world, I’ve yet to meet one.

    2. Doom and Gloom is great fodder for lengthy disscussion. Wouldn’t be much to talk about on a cheap energy for ever site unless some peak oilers show up Ha ha. Disscussing a widespread immenent and negative situation is a real attention grabber whether it is real or imagined. So I think its great to have input from Javier poking holes into the climate change/Global warming/ice free arctic narative.

      I keep wondering why this group is so stuck on this climate change subject when we are already so deep into so many other calamities. For instance on hot days we are experiencing devastating climate change on the micro level and add all those individual areas up and we have macro climate change way beyond the 3 degrees celcius that you climate change folks are just waiting to show up any day now.
      What am I talking about. Here is an example. When the sun is shining on a hot day bare soil can be as high as 160 F while soil right beside it covered with mulch or living plants can be 85F or less. even at 100F you are loosing the majority of soil moisture to evaporation and most soil organisims are shutting down. Multiply this across the millions of acres of bare and partly bare soils just in the US and we have a devastating loss of healthy soil ecosystem function. So where is all this bare and partly bare soil? Corn and soy acres before the plants get tall and where tillage is still practiced. Freshly cut Hay fields, summer fallowed and after harvest wheat acres, roads and buildings.

      Maximizing the amount of photosynthetic activity on any given area also supplies the energy to keep soil biology fed so they can maintain or even increase healthy soil function and this is where ranching could do so much better by managing the timing and duration of grazing on a given area. most vineyards and orchards could treat their soils with more living ground cover.

      But on peak oil barrel/ open thread we fill a whole library discusing little other than the macro climate.

      Why is so little energy spent discussing the Millions of lbs of Glyphosate that is used in the US every year, 1 lb for every inhabitant. This is a broad spectrum antibiotic/anti microbial, a chealator, immuno suppressant and due to it being water soluable has been tested to be concentrating in human breast milk and contaminating the whole water cycle from aquafer to water ways and even in our rain. What Glyphosate alone is doing to our environment including the biology in our soils and in our gut is more concerning then the 2C that this site has got its underwear all in a knot about. Add to that all the other plant fungi and bacterial and animal toxins that that are being sprayed onto our food acres is totally devastating but on this site we have adults discussing whether its the tight underware that might be contributing to the loss of sperm count in american males.

      And while the peak in oil consumption per capita happened 35 years ago on peak oil barrel we are on pins and needles trying to pinpoint the exact year of the peak in total production of crude and condensates and refinery gains and whatever other fluids that are remotely similar. The peak of total energy from oil to the end consumer was probably reached around 2005. In the meantime the trucks trains and freight liners seem to still be running on a plateau or slightly down, that is until one by one they make the last run or end part ways through but don’t worry,in the meantime on Peakoilbarrel we passionately discuss EVs and other pie in the sky dreams. We don’t even have enough clean energy to power our current use of elecricity let alone powering transportation, and the timeframe to get this done has come and gone.

      Atleast the consensus is clearly for reducing the birth rate but being mostly liberals there is nary a word about forced sterilization for abusive or negligent adults.

      Well thats my rant for the Month. Take care ya’lls.

      1. Well thats my rant for the Month. Take care ya’lls.

        To be fair, I think ya have to kinda read between the posts a little here and there.

        Re: our continuing apparent fixation with Macro or Global Climate Science issues has mostly to do with blatant lies from the camp of the so called skeptics.

        We do often talk about agriculture and how food production will be affected by droughts and floods and we have discussed everything from micro environments in soils to large scale disruptions in terms of coral reef die off, habitat loss and the sixth mass extinction.

        We do indeed discuss things like pesticide and herbicide use and technology such as CRISPR used in GMOs

        The topics here often range from cosmology, quantum physics to molecular biology and biochemistry.

        We also talk about potential political, economic and social disruption brought about by various technological revolutions such as PV and Evs.

        I think this site is far from a one trick pony and part of my personal frustration and I’ll risk going out on a limb, assuming that I’m not alone in this, is precisely that fact that interesting discussions on many such topics are quite frequently derailed by Trolls and pseudo skeptics with agendas who spout their BS propaganda here.

        In any case I’d say the more rational posters on this site are generally on the same page when it comes to global population and ecological overshoot and myriad other topics that might lead us to be called doomers.

        I’d say most here are cheerful realists who take occasional side trips into momentary depression… 😉

        1. I might add, we occasionally delve into in-depth religious studies during which the various true gods, Thor, Oden and Freida plus various lesser gods such as the Australian snake god (goddess?) etc. are described in all their glory.

          1. Australian snake god (goddess)?

            Both, it is sort of a bisexual transgender kinda deity!
            http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/australian-mythology.php?deity=RAINBOW-SNAKE

            The Great Creator Serpent
            In charge of Fertility, Growth and Refreshing Rain.

            The RAINBOW-SNAKE is a bit of a mish-mash, with a kangaroo’s head, a crocodile’s tail and a python’s body, all decorated with water lilies and waving tendrils.

            The Snake has many names and comes in male and female form. YINGARNA, the female, is the original Mother of Creation, and her son NGALYOD is the Great Transformer of Land. Family portraits go back 8,000 years, which makes the Rainbow Snake one of the oldest religious symbols. And it’s still going strong today.

            You can’t beat that with a hammer… 😉

            1. The Talking Snake is one of my sources of information. I just fly over to the Magical Tree on Mohammeds Flying Horse, where he and the Rib Woman hang out.
              He doesn’t believe in Climate Change either, and babbles something about a Cosmic Jewish Zombie saving us.

            2. I’ve been trying to locate an apple or two, or even put my hands on a TWIG from that tree, ever since I first heard of it.

              Now if I ever succeed in this endeavor, I will soon be as rich as the Koch brothers, and as good looking as a movie star, and immortal.

              But I don’ believe for a second that Mohamed’s Horse gave you a ride. That’s a pretty stuck up elitist sort of a horse, according to what I hear from the horses around here, and it won’t give anybody other than Mohamed a ride, unless he says so personally.

              You would have a lot more credibility if would refrain from bragging about being in tight enough with Mohamed that he will let you ride his horse.

              Now of course I have Jesus, and HIS DADDY as well, on speed dial, and both of them make time to talk to me anytime I want, so long as I’m willing to do my talking on my knees of course, but…..

              That’s different.
              😉

            3. I just got out of the backcountry (Eagle Cap Wilderness), and was forced into a pack trip, riding horses (I prefer to backpack- more options, less to push through life, more ecologically sound, and one is much less confined, and you see more). I had a surefooted one, but once my destination was determined, I got off.
              Within two days, 25% of our party had been injured by horses.
              They are dangerous and uncomfortable-
              I boarded them for years can catch and saddle, clip feet, put in bits, etc.
              But 20 miles on a nightmare trail?
              Get me off.

              Mohammeds Flying Horse?
              Much better!

      2. “I think its great to have input from Javier poking holes into the climate change/Global warming/ice free arctic narative.” – farmboy

        You think that Javier’s inane blather is ‘poking holes’? Poking holes, where I come from, usually means winning a debate, or being correct. Javier hasn’t done anything more than recite unalloyed bullshit. Only an imbecile would find his bullshit to be of any merit.

        1. “Only an imbecile would find his bullshit to be of any merit.”

          You’re far too generous. In fact it would take a deranged imbecile to find his bullshit to be of any merit.

      3. “…there is nary a word about forced sterilization for abusive or negligent adults.” – maybe because it’s kind of repulsive, who decides who are abusive and negligent, I’d guess you might like that job. No more rants please if that’s the disgusting muck you are going to come up with, I’d prefer to keep pretending people like you don’t exist.

        1. The whole thing is just dumb. Even in the US, 50% of births are unplanned. So, we could reduce fertility and population growth dramatically just by improving contraception.

          That’s if we really cared about reducing population growth, instead of oppressing people with campaigns against sexuality, which actually raise fertility…

  53. ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
    Issue: Ecological Economics Reviews
    FULL COST ACCOUNTING FOR THE LIFE CYCLE OF COAL

    Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate
    for the total economically quantifiable costs,
    based on a conservative weighting of many of the
    study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion,
    adding close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated
    from coal. The low estimate is $175 billion, or over
    9¢/kWh, while the true monetizable costs could be
    as much as the upper bounds of $523.3 billion,
    adding close to 26.89¢/kWh. These and the more
    difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the
    general public.
    Still these figures do not represent the full societal
    and environmental burden of coal. In quantifying
    the damages, we have omitted the impacts of toxic
    chemicals and heavy metals on ecological systems
    and diverse plants and animals; some ill-health endpoints
    (morbidity) aside from mortality related to
    air pollutants released through coal combustion that
    are still not captured; the direct risks and hazards
    posed by sludge, slurry, and CCW impoundments;
    the full contributions of nitrogen deposition to eutrophication
    of fresh and coastal sea water; the prolonged
    impacts of acid rain and acid mine drainage;
    many of the long-term impacts on the physical and
    mental health of those living in coal-field regions
    and nearby MTR sites; some of the health impacts
    and climate forcing due to increased tropospheric
    ozone formation; and the full assessment of impacts
    due to an increasingly unstable climate.
    The true ecological and health costs of coal are
    thus far greater than the numbers suggest. Accounting
    for the many external costs over the life cycle
    for coal-derived electricity conservatively doubles
    to triples the price of coal per kWh of electricity
    generated.
    http://www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf

    We and the ecosystem pays the price one way or the other.

    1. Externalities: costs which are not properly accounted for, and which are incurred by one group but paid by another. It’s an old and very well accepted concept. The most conservative of economists agrees with the general concept, though of course everyone has their own idea about what to include and how to value it.

      “A Pigovian tax (also spelled Pigouvian tax) is a tax applied to a market activity that is generating negative externalities (costs for someone other than the person on whom the tax is imposed). The tax is intended to correct an inefficient market outcome, and does so by being set equal to the social cost of the negative externalities. In the presence of negative externalities, the social cost of a market activity is not covered by the private cost of the activity. In such a case, the market outcome is not efficient and may lead to over-consumption of the product.[1] An often-cited example of such an externality is environmental pollution.[2]

      In the presence of positive externalities, i.e., public benefits from a market activity, those who receive the benefit do not pay for it and the market may under-supply the product. Similar logic suggests the creation of a Pigovian subsidy to make the users pay for the extra benefit and spur more production.[3] An example sometimes cited is a subsidy for provision of flu vaccine.[4]

      Pigovian taxes are named after economist Arthur Pigou who also developed the concept of economic externalities.”

      “The Pigovian tax is a commonly used method by government as it has relatively low transaction costs associated with implementation. Other methods such as command and control regulations or subsidies assume that government have a complete knowledge of the markets which is almost never the case, and can often lead to inefficiencies and market failure though rent seeking behavior by individuals and firms.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

      In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.[1]

      For example, manufacturing activities that cause air pollution impose health and clean-up costs on the whole society, whereas the neighbors of an individual who chooses to fire-proof his home may benefit from a reduced risk of a fire spreading to their own houses. If external costs exist, such as pollution, the producer may choose to produce more of the product than would be produced if the producer were required to pay all associated environmental costs. Because responsibility or consequence for self-directed action lies partly outside the self, an element of externalization is involved. If there are external benefits, such as in public safety, less of the good may be produced than would be the case if the producer were to receive payment for the external benefits to others. For the purpose of these statements, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the imputed monetary value of benefits and costs to all parties involved.[2][3] Thus, unregulated markets in goods or services with significant externalities generate prices that do not reflect the full social cost or benefit of their transactions; such markets are therefore inefficient.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

  54. Been evacuated twice (so far) and…..

    SEARING HEAT AHEAD IN B.C., EXPECT RECORDS TO FALL AS RESULT

    July 30, 2017 – Heat building in southern B.C. and the Pacific Northwest this week may result in record-breaking high temperatures for parts of the province and major wildfires burning all over the place. Yeah, it’s just weather but…..

    2. Doug – I’m sure I speak for all here when I say our thoughts are with you. I was in Kamloops and Kelowna after the big fires there maybe ten years or so ago, and that was devastating. I was struck by the colour banding – some green trees, a red strip with fire suppressant, a long stretch of burnt trunks, another red strip, some more green trees etc. You were supposed to also be able to see where the pine beetle had been most prevalent and the trees were already dead before the fire got there, but it was lost on me. Hope everybody keeps well; at least you do have one of the most efficient wildfire fighting organisations there, those smokejumpers are something else.

      1. George — Thanks for the thought. Actually I’m close to Kamloops and have have good friends I can stay with to the north and south as the situation requires: unlike some poor souls who’ve wound up on camp cots in schools or community halls. In an extreme result (very unlikely, country blackened beyond recognition), will move and spend my remaining days in Norway, something I’ve considered on a number of occasions anyway. Alas, Daughters here and in Europe complicate my life.

    3. Looks like it’s gonna be a pretty cold one next week in The Heartland. Wouldn’t it be ironic if people have to bundle up when going out to admire Al Gore’s latest piece of…entertainment?

      1. Guess they could just go to Alaska where it will be as nice and toasty as Florida!

      2. It’s called the jetstream
        http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/5-day/GFS-025deg_NA-LC2_WS250_5-day.png

        http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/5-day/GFS-025deg_NA-LC2_T2_anom_5-day.png

        Your talents are wasted here. You should work for CIA as Director of Complicated Analysis.

        First half of 2017 ranks 2nd hottest globally, behind 201
        https://phys.org/news/2017-07-2nd-hottest-globally.html

        Check out Cali high temps.
        http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/5-day/GFS-025deg_NA-LC2_T2_max_5-day.png

        1. Sure thing, the members of the “in crowd” around here can post about how warm its going to be in B.C., California, The West and get an “atta boy” for it. I post an actual NOAA map showing The East will be cold, only to be belittled with stuff like “you should work for CIA as Director of Complicated Analysis.” Is there any wonder why there’s a whole lot of climate skeptics these days?

          1. Is there any wonder why there’s a whole lot of climate skeptics these days?

            Well ignorance and a ideological crippled mind doesn’t help.

      3. Bob Frisky – Are you suggesting that we should treat a post from someone pointing out that they are at risk of losing their home to a wildfire the same as one saying that the weather has changed, just because it was you who has deigned to enlighten us of it?

      4. Whoa, hold up a minute. Those are probabilities not temperatures. All they show is the probability that a temperature will be above or below normal, not how much. Ye Gads! Read the chart.

  55. Something I’ve wondered about for years clearly explained by American Forest Foundation:

    “In addition to threatening lives, destroying homes, damaging forests and wildlife habitat, wildfires emit large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as other greenhouse gases and air pollutants such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Up to 3% of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from wildfires.”

    “Wildfires not only emit greenhouse gases while they’re burning, but they also release carbon that has been sequestered by the trees that are burned. Dead trees continue to release carbon stores as they decompose after a fire, and carbon uptake is slowed or halted in burned areas because the vegetation is gone and photosynthesis cannot take place. It can take decades for a forest to reach pre-fire levels of carbon uptake and storage.”

    https://www.forestfoundation.org/wildfires-and-climate-change

    2. We might have accidental or natural fires but other places have purposeful burning.
      Africa and Madagascar on fire.

    3. One of the key ways satellites detect fires is by looking at carbon monoxide emission.

  56. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3352.html (letter)

    LESS THAN 2 °C WARMING BY 2100 UNLIKELY

    The recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections to 2100 give likely ranges of global temperature increase in four scenarios for population, economic growth and carbon use1. However, these projections are not based on a fully statistical approach. Here we use a country-specific version of Kaya’s identity to develop a statistically based probabilistic forecast of CO2 emissions and temperature change to 2100. Using data for 1960–2010, including the UN’s probabilistic population projections for all countries2, 3, 4, we develop a joint Bayesian hierarchical model for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and carbon intensity. We find that the 90% interval for cumulative CO2 emissions includes the IPCC’s two middle scenarios but not the extreme ones. The likely range of global temperature increase is 2.0–4.9 °C, with median 3.2 °C and a 5% (1%) chance that it will be less than 2 °C (1.5 °C). Population growth is not a major contributing factor. Our model is not a ‘business as usual’ scenario, but rather is based on data which already show the effect of emission mitigation policies. Achieving the goal of less than 1.5 °C warming will require carbon intensity to decline much faster than in the recent past.

    1. Nice to have a climate prediction model based on government and people’s future action to reduce carbon as well as one that says that population growth (which I take to include life-style growth) is not a major factor.

      I see some replacement occurring but the overall use of fossil energy, burning of forest for agriculture, and growing population/life style increase or staying the same (depending upon the region).
      I don’t blame 5 billion people for wanting a better lifestyle and I am sure they don’t want to hear from me or any one in the developed nations on how to do it. They watched us abuse the world and now when we say stop, they remember our precious actions and watch our current actions. Hypocrisy and lack of trust seems to be the keyword here.

      1. I don’t blame 5 billion people for wanting a better lifestyle and I am sure they don’t want to hear from me or any one in the developed nations on how to do it. They watched us abuse the world and now when we say stop, they remember our precious actions and watch our current actions. Hypocrisy and lack of trust seems to be the keyword here.

        Pale Blue Dot – A Great Speech By Carl Sagan
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPXYUR5TqAQ

        1. Why does a squirrel not freeze in winter, even though it is highly exposed to the winter winds and storms up a tree?

          Simple, it insulates a nest or cavity to about it’s body width for exposed nests . The volume is kept relatively small. No need for heat other than what it produces from it’s metabolism and it eats a very dense caloric food, nuts. Nuts store well and are very nutritious.
          It’s almost like the trees designed the squirrel and it’s technology. In return the squirrel spreads the trees faster than they could do by themselves.

          We need simple, cheap and obvious solutions and we need to operate within the design of the world. We need to design our lives to fit within the natural world not keep designing things to obliterate it.
          Now start thinking and doing fast.

          1. The trees DID design the squirrels, lol.

            And the flip side is that the squirrels designed the trees, double laugh.

            They may not have figured out biological evolution, but the old timers, especially those in the far East, were pretty damned good at seeing the way things work together to determine reality.

            It’s been many years since I spent many an evening, weak and weary, poring over many a volume of forgotten (except by philosophers ) lore of that sort, courtesy of Poe, mangled, of course.

            So I don’t remember who reputedly said it first.

            The river shapes the land, and the land shapes it’s river.

            It’s arguable that a substantial number of tree species in my neck of the woods, and in many other places, could not survive without the help of the squirrels.

            Water,gravity and wind( wind only to a very minor extent) can move acorns and walnuts, etc, downhill, and laterally a little, but the it’s the squirrels that move them laterally and uphill in the eastern USA.

            3. No self respecting elk or deer will eat the plants along the river if wolves are about. They hide in there. Surprise!

  57. Has anyone thought to ask why CO2 levels were so stable in the past two millennia. previous to the industrial revolution? What stalled the change? Why so stable? Or was it a forced stability of competing vectors?
    Temperature varied by about +- 0.15 degrees over that period in general. With some short term excursions outside of that range. However the rise of carbon did not continue.

    1. Has anyone thought to ask why CO2 levels were so stable in the past two millennia. previous to the industrial revolution? What stalled the change? Why so stable? Or was it a forced stability of competing vectors?

      Maybe because God wanted it that way 😉

      While not quite an answer to your specific query, but nonetheless an interesting discussion about carbon cycle and carbon sinks is included in this paper.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GB004247/pdf
      GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 26, GB2027, doi:10.1029/2011GB004247, 2012

      Atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years: A high-resolution
      record from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)
      Divide ice core
      Jinho Ahn,1 Edward J. Brook,2 Logan Mitchell,2 Julia Rosen,2 Joseph R. McConnell,3
      Kendrick Taylor,3 David Etheridge,4 and Mauro Rubino4
      Received 16 November 2011; revised 6 April 2012; accepted 15 April 2012; published 26 May 2012.
      [1] We report a decadally resolved record of atmospheric CO2 concentration for the last
      1000 years, obtained from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide shallow ice core.
      The most prominent feature of the pre-industrial period is a rapid 7 ppm decrease of CO2
      in a span of 20–50 years at 1600 A.D. This observation confirms the timing of an
      abrupt atmospheric CO2 decrease of 10 ppm observed for that time period in the Law
      Dome ice core CO2 records, but the true magnitude of the decrease remains unclear.
      Atmospheric CO2 variations over the time period 1000–1800 A.D. are statistically
      correlated with northern hemispheric climate and tropical Indo-Pacific sea surface
      temperature. However, the exact relationship between CO2 and climate remains elusive due
      to regional climate variations and/or uneven geographical data density of paleoclimate
      records. We observe small differences of 0 2% (0 6 ppm) among the high-precision
      CO2 records from the Law Dome, EPICA Dronning Maud Land and WAIS Divide
      Antarctic ice cores. However, those records share common trends of CO2 change on
      centennial to multicentennial time scales, and clearly show that atmospheric CO2 has been
      increasing above preindustrial levels since 1850 A.D.

      1. Also

        What are the greenhouse gas changes since the Industrial Revolution?

        https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html

        This figure shows that the atmospheric concentrations of naturally occurring greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2, red), methane (CH4, blue), and nitrous oxide (N2O, green)—have varied over the past 650 millennia as the Earth has cooled (glacial periods, minima in the black curve) and warmed several times (interglacial periods denoted by the grey bars). Concentration units are parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb)—the number of molecules of the greenhouse gas per million or billion molecules, respectively, in a dry atmospheric sample. Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO2 are about 390 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.

        Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750. Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic. CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades.
        .

      1. I think his question is not so much how the control knob works but more along the lines of why the thermostat was stuck where it was for the last 2000 years? My guess is, that it was because no one was home to fiddle with it until around 1850, when it was reset from a nice steady cool temp, to extra hot and it has still not reached that temperature but the residents are starting to wonder why it is getting so damn warm in here… 😉

          1. Oh goody, more things to watch happen. Fire and Ice, what a combination. 🙁

            1. Gets worse, if we lose the ice sheets… welcome photosynthetic purple sulfur bacteria throughout the oceans and an extinction event to rival the one at the end of the Permian.

              By about 251 million years ago, the planet had lost all of its ice, and with the final glaciers melting away, there was no longer a sufficient heat difference between the tropics and poles to maintain the various ocean currents that had kept the waters both cold and oxygenated. The “Great Dying” at the end of the Permian period, was the most catastrophic of the five mass extinctions in Earth’s fossil record. More than half of the families of living things died out, and as many as 95 percent of the planet’s marine species were lost. At the same time, perhaps 70 percent of the land’s reptile, amphibian, insect, and plant families became extinct.

              Peter Ward, the renowned astrobiologist and author of Under a Green Sky, talks about the perils of hydrogen sulfide, which he says wiped out 90 percent of Earth’s species during this period.

              Here’s a talk by Peter:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4&feature=youtu.be&t=33m1s

              That particular global warming was caused by huge amounts of CO2 suddenly emitted by a gigantic basalt flood event. As Peter asks:
              “What’s the difference between a Basalt Flood a Volcano and a Volvo? ” There isn’t any…
              Cheers!

            2. Once had to evaluate a uranium deposit that had formed in anoxic zones of alkaline lake bed sediments. It turned out hydrogen sulfide had triggered the formation of amazing blooms of purple sulfur fixing bacteria. Details were worked out by a geochemist.

            3. The difference between a Volvo and a giant basaltic flood event is the Volvo is faster and more effective at global warming.

    3. There was something earlier this year or last about how this interglacial is a bit of an anomaly and shouldn’t have lasted as long as it has given the weaker sun. I think they explained it because there was a longer glacial period before. The frequencies changed about a million years ago possibly because of lower CO2 levels then, and a longer glacial period actually makes it easier to melt afterwards (I think still fairly early in their studies). Of course all that theory has been messed up in the last 150 years. Maybe a couple of things cancelled out as a result (e.g. with less ice cover more CO2 stayed in the atmosphere than would be there given the other conditions).

    1. “After an unusually warm winter, the Arctic sea ice maximum in March clocked in as the smallest in the satellite record. This led some to speculate that 2016 might be on course to beat the 2012 record low for the summer sea ice minimum. However, a period of cool and stormy weather during the summer means that is now highly unlikely. Arctic sea ice is now roughly tracking as the third lowest summer extent on record.”

      You bet they did predict a record low for summer sea ice minimum:
      http://www.carbonbrief.org/arctic-sea-ice-could-shrink-to-record-low-this-summer-say-scientists

      “Dr Marcel Nicolaus, a sea ice physicist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, says the 2016 summer could equal, or surpass, this record.”

      But it didn’t. Now this year we have the same predictions:
      https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/arctic-sea-ice-primed-phenomenal-melt-season

      And again it won’t happen. NSIDC has already said that it is highly unlikely given the slow melt this year.

      They are not looking at the data that says that no melting has taken place for the past 10 years, as we are still above 2007 extent levels. They should be trying to figure out where they went wrong instead of making up excuses.

      This is JAXA data for the past years showing that Arctic sea ice has been a lot more stable lately than currently acknowledged.

      1. “Dr Marcel Nicolaus, a sea ice physicist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, says the 2016 summer COULD equal, or surpass, this record.”

        Javier, It appears you don’t understand the meaning of the word ‘could’

        could: used to indicate possibility.
        “they could be right”

        When somebody says something ‘could’ happen it is not a prediction that it will happen. It is a statement that it is in the realm of possibility. Perhaps you need a dictionary.

        Nobody beats you at failed predictions.

        1. Except for the last decade (2007-2017) when the decline rate was actually negative.

          In survivalist lexicon a negative decline rate is still a decline. Data skewing and fake news as usual.

          1. You suck at math doc. What kind of University gives out PhD’s in biological sciences and doesn’t cover basic math?

            “Evidently Javier was unhappy about NSIDC using daily data on sea ice extent to show that this year had the 2nd-lowest annual minimum on record. So, he decided to go with the September monthly averages for each year, and to start with 2007 to show a “trend” which, he says, shows “that Arctic sea ice has been increasing since that fateful September of 2007.”

            Gosh, Javier, what was that you were saying about “The trend is always determined by the choice of starting point and ending point“? Didn’t you “Do your homework“?

            Of course the trend isn’t determined by the choice of start and end points, but it’s strongly influenced by it. That’s especially true if you start (or end) with an extreme, which I discussed here. And that’s exactly what Javier has done: start, not just with the most extreme September average in the record, but one so extreme he himself refers to it as “fateful.”

            Javier has also resorted to another denier favorite: computing a “trend” based on a time span that’s way to short. Way too short. Ten years, from 2007 to 2016. And, in classic fashion, he omits to estimate any uncertainty with that “trend.”

            Let’s do the math for him….”

            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/extreme-cherry-ice/

            2. Classic Javier. Pure comedy gold. I like how he is now using ‘fake news’ in his vocabulary. A strong indication that he has truly gone off the deep end.

            3. Maybe Javier could benefit from reading Grant Foster’s aka Tamino’s book on Statistics for lay people…

              https://www.aavso.org/new-stats-book-grant-foster

              New Stats Book by Grant Foster
              Grant Foster has published a new statistics book titled “Understanding Statistics: Basic Theory and Practice”.

              Many of you will remember Grant as a former employee of the AAVSO. Of his many accomplishments were programming the original versions of TS, WWZ and VStar software. He also developed the CLEANEST and WWZ algorithms for analyzing variable star data. He’s given many talks at AAVSO meetings both during his employment and after. He also wrote the excellent book Analyzing Light Curves: A Practical Guide. This book is aimed at describing the fundamentals of “Stats 101”.

              I have not read it myself yet. However, I already ordered it just on his reputation alone. Grant is one of the best people I’ve met at describing stats to a layperson, so I have high expectations for the book.

            4. Yeah right. Like if oil production didn’t increase for the next ten years, people here would be saying that the time span was way too short to conclude that something different was at play.

              It is if you only play with numbers without any knowledge of the physics reality behind them.

              At least three scientific articles deal with the issue that Arctic sea ice has entered a different phase. Something that Tamino, a known data torturer, wouldn’t know even if it hit him in the face.

              Wyatt, M. G., and J. A. Curry. “Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century.” Climate dynamics 42.9-10 (2014): 2763-2782.
              M.W. Miles et al. 2014. “A signal of persistent Atlantic multidecadal variability in Arctic sea ice.” Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 463–469.
              Årthun, M., et al. (2017). Skillful prediction of northern climate provided by the ocean. Nature Communications, 8, ncomms15875.

              That’s why Tamino is wrong and I am right. Do not expect any significant Arctic sea ice melting for years to come.

            5. Different writing style again, as I suspected for a while, Javier is several different people or is grabbing other people’s comments and posting them here.

            6. The issue with Javier is that he says that everyone besides himself is doing the science incorrectly. He doesn’t do the math himself but does hand-waving while citing all this prior research. Yet that prior research can’t be right, because only Javier is right.

              That’s the hypocrisy in Javier’s arguments. He says all the research is wrong except for research that supports his position.

            7. I thought I didn’t have to say this, but it goes to show that people talking about statistics often don’t have a grasp of them.

              No amount of statistics can say that the melting of Arctic sea ice that hasn’t taken place since 2007 has actually taken place. Within measurement precision, the melting has not taken place, and Tamino can’t change that.

          2. “Except for the last decade (2007-2017) when the decline rate was actually negative”
            You do realize the 2017 minimum has not occurred yet, right?

            From NSIDC:
            “As of July 17, Arctic sea ice extent stood at 7.88 million square kilometers (3.04 million square miles). This is 1.69 million square kilometers (653,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average, and 714,000 square kilometers (276,000 million square miles) below the interdecile range. ”

            Sounds lower to me.

            1. “E pur non si scioglie” (it still doesn’t melt).

              As of today Arctic sea ice extent is higher than the same date of 2007.

  60. Two nukes cancelled mid construction due to cost overruns and cheap gas.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-project-canceled-in-south-carolina.html

    There’s a good bit of food for thought in this article, but I fear most of us will not bother to chew it and digest it.We will as usual deal with it mostly in sound bite fashion.

    There’s an embedded graphic link that is chock full of data about what the people of the USA think about climate change.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html

    1. From the second link:

      The effects of climate change, including sunny-day flooding, are being felt across Florida. But the state shows a distinct north-south split in the level of concern over global warming, and it is not a simple Democrat-versus-Republican distinction, said State Representative Kristin D. Jacobs, a Democrat. Four southeast Florida counties — Miami-Dade, Broward, and Monroe and Palm Beach — stand out because of their concerted effort to work on climate issues together and to discuss it in nonpartisan terms.

      It’s hard to deny sea level rise when your new Porsche is ruined by salt water flooding on a sunny day driving down Collins Ave. in South Beach. Well, unless you’re Trump and Scott Pruitt. BTW, Mar-a-Lago is highly vulnerable…

  61. Drudge is getting pretty pissed with the Trump administration, according to this link, mostly because of a lack of accomplishments.

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/26/media/matt-drudge-donald-trump-coverage?utm_source=ADA_obamplify13&utm_medium=cpc_cur&utm_campaign=money_video&utm_term=july2017

    ” “Drudge smells smoke and maybe sees some fire and he is trying to figure out this: Does he put the fire out? Can the fire be put out? Or does he put himself in the position to pour kerosene on the fire and take advantage of that? So basically, Drudge is trying to figure out if he is the fireman or the arsonist,” said conservative columnist John Ziegler, who was an occasional guest host on Drudge’s old radio show, though they were not very close. “He hasn’t figured out what the end game is.”

    “Drudge above everything is a capitalist who loves chaos. He’s not a conservative. He is not really an ideologue,” continued Ziegler. “He loves the story. He needs the next chapter. He wants traffic. And he wants this to come out in a way that’s good for him. I sense he is trying to have it both ways right now. He’s acknowledging now there’s a fire. That’s I think the main thing.”

    According to this guy Ziegler, Drudge seems to be a guy who is more interested in looking after himself than in any particular political agenda. This could mean that he might turn on the Trump administration, just as he has turned on other politicians.

    ” Thus far, despite a wave of critical news coverage from legacy news outlets, Trump has maintained the support of his base. Traditional media simply hasn’t been effective at penetrating the media universe these voters live in. But that universe is the one over which Drudge rules.

    Which is perhaps why Fox News host Tucker Carlson last week advised Trump to pay more attention to the Drudge Report.

    “It is his base that will determine whether or not he survives,” Ziegler said. “If conservative media outlets start attacking him, it could be over. And Drudge is definitely a bellwether. There’s no question about it.”

    Personally I’m thinking that Trump and his homies are screwing up so badly that a substantial part of the conservative leaning media will find it NECESSARY, or at least expedient, to turn on the Trump administration.

    Some news organizations are entirely partisan of course, but most are not, because they depend to a substantial extent on middle of the road readers or viewers, and to some extent on the patronage of people who are at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

    Lose those middle of the road readers , and those at the opposite end of the spectrum, and you risk going out of business.

    So many people are getting seriously pissed at the Trump camp that it’s soon going to be dangerous to the financial health of a newspaper or magazine to support the administration, or to soft pedal bad news about it.

  62. Fight for your right to fix your own iPhone
    The “Right-to-Repair” movement fights corporate rules that keep you from fixing your own broken stuff
    Jim Hightower

    http://www.salon.com/2017/07/30/fight-for-your-right-to-fix-your-own-iphone/

    Planned obsolescence has long been a consumer expense and irritation. Now brand-name profiteers are pushing a new abuse: Repair prevention. This treacherous corporate scheme does more than gouge buyers on the original purchase. Using both legal ruses and digital lockdowns, major manufacturers are quietly attempting to outlaw the natural instinct of us humanoids to fiddle with and improve the material things we own in order to charge us to fix it. Indeed, the absurdity and arrogance of their overreach is even more basic: They’re out to corporatize the very idea of “owning.”

  63. Illegal border crossings jump in Northern New York
    By Tyler Dumont
    Posted: Mon 5:19 PM, Jul 31, 2017 |
    Updated: Mon 7:26 PM, Jul 31, 2017

    http://www.wcax.com/content/news/Illegal-border-crossing-jump-in-Northern-New-York-437723483.html

    Taxi after taxi, family after family: With their lives packed in luggage, people from across the world are coming down a dead end in Champlain, New York, called Roxham Road and willfully crossing illegally into Canada.

    “The traffic has increased significantly,” said Norman Lague, the U.S. Border Patrol agent in charge.

    The U.S. Border Patrol says at the start of the year, about 20 people a day crossed here. Now, that number is typically over 100. Canadian border authorities wouldn’t give us specific numbers for crossers at this spot but they did tell us it brings the highest number of illegal entries of the entire Quebec province. Data for that area shows Canadian police interceptions at the border since January of this year have more than tripled.

    1. “Give me your tired, your poor,
      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
      I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

      Yep, the golden door to jail and deportation. The US is not a friendly place to outsiders anymore.

        1. Nahh, just put a big flashing sign on it. CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

      2. It’s been a while, in human terms, since we Euro types raped, robbed, pillaged and pretty much wiped out the various people who were living here in the America’s previous to the last three or four centuries.

        The population density NOW is probably at least twenty times what it was THEN.

        It is a rare thing for me to stop commenting on an important issue, such as overpopulation real, or potential, in any country, including my own, but since the Trump administration is coming out for greatly restricted immigration, I am getting to be very uncomfortable talking about it, and may quit doing so.

        But the issue is real, and reminds me of what Churchill said about the devil, something to the effect that he would at least mention him favorably in Parliament if he were to come out against Hitler. I don’t even want to pay Trump that sort of left handed /humorous compliment.

        In any case, we need to continue to reduce our overall birth rate as quickly as we can, to the extent we can, so that the population of this country will peak asap, and start to decline, if we are REALLY serious about preserving the biosphere long term for the sake of our descendants and the sake of the larger biosphere itself.

    1. The good news is fossil fuels are all finite and I think that sooner rather than later they will all peak.So those trends can’t and won’t continue.

      Furthermore despite those charts alternatives are growing at accelerating rates year over year. The chart that shows a 1% reduction per decade every decade of total share of fossil fuels is also telling because it highlights 1990 to the present and global population grew from 5.2 billion in 1990 to 7.5 billion plus today. So despite adding 2.5 billion inhabitants to the planet the overall share of fossil fuel use still dropped! I strongly suspect that this is just the beginning of a long term much steeper reduction trend.

      Is it enough? hell no but alternatives are on an exponential growth path and fossil fuel use is actually falling despite a continuation of global population growth.

      1. “The good news is fossil fuels are all finite and I think that sooner rather than later they will all peak”

        My gut tells me there are plenty enough fossil fuels to cook ourselves

        1. If you hate the fossil fuels so very much, why still using them? You rather go back, to the complete dark age?

          1. The smart ones, like me and others, are steadily using less and less until we get to zero. We still have electricity, which no longer depends on fossil fuels for generation. Not quite the dark ages Pierre.

            Fossil fuels are a very expensive and very harmful convenience that we are moving beyond.
            Getting rid of fossil fuel burning for energy use is mandatory, or we WILL go back to the dark ages.

          2. Hi Pierre,

            When my dog does something wrong and I yell at her. She turns her head away from me and thinks I can’t see her any more.

            “Down Boy” !!!

        2. Sadly, HB is right. Although finite, expensive and very harmful, there are enough fossil fuels to permanently and significantly change the climate.

  65. ARCTIC SEA-ICE DECLINE WEAKENS THE ATLANTIC MERIDIONAL OVERTURNING CIRCULATION

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3353.html

    The ongoing decline of Arctic sea ice exposes the ocean to anomalous surface heat and freshwater fluxes, resulting in positive buoyancy anomalies that can affect ocean circulation. In this study, we use an optimal flux perturbation framework and comprehensive climate model simulations to estimate the sensitivity of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) to such buoyancy forcing over the Arctic and globally, and more generally to sea-ice decline. It is found that on decadal timescales, flux anomalies over the subpolar North Atlantic have the largest impact on the AMOC, while on multi-decadal timescales (longer than 20 years), flux anomalies in the Arctic become more important. These positive buoyancy anomalies spread to the North Atlantic, weakening the AMOC and its poleward heat transport. Therefore, the Arctic sea-ice decline may explain the suggested slow-down of the AMOC and the ‘Warming Hole’ persisting in the subpolar North Atlantic.

      1. That is even more eye-opening than one might think at first. Since the AMOC transports heat into the Arctic regions a slow down means less heat has been transported. Even without that heat the Arctic is still melting.
        Apparently other heat energy sources are so far advanced that diminishing one hardly makes a difference.

  66. Australian Bureau of Meteorology caught erasing cold temperatures

    Front page scandal today in Australia: BoM opens cold case on temperature data

    Graham Lloyd, The Australian

    “The Bureau of Meteorology has ordered a full review of temperature recording equipment and procedures after the peak weather agency was caught tampering with cold winter temperature logs in at least two locations.

    Bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon blew the whistle on the missing data after watching the minus 10.4C Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. “The temperature dropped to minus 10.4, stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10 and then it disappeared,” Mr Pidgeon said.

    He relayed his concerns to scientist Jennifer Marohasy, who has queried the bureau’s treatment of historical temperature data. After questions were asked, the bureau restored the original recording of minus 10.4C to its website. A bureau spokeswoman said the low recording had been checked for “quality assurance” before being posted.

    The bureau said limits were set on how low temperatures could go at some stations before a manual check was needed to confirm them. “The bureau’s quality ­control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at minus 10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted,” a bureau spokeswoman said.

    A similar failure had deleted a reading of minus 10.4 at Thredbo Top on July 16 even though temperatures at that station had been recorded as low as minus 14.7 in the past. That temperature was still blank on the bureau’s website yesterday.

    The bureau did not respond to questions about how widely the quality control system had been applied and at what upper temperature the cut-off had been set.

    Dr Marohasy has evidence of the initial minus 10.4C recording at Thredbo before it was deleted for quality ­assurance.

    “This either reflects an extraordinary incompetence, or a determination to prevent evidence of low temperatures,” Dr Marohasy said.”

    Anthropogenic global warming, no doubt.

    1. Truth? Far from it, a right wing driven, anti-science, FF paid newspaper.
      They did flag both high and low readings to be checked manually.
      More Stink from Javier, just spreading the word of professional trolls and fake news writers.

      <The only other national newspaper, The Australian, laid its credibility to waste years ago.

      The newspaper serves as irrefutable proof that the corrosive phenomena of fake news and trolling preceded the internet.

      ‘Baseless campaigns’

      Its news coverage is overwhelmed by its baseless campaigns against the science of climate change, plain packaging of tobacco laws, ‘the Godless Left’, the Bureau of Meteorology, the ABC and the Australian Human Rights Commission.

      Then there is its relentless pursuit of individuals including Professor Gillian Triggs, Margaret Simons, Robert Manne, Tim Soutphommasane and Julie Posetti.

      If investigative journalism is a heroic and courageous vocation, the voluminous personal tirades perfected by The Australian represent the cowardly, bullying face of mainstream journalism in this country.

      http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/people/2017/01/05/year-newspapers-broke/

      2. The BoM doesn’t agree with you, as it has ordered a full review of temperature recording equipment and procedures.

        It has been shown that they are altering the raw data. And that is a capital sin. You never touch the raw data.

        1. Once the review is completed I’ll be sure to remind you of it’s results.
          I guess Javiers never hear of ‘reserve judgement, gather more info, and reflect on it.’ What a clown. All he’s got is rumors and hasty conclusions to go by. Must be getting desperate lol.

          1. Sure. The chances of BoM finding that BoM committed wrongdoing even when caught red handed are slim.

            As if adjusting was not enough, now inconvenient records are erased.

    1. So it’s not just the oil and gas companies being exempted. Well, that is the current trend now.

  69. CO2 emissions reduced in proportion to the OME share: in the Continental diesel car, a 15 % OME share reduces CO2 emissions by approximately eight grams per kilometer

    Synthetic fuels, the production and burning of which is CO2-neutral, have the potential to make combustion drives more environmentally friendly. The technology company Continental has now successfully conducted tests on a synthetic fuel called oxymethylene ether (OME) in test vehicles. This includes the Super Clean Electrified Diesel vehicle presented this year, which operates even more cleanly using an OME admixture.

    https://www.continental-corporation.com/en/press/press-releases/2017-08-01-climate-neutral-driving-92054

    1. Sounds like another ethanol type scam to me. OME is made from biofuels, so it’s carbon neutral? Sell me another one.

    1. The ice on the Pacific side just seemed to fade away according to the US Navy and ArctischePinguin sites, almost 200,000 km2 lost on area. The US army buoy 2017A must be floating in water now. Jaxa and NSIDC work on running averages (I think 2 and 5 days) so they smooth things out a bit more.

      1. Pill Boy was always morally malleable.
        Entertainment for simpletons.

    3. American icon and national treasure Rush Limbaugh is celebrating 30 years on the air today. Incredible!

      Yeah he got off real light after being arrested for drug fraud…

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12536446/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/limbaugh-reaches-settlement-drugs-case/#.WYEH84jyuM8

      WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A three-year investigation into drug use by Rush Limbaugh ended abruptly when the conservative commentator was booked on a single charge of prescription fraud in a deal his attorney says spares him a trial.

      The charge will be dropped if Limbaugh continues treatment, attorney Roy Black said Friday.
      “He feels that a great burden has been lifted from his shoulders,” he said. “What he told me is that this is the first day of the rest of his life.”

      Limbaugh surrendered at the Palm Beach County Jail and was booked on a warrant charging him with “doctor shopping,” when a patient illegally deceives multiple physicians to receive overlapping prescriptions.

      The 55-year-old commentator left an hour later, after he was photographed and fingerprinted and he posted $3,000 bail, said Teri Barbera, spokeswoman for the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office.

      1. Almost as bad as those radio and TV evangelists sucking up the poor people’s money.

    4. You know what I like about Texans?
      They are easy to bury.
      Just give them a enema, and bury them in a shoe box.

    5. the world as we always imagined them to be

      Couldn’t of said it better myself.
      A imagined fantasy for frightened simpletons.

    6. Congratulations to you, Mr. Limbaugh! Thank you for all you have done to destroy the legacy liberal mainstream establishment. ? The days before you came along certainly were very dark in United States media. The only thing we had were far left newsreaders attempting to impose their warped worldviews unto us, rather than somebody with the guts to explain the circumstances of the world as we always knew them to be.

    7. Dave Hillerman- known as one of the most gullible sort of men. he has his trump univ degree hung proudly on his wall. he swallowed the hook, line and sinker, and came back for me.
      Didn’t even get the sense he’d been brainwashed. Not real inciteful. Nope.

  74. How bad is it out there for some people, especially older people ?

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/01/homeless-man-robbed-bank-so-could-go-back-to-prison.html

    “In large part, Mr. McAdoo simply wanted to get out of the cold and return to prison,” his lawyer said.

    His public defenders are asking for leniency in the case and are requesting a sentence of less than five years.

    Now I will be the first person in this forum at least to point out that we have a LOT of cheats and cheapskates on one sort of welfare or another, who ought not be, here in the USA.

    But when somebody is old and hungry and freezing, we ought to do better than leave them with their last best option getting back into jail.

    1. we have a LOT of cheats and cheapskates on one sort of welfare or another

      It’s true. Limbaugh is a good example – it’s easy work when all you have to do is make stuff up. No research or thinking necessary. Trump is another good example – someone who lived off of family and connections, stealing money from employees, contractors and customers.

      I just saw “The Big Short” – it’s filled with cheats and cheapskates.

      1. “All of us assign blame in our own best interest — blame is relative…. one of the most important functions in society becomes who controls the blame pattern. Why is it that [the working class] assign blame downward to some welfare chiselers down at the bottom, “Tryin’ to get a little bit of somethin’ for nothin'” — and they never assign blame upward to a handful of big-time chiselers at the top that get a whole lot of something for doing nothing at all? That’s because the blame pattern is manipulated. . . . It was easier then to identify who your enemy was: When you were booming into the freight yard you could see the private cars rolled off on the siding, as you were sweating underground in Butte the mansions being built in a ring on the hills around, and the mansions working their way higher up the hill the deeper you dug yourself into the ground. Easy to see.” – Utah Phillips

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjpTClVlrd8

      2. I totally agree that Limbaugh is a fat old fraud, but I have never seen any evidence that he is on food stamps, or rental assistance, or disability, or anything of that nature.

        So far as I know his radio show is supported by advertisers, rather than by donations from listeners.

        I have tuned him in a few times, when riding in the car, and faced with the choice of some idiot on NPR talking endlessly about some movie or something equally trivial. Normally I keep my car radio locked onto the local NPR affiliate. The only thing he is good for is laughs but I don’t THINK he can honestly be described as a welfare cheat. If you have evidence to the contrary, I ‘m all ears, or rather, eyes, in this case.

        Now about welfare cheats………… I have spoken personally to half a dozen people within the last two or three weeks that are on disability or some sort of welfare who are as able to work as dozens of people I know who DO work.

        Two of them are women who have men who supply them with quite a bit of money, and they are NOT hookers in any usual sense of the word. They just keep their relationship INFORMAL, with their man ” VISITING” more or less all the time, but maintaining his mailing address, and some evidence that he lives ELSEWHERE , at another location. This allows her to collect more more than she could if they were to get married.

        These people are all my fucking NEIGHBORS and I know PRECISELY what I am talking about. For what it’s worth, I also know quite a few people who are working and cheating or stealing in various ways from their employer.

        At least half and probably three quarters of the people I know who are trades people have cheated on unemployment by working for cash while collecting.

        I have collected unemployment maybe half a dozen times myself, over the years, and in the MORAL sense I cheated too. But I NEVER worked for cash, or for goods in exchange, while on unemployment. The minor risk of getting caught was enough to keep me from doing so, since I had a LOT to lose, such as a couple of professional tickets, and the respect of my family and friends. Now most of them wouldn’t be too upset with me for cheating to make a few extra bucks……. but they would have contempt for me getting caught cheating, especially for such a trivial sum.

        Now suppose I were to get caught stealing from a store…….. Almost every last person in my family, and all my friends, would more or less disown me.

        I simply worked at projects of my own ( while on unemployment) which paid nothing in terms of taxable income, such as painting my personal house. This was perfectly legal so long as I actually applied for three jobs every week, which I did, strictly by the RULES.

        Now about turning these people in………. I would no more do that than the average sensible person who believes our drug laws are a joke would turn in his friends and neighbors for smoking a joint. It just isn’t DONE.

        And if you actually DO IT…….. the relevant authorities aren’t at all interested in investigating, as a rule. That means more work for them, and explaining why they approved the benefits in the first place, etc.

        I was pretty much stealing myself on my last paid job, by way of doing as little work as possible.I never actually TOOK anything, other than a lot of NAPS, lol. When confronted on a regular basis by management, I simply said you are pretending to pay me, and I’m pretending to work. They didn’t fire me because I was one hundred percent reliable about showing up, and this was a very hard job to fill, twelve hours every Saturday and Sunday, no bennies at all, and not well paid.

        But that was ok by me, because I was getting PAID to further educate myself, for instance getting in all my studies and homework while working on my RN ticket, or just amusing myself. You can play chess over the phone. You can discuss the pro’s and con’s of planting another five acres of apple trees with other growers.

        It also had the excellent effect of allowing me to be GONE all day Saturday and Sunday, which pretty much put my siblings ( then living ) in a position of having to look after our bedridden parents every weekend, rather than begging off and leaving me home SEVEN days a week. They had regular jobs at that time, with little weekend work , excepting the one who is a nurse. She had to work some weekends as part of the regular rotation.

        Got the NECESSARY work done on that last job in two or three hours, with nobody around except one other guy in the entire industrial plant, most weekends, doing the same thing, except he was gung ho, and eventually made full time. We kept the boilers running, and ran the fire watch. That was our OFFICIAL job description, and knowing I wouldn’t ever get more than maybe fifty cents an hour annual raise, I just laughed about not getting it.

        Now MY personal belief is that both hard core Republicans and hard core Democrats are generally willing to ignore reality, and to pretend they believe things that they know are patently untrue, and in as many cases as not, to lie like dogs, or at least fib a little, any time it suits their political agenda. Lying by omission in my book is not that different from lying by commission.

        But I’m neither a Republican or a Democrat, and I don’t pretend about anything for any body, except when I’m fooling myself. We all fool ourselves sometimes, because we all tend to believe things we WANT to be true.

        The first thing I ever learned about HRC that I can specifically remember led me to conclude that she is a scam artist and a thief, and I have in the last thirty years or so not found a single shred of evidence to convince me otherwise.

        I have posted a challenge in this very forum at least a dozen times for ANY MATHEMATICALLY LITERATE big D Democrat or other D partisan leaning person to come forward and debate the facts of Cattle Gate as reported in the NYT and the Washington Post etc.

        Nobody has ever accepted this challenge, and I don’t think anybody ever will. I have posted it many, many times in at least half a dozen other forums, using different handles at different times. Sometimes I used my own name, which I do in certain forums. Lots of D partisans, and HRC fans in particular, have called me various names, some of them rather imaginative, but so far…… no takers to discuss the math.

        OF COURSE Trump is an old he coon of a thief and scam artist, and on her BEST day, HRC compares to him about like a junior high school football player compares to an NFL player.

        ETC.

        I tell it like it is, or at least like I BELIEVE it is.

        Pretending is for partisans, cynics, hypocrites, people afraid to face up to reality, or for people who think they are entitled to lead other people by keeping them ignorant or misinformed or by outright lying to them.

    2. Now I will be the first person in this forum at least to point out that we have a LOT of cheats and cheapskates on one sort of welfare or another, who ought not be, here in the USA.

      Look at the article link I posted up there (watch the video). More and more of the vermin are fleeing to Canada. That’s sad for the people up there who never asked for any of that, but good for cleaning up the U.S.A.

      1. What in the video leads you to believe those human beings are vermin? They seem like ok folks. They’ll get jobs and healthcare in Canada and be just fine. Much better off than living in old shit-hole USA.

        1. These people are country shopping. They leave their hellholes of filth and disease to infiltrate whichever western country has the best benefits and weakest deportation laws. For the past 8 years the United States has been incredibly appealing to them, but all that changed, on that glorious day last November. Now that we have a President who actually respects the Constitution of the United States, these people know it’s just a matter of time before they get captured. I guess Canada looks good nowdays to them. They’ll be there for as long as the giveaways last, then head off to the next country on the itinerary.

            1. Survey: GOP business executives want immigrant workers, not voters
              Fucking A.

              THEY don’t give a fuck about anything other than their bottom line , short to medium term. They expect to cash out, and live like royalty, long term.

              The problem with that plan is that it won’t work any longer, once the entire country is totally fucked up by this sort of business leadership.

              And at the rate we’re going…….. it won’t be much longer until the country is totally fucked up, beyond hope.

              UNLESS…….. we are lucky enough that the inevitable political backlash puts Sanders style Democrats back into control of the D party, and the D party regains control of the country, and fairly soon, like within the next two or three election cycles.

              The odds of this happening are in my opinion hard to estimate, but they aren’t any better than fair to a little better than fair, in my opinion, at this instant.

              Nevertheless, the Trump administration is screwing up so badly in so many ways that the odds of the D’s returning to power look better from one month to the next, to me at least.

              So- A minute or two later, I think the odds are perhaps better than just fair. Maybe they are good even now. The people in states such as NC and Texas that went for Trump are now thoroughly sick of him, only a few months later.

              In my opinion no more than half to two thirds of them who voted R actually voted FOR him.

              At least a quarter of them, maybe a lot more, were voting AGAINST HRC, in my estimation, and I know a lot of Tar Heels personally since the nearest town is across the state line in NC. I read a couple of NC papers, and listen to NC radio stations, except for one, because all the ones with good reception where I live are down that way. So I suppose I am entitled to this opinion, right or wrong.

              I can’t make up my mind yet which is the more likely outcome, politically.

          3. …but all that changed, on that glorious day last November. Now that we have a President who actually respects the Constitution of the United States,…

            LOL! I’m willing to bet everything I own that our current president couldn’t cite a single article of the US Constitution if his miserable life depended on it! And whatever you may think of him, the last occupant of the White House, by comparison, actually lectured on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago…

            1. That’s a pretty save bet. Baby hands can’t even stick to the teleprompter.

            2. Hi Fred,

              We’re mostly in the same book , and often on the same page.

              But I must disagree with you about Trump being TOTALLY ignorant of the constitution.

              I am willing to bet he knows the FOURTH Amendment by heart- the one crooks depend on to keep cops away, as best they can.

        2. Sorry, I don’t respect anyone who breaks laws, especially deliberately. That’s vermin to me.

            1. I know Limbaugh got and took some drugs illegally, apparently for pain relief.

              He’s not in the list you link, at least not among the first fifty. I suppose I could find a list of Democrats just as long, if I were to look for it.

              I am not defending Limbaugh, but I AM pointing out that remarks implying he is a crook or thief or welfare bum need to be supported with references.

              Potential middle of the road and socially conservative readers will never follow this site if it is chock full of such remarks.

              Of course it is equally true that middle of the roaders and socially liberal readers will won’t read sites with numerous remarks targeted at liberals while giving conservatives a free pass.

              So – Maybe it’s a wash, but I really would like to see a few hundred or a thousand new readers start spending some time here, because the educational potential is ENORMOUS.

          2. Nice story you’ve got going there Cats. As they say, we live by our myths.

      1. Yup – disobedient child? just take them out to the edge of the village and stone them to death, or was it just beat them to death, can’t remember, either way works.

        1. Well it must have worked, because Ronny Jr. has got a head on his shoulders.

      2. Not the brightest porch light on the block, for sure, but knew what the sheeple wanted–
        Perfected the Electronic Nuremberg Rally.

        Turned the US economy into a casino game. Tripled the National Debt (a military Keynesian). Perfected the “Charge and Loot” model of Repug economic policy.

        1. Reagan also paved the ways for fake news by gutting federal guarantees of balanced TV and radio reporting.

          1. Possibly the single organism that sealed the fate of our human species to a faster extinction (clueless about it though)
            But I would put my money on Haber.

      1. That’s a good paper, thanks.

        Human civilisation faces unacceptably high chances of being brought undone by climate change’s existential risks yet, extraordinarily, this conversation is rarely heard. The Global Challenges Foundation (GCF) says that despite scienti c evidence that risks associated with tipping points “increase disproportionately as temperature increases from 1°C to 2°C, and become high above 3°C”, political negotiations have consistently disregarded the high-end scenarios that could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate change. In its Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 report, it concludes that “the world is currently completely unprepared to envisage, and even less deal with, the consequences of catastrophic climate change”. (GCF 2017)

      2. So if I move upward to 2000 feet (about 25 mile move for me) that will drop my average local temperature by about the same as the rise in temperature, maybe a little cooler. Then I can start bringing some lowland plants and soil up there.
        Other species are moving to higher altitudes and latitudes, why not me?

        Here is a more controversial approach to saving species amidst rising temperatures:
        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/12/saving-species-climate-change.
        Cowboys and Elephants? What a mix.

      1. Great resource, thanks. BTW “our” ongoing fires show up clearly as well.

  79. UPDATE ON THE LARSEN-C ICEBERG BREAKAWAY

    “With this large calving event, and the availability of satellite technology, we have a fantastic opportunity to watch this natural experiment unfolding before our eyes. We can expect to learn a lot about how ice shelves break up and how the loss of a section of an ice shelf affects the flow of the remaining parts.”

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170802082909.htm

    1. Sounds good. Should encourage more fossil fuel use. All those hydrogen powered cars will actually be powered by natural gas. That CO powered gasoline still has C in it. Still puts out the same of amount of carbon into the atmosphere and substitutes for wind and solar power.
      I thought we wanted to keep the stuff in the ground, not just keep playing with it. Just by an EV or two and put solar panels up please. Use a heat pump for heating/cooling if possible and combine with passive solar.
      If we don’t use it, it will go away.
      FF<<RE 🙂

      1. Fish, we need to be realistic. The world is still a major industrial investment life cycle away from eliminating co2 production, if we are lucky. We aren’t going to get from point A to point B overnight. We do want to keep it in the ground. This should help keep more of it there.

        1. Right now a person can easily cut their use of fossil fuels by 50 to 100 percent with current knowledge and technology. That is realistic.
          So why keep promoting FF use? You say it saves. I say it promotes use of methane, synthetic fuels from methane and hydrogen based on methane. All FF sourced. That will promote the industry of providing such materials and no savings will occur, it will probably overrun any supposed savings as demand rises for synfuels and hydrogen.

          Cut your use of FF and starve them out. A miracle will occur, renewables and EV’s will grow at a much faster rate. Oil and natural gas can’t get much lower in price and still be produced, so they can’t undercut renewables anymore. Certainly can’t rely on the feds to do it now, have to do it ourselves and at the state level.

          Be a leader. Show the way.
          FF<<<RE

          1. “fossil fuels by 50 to 100 percent”

            I agree, but it’s not realistic to implement quickly. Your a educated, caring, ambitious individual. That’s not what the world is make up of. There are others that have their life’s work, assets and livelihood at risk.

            “So why keep promoting FF use?”

            Sorry, I don’t view that as promoting. At this stage of the game. I believe the reduction of co2 emissions needs to be a dressed from all directions. It doesn’t mean there should be any less attention paid to EV’s etc. because we stop wasting 3.5% of NG flaring.

            “Cut your use of FF and starve them out”

            I think that is what is already happening and most the people on sites like this are underestimating the affects of things like 54.5 mpg by 2025. I think the next step should be 100 mpg by 2030. This would make most new vehicles EV’s and give the manufactures a little room for applications that are hard to meet by total EV’s.

            “Be a leader”

            Have you retired your Saturn and bought an EV yet ? I have to admit, just over a year ago, I bought a brand new ICE. I truly believe it will be my last one. I needed something that could tow and that’s just not available yet in an EV. But, I did get something that got the best mileage, that could meet my needs. I have a nice 800 square foot south tilting roof on the back side of the house. I expect some time in the next ten years it will supply all my transportation and home energy needs. We need to evolve to a negative co2 lifestyle. I’m a lot more optimistic than just a few years ago.

            Did you catch the CNN town home with Al Gore last night ? He is coming out with another movie. Clearly not the most charismatic person and the show was focused towards a level far below what goes on here, but it’s what people need to hear until they get it.

            1. I don’t expect most people to change out of altruism or even knowledge. Our fear and anger system is not designed to a world view or changes in the weather, only a few of us are tuned that way. So the motivations will be economic and social.
              However, that said, I find that people listen to me when they see what I have done so far and some have made changes themselves. Best to plant the seeds with examples. As far as the Saturn goes, lots of people boggle at an SUV that can get 35 on the highway. It will probably retire itself soon though, been looking at Prius.
              So far:
              Cut my electric bill by almost 2/3.
              Cut my car fuel use by about 85 percent.
              Cut my heating bill nearly in half, soon to be a lot less than that.
              Cut my food bill in half.
              Reuse a lot of stuff, make things last, repair things when possible.
              Starve them while they keep trying to kill my lungs, heart and give me cancer. So far I think they may outlast me, we shall see.

              It’s all for fun anyway, I get a kick out of it and feel that somewhere did not get so damaged because of people like me.
              The last bits of energy/cost reduction are the hardest and most expensive but the most fun.
              Maybe that is it. Most people feel deprived and poor when they cut energy and stop the crazy flow of money to stuff they don’t need. Crikey, my smart phone only costs me $15 a month, unlimited text and talk, while some of my friends are paying $100 or more. Think I got one turning around on that.
              My way of being a conservative. I conserve.

              Keep your money close and your energy low.
              FF<<<<C&RE

            2. On the beauty of LED headlamps.
              Beside the electric fridge and washing machine, LED headlamps rate way up there as far as must have tech goes. Been using them for a long time now. They do last.
              I use them to work on the car, the plumbing any dark spot. Just had to pull an outlet in the basement and turning off the breaker cut the lights too, but had my trusty headlamp to light the way.
              Use them to wander around at night inside and outside. Great for when the power goes out.
              Since I use mine every day, I use rechargeable batteries.

              Good for spotting animals at night too, their eyes glow. Also helps drivers to notice you.
              Has red option for those that like to keep their night vision.
              Have fun out there folks and don’t get caught unprepared in the dark.

            3. “Good for spotting animals at night too”

              That’s the reason dense city dwelling shouldn’t expand to the rural area. Animals at night is pretty much down to possum at 4am in the morning trying to cross the street. You would lose the nature in your back yard.

            4. The rolling condos and bedroom community surge is over in this region. When it got too dense I just moved further away. No self respecting city would move here.:-) Five acre minimum limits on a home make for low density in the region.
              Been thinking about moving further into the hills anyway. Farms protected now.

  81. I think I hear about at least twice as many new record high temperatures as I do record lows, maybe three or four times as many.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/historic-heat-arriving-week-pacific-northwest-n788351

    Most of the people up that way who aren’t pretty well off don’t have air conditioning, because they haven’t ever really needed or wanted it.

    Some of them are going to die as a result of not having it this coming week.

    Even the poorest of my neighbors, among all the ones I know, have at least one small window unit they can use to cool one room enough to survive a SOUTHERN heat wave, and just about every last one of them routinely cools at least one room when they are at home. If it comes to my attention that anybody in the neighborhood who is hard up doesn’t have a working small window unit, I give them one. I keep three or four on hand that I buy for bargains on cl or at yard sales for this very purpose. DIRECT action means my contribution is VERY efficient. No losses to office rent, phone bills, paid bookkeepers, fundraising, etc.

    I have a fully air conditioned house, but I generally only run it in the room I am in, or one I expect to be in, turning it on there a few minutes ahead. Plus the room Daddy lives in is constantly cooled or heated , as needed. There’s no point in burning any more coal than necessary, or wasting any money, cooling empty rooms.

    1. That heat wave sucks. That’s a great idea about the air conditioners. Around here we give wood for heating.

      1. I go out with a couple of other guys and cut and deliver a few loads every fall, to old people who are no longer able to cut their own and short of cash to pay for wood. I might have to give this up within the next couple of years, because I’m getting pretty rusty and stiff myself these days.

        I can buy 5000 btu window units from people who are moving mid winter for as little as ten to twenty bucks. In the summer they sell used for sixty to eighty, about half the price of the cheapest new ones.

        It’s not work when you are in good company and no rush, and I get something out of it personally because I want rid of the trees that are donated anyway. Otherwise I would be just piling them up and burning them in place to be rid of them.

        If you have ample storage, you can buy lots of things dirt cheap to use yourself, or to donate later. I got an excellent washing machine and dryer, lightly used and only five years old, by the model and serial numbers, this past weekend for a hundred fifty for the pair, and only ten miles away. A new set now is very close to a thousand bucks.

        Low water consumption is a non issue out in the boonies where I live, because everybody has a well and septic tank. I figure the average family locally spends maybe five bucks a month on electricity to run the pump.

  82. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/mueller-grand-jury/535875/

    We may actually get rid of Trump a lot sooner than hoped.

    Nobody loves a crooked lawyer joke better than I do, and I don’t have much in the way of respect for lawyers as individuals, because they have deliberately molded the field into one so organized as to allow them to make huge amounts of money for very little real and necessary work in so many particular areas.

    But OVERALL, the profession of law is one of the most honorable, and NECESSARY of all the professions, and Trump is shortly going to find out that while you can buy or bully individual lawyers and some judges, you by Sky Daddy cannot bully the entire profession, at the highest levels.

    Since HB is asleep on the job, I will take it on myself to do his part as well as my own in keeping the news about BOTH parties up to date.

  84. It’s hard for me, personally to envision wind turbines over a thousand feet high, but they may be a reality within the next decade or two.

    But plenty of talented engineers are on the job.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/super-colossal-wind-turbines-may-be-horizon-ncna789001

    The guy who is the focus of this article says he believes he can cut down the labor cost of building towers by as much as ninety percent, and build towers twice as tall as usual while doing it.

  85. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/03/what-is-a-grand-jury-trump-russia-mueller-investigation-215458

    The two most relevant paragraphs may be these two. Reading between the lines, I interpret them as the author believing that Trump is one of the targets, but that he ( she? ) also writes in such a way as to present the known facts in a reasonably objective manner.

    The line “In all likelihood he’s just getting started ” leaves me feeling pleasantly intoxicated, like about three beers, lol. There’s no question at all about the just getting started part, because there has been enough monkey biz exposed already to keep him busy all the way thru till the 2020 election cycle.

    “Because grand jury subpoenas are an important prosecutorial tool, typically a grand jury is impaneled at the very beginning of an investigation, not at the end. Indictments are usually sought at the very end of an investigation, after all of the witnesses are questioned and all of the documents are obtained. So despite all the punditry on cable news, there’s no suggestion here that Mueller is closing in on any particular target, such as the president. In all likelihood, he’s just getting started.

    It is possible, though, that as a starting point Mueller will eventually seek an indictment of a lower-level figure in or around Trump’s campaign. Sometimes, when prosecutors are facing obstacles in obtaining evidence, they seek an indictment of one individual or a group of individuals prior to completing their investigation, if they believe that those individuals might cooperate with the government and provide evidence. Otherwise, decisions about who to charge are left to the very end of the investigation.”

    It’s pretty much the standard here for the regulars to condemn all Republican party politicians with one broad brush, but in actuality, there are more than a handful who are in competitive districts and states, and they are COMPELLED by their own constituencies to pursue a moderate path, and some of them, maybe almost all of them , will find it necessary to join hands with the D’s to tar and feather Trump if Mueller and his team force some people close to the Trump WH to sing in order to stay out of jail themselves.

    I doubt if any body in this forum, excepting yours truly, remembers how a bunch of close associates of the Clintons spent considerable time in jail as the result of the White Water investigation, because they are either not old enough, or because they have selective memories, lol.

    A lot of surprisingly level headed people back then were convinced that those people kept their mouths shut for fear of their very lives. Omerta can apply to more gangs of theives than just the Mafia. There have been dead bodies discovered in the woods all thru my part of the world, with seldom ever a good explanation found, other than that they REALLY pissed off a business associate , or because their associates thought they were ready to sing. Snooty Yankee pundits refer to our homegrown southern crooks as the Cornpone Mafia, and dismiss it as they do just about everything else southern. It’s certainly not even in the same league as the real Mafia, but it’s nevertheless real.

    Somebody posted a list of crooked Republicans a few days back. I won’t, but I could post a list of known associates of the Clinton who have been in jail, or at least at high risk of jail, that would probably be almost as long, if I were to put a few hours into the job. And that would be just D’s who had business or relationships with the Clinton’s themselves, rather than just being Democrats.

    And while I will be among the first to point out that the R’s are generally more corrupt, or at least deeper in the pockets of the bau establishment , than the D’s, it’s pretty much par for the course for people that have business affairs involving the government to steer most of their bribes, err, donations I mean, to the party in power. So the fact that the R’s get most of the money from BAU types is not all that big a surprise.

    I’m not surprised that Rush Limbaugh got caught doctor shopping, once he got hooked on pain killers. It’s an extraordinarily common crime of the sort that has no victim, unless the perp is selling the drugs he obtains this way. Limbaugh is not only a big fat idiot, he was also a big fat target, because so many many people , for good reasons, think of him as something to be scraped off the bottom of a shoe after stepping in it.

    So – Celebrities on both the right and left tend to get caught occasionally. Hanging a big fish on the wall confers big bragging rights and can lead to a better job, etc.

    He might have shared his pills with some of his homies. I wouldn’t be surprised, but I don’t know of any evidence that he did so.

    But we generally think of people dealing in illegal drugs as either crooks out to make money, or victims, if we are liberals, DON’T WE? At least we do if we are hard core liberals.

    Except if the person involved is a Republican of course. THEN we hold him up as an example of a low life, for getting and taking pain pills via illegal doctor shopping. But there is zero evidence Limbaugh ever sold or even gave away any pills, and he is obviously well enough off that he would have to be an utter and total fool to risk going to jail for the relatively trivial amount of money he could have gotten by selling pain pills.

    He’s neither a fool nor an idiot, in any literal sense. He’s just another guy who figured out how to make a fortune for himself out of the tens of millions of idiots who are his fans. I don’t have an opinion as to what he actually believes these days, because he has been fine tuning his message for decades now. He probably still believes some or most of it, but consider the law and order part about drug laws………. LOL.

    His REAL opinion might be a little different than the one he expresses on the radio.

    I just love to point out reality, as opposed to partisan bullshit. 😉

Comments are closed.