Open Thread Non-Petroleum-Aug 15, 2016

307 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum-Aug 15, 2016”

1. Yair . . . .

   Hello folks, a bit off topic but we do talk finance.

   I wonder if anyone can explain to an uneducated old bushman how it is that a government can build out infrastructure . . . say a port, a railway system or powergrid/distribution system and then down the track when (presumably) it is pretty much paid for they sell or lease it to a private entity citing “greater efficiency” and “cost reductions” for consumers.

   To my simplistic old mind it seems the new entity must ante up to make the purchase and then provide profits for the share holders, two costs that would have been absent if the asset remained in government hands.

   What am I missing?

   Cheers.

   1. Such arrangements are sometimes sweetheart deals between government officials and the people who get the leases.

      Sometimes they aren’t.

      Private contractors can and in my opinion do manage to run business enterprises at lower costs than government, on average.

      Government is handicapped in running specialized facilities due to not having experienced people already on the payroll. Specialization is the name of the game these days. A city manager might not know beans about running a rail road, or a port, and city managers have a lot more trouble firing somebody than a private contractor, etc.

      The contractor can move people from one job site to another as necessary and efficient. The government usually has to pay a mechanic or crane operator, etc, to sit around every day, at the same spot, even if there is nothing to do that day.

      A contractor running a publicly owned facility should make enough to justify running the facility, but no more.

      Any money coming in above that amount should go to the government that paid for building it.

   2. My belief is that the government is about the worst operator of anything because they do not have a profit motive. And, for the most part they cannot fire employees. Now, couple that with politicians who will do anything to get money NOW while they are in office, other than raising taxes.

      The politicians in office NOW could care less about what happens in the future. They do not have any long term perspective. Kind of like the lottery winners, virtually all of whom will take a severely discounted lump sum payment rather than a stream of income over their lifetimes.

      1. Your remarks about politicians also apply to managers of public companies.

         1. Like Buffett, Musk, Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates, Howard Schultz (Starbucks), Bezos, the guys at Google, etc., etc.

      2. Spent twenty years in municipal public works, 13 of them as the department head. Saw the good and bad. Our city manager demanded high accountability, and we often compared the cost of doing a job in-house versus using a contractor.

         Realize that in most states a capital project using public monies must be bid competitively. That requires design, specifications, contract administration, and inspection, either by qualified city staff or by a third party engineering consultant (who almost must be selected through a competitive process.) For really large projects, design-build is an option, but in that case the government is selecting both a contractor and an engineering consultant as a team.

         My takeaway is this. If the project is routine, with known conditions, controlled schedule, and construction management is the critical factor, then bid the project. However, if the project is more open-ended, with many unknowns, uncertain funding and construction schedule, and policy-oriented decisions are paramount, do it with city forces.

         After leaving city government I spent another 16 years with a large engineering consulting firm. There are great folks on both sides of the aisle. I know designers on the private sector willing to stay all night to finish a project for a client, and I know grader operators who spend all night on Christmas Eve plowing snow off of streets for their fellow citizens.

   3. Well, if you are not a graduate of this Ivy-league school, then you would have missed the Harvard MBA program’s “raison d’être” as it emphasized the “Principles, Theories and Applications of Corrupt Crony Capitalism and its Devices “. For the most part, Western governments also claim to adhere to altruistic agendas – but when does a government ever tell the truth? Enron was a high-profile and recent case of the old boys’ network and government operating with bankrupt Harvard business school ethics and graduates, who amoung many other terrible misdeeds, employed and used energy traders in Houston to create the infamous power outages in California a decade ago affecting many poor and elderly folks – just for their corporate earnings!

      Wall Street is still dominated by these wayward nefarious characters that run the money system and, in turn, the “real government”. The short story is – those who control the money make all the rules as Nathan Rothschild clearly and famously expressed, in 1815 (with updates provided in brackets) –

      “I care not what puppet (Politician) is placed upon the throne (White House) of England (America) to rule the Empire (Military Industrial Complex) on which the sun never sets. The man who controls the British (American) money supply controls the British (American) Empire, and I (They – Wall Street.) control the British (American) money supply (Federal Reserve).”

      Hence, considering this and the overwhelming supporting evidence anyone who believes that we conduct either our domestic or international affairs on the basis of democratic and altruistic principles or constitutions (IMF, WTO, UN, World Bank, and so on) are deeply misguided and profoundly naive.

      Moreover, we had been warned many times about this loss of our liberties, institutions and democracy to private bankers or Wall St. Most recently, by Eisenhower upon leaving office, in 1961, when he forewarned and coined the term – “Military Industrial Complex” – that could be also viewed more simply as a euphemism for – WALL STREET!

      https://youtu.be/8y06NSBBRtY

      But long before Ike’s famous speech, Thomas Jefferson had similarly pointed out the dangers of private bankers (Wall Street) to the sanctity of our liberties, wealth, properties and democracies, some two hundred years earlier.

      “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” – Thomas Jefferson.

      So right, Mr Jefferson, so sadly right…

      Despite these clear warnings from these two exceptional individuals we failed to listen or apply their critical insights. Those failures have therefore led us to the governments we now have – and unjustly deserve.

      So what does that say about our so-called free and democratic nations that we bravely pledge ourselves to and fight for? They really don’t exist, anywhere. They are mere mirages created over time by those proverbial Wizards from behind their respective curtains.

      However, now we can no longer simply click our heels and return back to Kansas. Because for too long many of us have lived somewhere over the rainbow with our fiat money, low interest rates, private bankers and their corrupt crony capitalism and its related agents, institutions and devices,

      In the last analysis, confirming and paraphrasing George Orwell’s salient assertion in his allegorical novella, Animal Farm – “we are all equal; some are just more equal than others”

      

   4. Sounds like a sweetheart deal to me…plus it always depends on which Govt. (what kind) is in power. Sometimes, the supposed ‘free enterprise’ flavours are long on rhetoric and promises but pretty much a conduit into the public piggy bank for their supporters. That has been the case in BC for the last 12 years. The big warning sign are the 3 Ps….Public/Private/Partnerships. There has to be a way to open up the contracts or leases on a regular basis for proper oversight, but also to address in shortfalls, too. A prime example was out ferry fleet. The Govt got rid of the Crown Corporation for idealogical reasons and made it a ‘hands off’ private corporation with a Govt subsidy. The ‘Board’ immediately hired an expensive CEO out of NYC and paid him $1,000,000.00+ yearly and gave him free rein. He supposedly modernized the fleet but borrowing costs skyrocketed as the entity lost the AAA rating that the Govt enjoyed. Then, he bought the new ships from germany as opposed to building them here and keeping the shipbuilders employed. All those tax dollars and wages went overseas instead of being spent here. The ships were matginally cheaper, but the overall costs were more due to the financing charges. The result? There are more managers than ever and fares have tripled on many routes these past 10 years. It is killing our Island economy.

      As I like to say, “We need a marine bus service, not a cruise ship business with corresponding prices. WA State ferries are run bare bones and the fares are far less. And that my friends, is a Govt operation.

      1. WA State ferries are run bare bones and the fares are far less. And that my friends, is a Govt operation.

         I’ve ridden on those ferries, they are awesome vessels!

   5. I’ve observed this kind of thing very closely over a long period. My thoughts:

      Public managers and private managers are pretty similar. On average private are very slightly better, due to greater pressure for performance, but the difference is small. Public managers in some ways get much more scrutiny from various constituencies and the press, and private managers have much more leeway for nepotism, private gain, etc.

      Some privatizations are done to gain one-time cashflow. This is almost always a big mistake.

      Sometimes change is needed. The current managers are bad, and privatization gives the necessary excuse/cover. This can work the other way – the private contractor is bad, and they can be removed by insourcing the operation. This happens in private organizations, too: if something is centralized, it’s decentralized, and vice versa, just to get some change happening. Of course, sometimes this is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: the problem is more fundamental, and mid-level managers take the blame.

   6. The reverse case is interesting as well. A developer develops a suburb, and puts in roads. Then he gives the roads to the city free of charge. Twenty years later, when the road need resurfacing, the city notices that the cumulative property taxes of the suburbs aren’t enough to cover road maintenance.

      This explains why so many American cities are broke.

2. I bought a 2017 Chevy Volt last week. The car runs on electricity for 53 miles and when the gasoline engine kicks in you get 42 mpg. It is an awesome car loaded to the gills with technology and safety features and I recommend it without any hesitation. We have now cut our gasoline consumption by over 90%. Thanks GM.
   Suyog

   1. Hi Suyog,

      It would be interesting to look at losses charging the battery. Maybe use a kill a watt or similar device to measure output to the charging system and compare total kWhr from the outlet to the supposed full battery capacity. The Volt has an 18.4 kWhr capacity, but my guess is that it would take about 21 kWhr to charge it. Where I live, electricity is expensive (16 cents per kWhr) so it would cost $3.36 to charge the battery. In my Prius I can go 53 miles using a gallon of gas so I would not be saving money, but it would certainly be better for the environment if my electricity was produced with wind or solar and maybe even natural gas (combined cycle).

      Also I expect gasoline will be above $3.36/gallon before long and then the Volt would save me money as well.

      Enjoy your new car!

      1. Thanks. I wanted the Volt for a long time and waited for second generation. It was worth it. I will follow your suggestion regarding using the “kill a watt” device. Around here electricity is 12c/KWHr and some day I will put solar panels on my roof.

         1. Hi Suyog,

            So that is equivalent to about $2.50 per 53 miles or 4.7 cents per mile, if gasoline is $2.10/gallon and you get 42 MPG, that would be 5 cents per mile, so using the electric both saves you money and is better for the environment. A Prius would be cheaper at $2.49/gallon or less, but might not be better for the environment (it would depend on whether your electricity is from wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, natural gas, or coal.)

            1. A factor that analysts almost always miss:

               The mix of FF vs renewable & nuclear is predictably different at night vs day, so it’s possible to get a substantially better share of your power from low-CO2 sources by a simple scheduling of your EV charging.

               That makes your EV cleaner, and supports low-CO2 power by increasing demand for it.

               And, if you use a fair amount of power at night to charge your EV, you can reduce your rates with TimeOfUse rates, thus changing the cost/benefit ratio sharply.

               1. Hi NickG,

                  I am not so sure about how solar will fit in with that theory. Solar is the biggest potential renewable resource, but it is not so great at night.

                  Your claim is probably true today, but in the future it will be better to charge during the day at work while the sun is shining, if solar becomes the major energy resource that Tony Seba predicts. Sometimes there is some wind at night, but often wind output is pretty low at night as well unless there is a weather system moving through.

               2. Solar fits perfectly – just change “night” to “mid day”.

                  Wind is, on average, slightly stronger at night than day.

                  Eventually it will be important to take advantage of the enormous processing power and telecom capability in cars to allow them to charge dynamically. They’ll charge when cheap & clean power is at it’s peak, whenever that is, taking into account the schedule and needs of the owners.

                  You can watch supply and demand, and the contributions of wind and solar power, in California. It’s very informative.

                  http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#SupplyandDemand

         2. Charger efficiency has been improving the past few years. Back in 2010, when the first mass-produced EV’s where hitting the market, they were around 85-89%.

            GM presented an SAE paper this spring that documented the Gen 2 Volt’s charger efficiency. (SAE paper # 2016-01-1229).

            93% @ 115 volts, 95% @ 230 volts nominal. Peak efficiency approaches 97% in optimal voltage/charging level conditions. They expect to use the same charger concept in the Bolt.

            On the power output side (the power inverter), they also are approaching 97% efficiency.

            1. The GM Volt PHEV uses a Delphi Universal 3.3kW On-board Battery Charger.
               see http://delphi.com/manufacturers/auto/hevevproducts/batterychargers/univ_ob_bc/
               Rated here as >94% efficient.

               The GM Bolt BEV uses an LG Chem On-board Battery Charger..
               see http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100562_2017-chevy-bolt-ev-development-gm-lg-chem-reveal-deep-partnership
               I have seen somedata for other recent Korean EVs using LG suggesting 92% efficiency. However perhaps LG has licensed the Delphi tech for the Bolt.

               Here in Korea we charge at the nighttime rate of about 6 US cents per kWh. It’s a nuclear baseload so way cheaper at night. The real efficiency of the OBC is always less than the peak value stated in the advertising brochure. I get about 85%

      2. $.16 kWhr? Holy smokes, where do you live roughly and what is the production source? Is it private?

         1. Hydro Québec has this useful document. They produce it I presume to educate/remind Québec residents of the fact that they have the lowest electricity rates on the continent.

            Comparison of Electricity Prices in Major North American Cities

         2. In Calif the homeowner price of electricity comes out to 22cents/kWh (blended rate). The electricity comes from a mix of Ngas, geothermal, wind, solar, 1 nuc plant, and no coal. Some out of state purchases. Yesterday renewable production accounted for 20% state demand.
            How much do you pay in B.C.?

      3. Hi Paulo,

         The transmission and distribution is about 8 cents per kWhr and electricity supply is also about 8 cents per kWhr, the supply is mostly from natural gas and nuclear with some wind and solar, not much coal in this area.
         I actually pay a little more (maybe 18 cents per kWhr) because I buy green tags to support wind power and solar, at some point I may get some solar panels, probably near the expiration of the Federal tax credit.

         I live in New England. See following US EIA link for residential electricity rates in New England from 2001 to 2015.

         http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?agg=1,0&geo=8&endsec=8&linechart=ELEC.PRICE.NEW-RES.A&columnchart=ELEC.PRICE.NEW-RES.A&map=ELEC.PRICE.NEW-RES.A&freq=A&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=

         Chart from data below.

         

      4. Dennis,

         Have you looked into Time-Of-Use metering? All US utilities are required to offer it, though typically they don’t advertise the fact.

         TOU metering should give you much cheaper rates for night time EV charging.

         1. Hi NickG,

            I have a plugin Prius that doesn’t really draw a lot of electricity. If I get a Model 3 in the future I will install solar panels. Currently TOU would be more expensive where I live because I don’t use that much on weekends or late at night, my usage is about 300 kWhr per month and the bills are manageable at about $54/month.

            The thought process for me was how much would I save with a Volt at my current electricity rate and until gasoline increases to $3.36/gallon in my area (currently around $2.10/gallon) I would not save much.

            I have had bad luck with GM cars in the past, so I will not buy a Volt or Bolt. I switched to Japanese cars (Toyota and Honda) in 1984 and Tesla might be the first US made car I will buy since 1982.

            1. I have had bad luck with GM cars in the past…I switched to Japanese cars (Toyota and Honda) in 1984

               Change that to Ford, and a switch in 1985, and you have my experience!

               Advocates for Detroit would remind us that they’ve gotten much, much better in the last 30 years, but for me too, somehow most US cars just don’t feel acceptable.

               I think a lot of people have made exceptions for the Volt (which GM is determined to get right as a “halo” car), but I think even more feel the same way you & I do, including about Tesla.

               1. Volt is the highest rated car GM has ever produced. It is very reliable and has excellent performance. I urge everyone to give it a try.

                  Suyog

               2. Hi Suyog,

                  I hope it treats you well. The highest rated GM car is a pretty low bar. 🙂

               3. Dennis,
                  I understand what you are saying but please reconsider. 30 years ago the Japanese cars were far ahead of American cars in quality. Today the gap is practically non-existent. A car like Volt is far superior to any Japanese car. Note that by buying American cars we keep jobs in the US and that is also a very important factor.

               4. Hi Suyog,

                  Many Toyotas and Hondas are built in the US and many GM cars are built in Canada and Mexico. US quality has improved but generally the most reliable cars are Toyotas and Hondas in my opinion and based on Consumer Reports.

                  I hope the Volt works well for you, my wife wouldn’t let me buy another GM car.

   2. Wimbi would have been proud of ya! 🙂
      I miss the old the guy…

3. Since leadership is a key or maybe THE key consideration in estimating our chances of surviving and thriving as the fossil fuel age winds down………

   I started saying it sooner than just about anybody, but now I have PLENTY of company.

   Trump is not altogether STUPID, or else he would have been separated from his money long ago.

   So – he has either had something happen to him, messing up his head, such as a stroke, or brain cancer ( not at all likely ) or else he simply doesn’t want to win. I have gone so far as to sarcastically speculate that he is in bed with Hillary and Bill, with the goal of putting Hillary in the WH and destroying the R party, but this scenario is a little too far fetched even for a cheap novel.

   Barring a major surprise, the odds of Clinton winning in my estimation are now at least eighty percent.

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-lose_us_57b2033de4b007c36e4f91f2?section=&

   1. Our conjecture at home is an onset of dementia placed upon a foundation of extreme narcicism.

   2. http://abcnewsgo.co/2016/08/abc-live-poll-vote-for-your-future-president/

   3. Michale Moore has a conspiracy theory Trump just want attention, to then gain viewers for his TV empire, or something such like.

      My theory is he had a strategy for winning the Rep party nomination, and then got stuck in that pattern, when time came to win the president election. He need to change gear in time, maybe he wont?

4. Things aren’t looking rosy, economy wise.

   http://www.businessinsider.com/maersk-earnings-and-outlook-for-industry-2016-8

5. Reduced refinery throughput because of climate change obligations and/or PO -> Less refinery residuals -> less Asphalt -> ?? -> ongoing road maintenance

   Pig Manure Bioadhesive Produces Alternative To Asphalt Paving

   First, just to be clear, the asphalt created with this pig manure bioadhesive does not create an offensive odor. The odor-causing parts of the manure are removed during processing.

   “It is different from petroleum refinery, which distills crude oil to produce mainly fuel and leave the residue for asphalt,” Ellie Fini, lead researcher and assistant professor of civil engineering, told Gizmag.

   “Here we produce bio-adhesive from breaking bio-mass molecular structure and re-synthesizing the bio-adhesive structure. Bio-adhesive is lower in cost, requires less heat for mixing and compaction and is more durable.” The adhesive costs $0.56 per gallon to process, much less than traditional petroleum-based asphalt binders.

6. Still feeling the pain of electricity market deregulation from two decades ago.

   Enron and the power boys played Ralph Klein’s government for suckers

   David Climenhaga, Alberta Politics, August 9, 2016

   The emails reveal the PC government led by Ralph Klein in 2000, when Enron successfully manipulated the Tories into the deal the NDP is now asking the courts to overturn, was both crookedly inclined and easily suckered.

   But then, as any grafter will tell you, it helps draw the suckers in if the deal on offer appeals to their worst instincts.

   The emails reveal it wasn’t much work at all for Enron – long since renowned for “massive corporate accounting fraud,” as the Globe and Mail put it in its story – to get the government of the day to do whatever it wanted.

   Enron basically told the Kleinsters what to write, and they wrote it. Then they buried it to ensure no one in Alberta knew any better while their pals in the electricity reselling “industry” cashed in to the tune of 10 or so billion dollars in profit.

7. Explaining All Of U.S. Energy Use With A Genius Chart And Cheeseburgers

   Everything you always wanted to know about energy consumption

   Joe Romm, Climate Progress, August 15, 2016

   1. Great talk, well worth the time, tks, aws!
      BTW if someone wants to skip the talk and go straight to live graphic and just play around, its at:
      http://www.energyliteracy.com

8. Wyoming taxes wind.

   http://www.windaction.org/posts/45585-who-owns-the-wind-we-do-wyoming-says-and-it-s-taxing-those-who-use-it#.V7J_behOnMK

9. More alarmist nonsense by Herr Leighton,

   RUSSIA REPORTS ANTHRAX SCARE AS ARCTIC THAWS

   “Record high temperatures in Arctic Russia are believed to be one of the main factors behind the emergence of the deadly anthrax disease in northwestern Siberia… Temperatures have been between 25C and 35C, which is way above the average for the time of year… Professor Claire Heffernan, a specialist in infectious diseases at the School of Veterinary Science at the University of Bristol, UK, has previously warned of the impact of changes in climate on disease in animal and human populations in the Arctic region. And she says the present outbreak is likely to be repeated as the warming continues and forgotten burial sites are exposed.”

   http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/16/russia-reports-anthrax-scare-as-arctic-thaws/

   1. Doug – Maybe if an ‘alarmist’ had spoken up and/or not been shouted down 10 years ago they wouldn’t have stopped vaccinating the reindeer herds, the child would still be alive and they wouldn’t now be needing to sterilize a large area of land. There are smallpox victims graves further north. Russia is warming 2.5 times average, and more than that the further north you go. Arctic sea ice is thin and being clobbered by a series of cyclones at the moment so that might even accelerate further over the next couple of years.

   2. Doug, chill out, brother. I’ve told you before, the sun has lost its spots and we are going to have another ice age in the northern hemisphere real soon, that will freeze all those reindeer carcasses right back up again. No worries man!

   3. So they have no evidence that global warming is to blame, do they?
      How did the 1941 outbreak happened?. Was it as warm then as it is now?
      Anthrax is recurrent in Siberia for centuries, even when it is believed it was a lot colder than now. See for example this outbreak in 1881 reported in the press:
      http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/23rd-july-1881/3/siberian-plague-a-disease-believed-to-be-the-same-

      You don’t need global warming or thawing carcasses to have an anthrax outbreak. An infected animal that dies will contaminate the soil with spores than can last over a hundred years or more. A reindeer eating plants from that soil will get the disease. Nomadic herders in Siberia eat a lot of raw meat because it is part of their traditional diet, so they are very exposed.

      This summer there was a minor outbreak of anthrax in Sweden that only affected cattle and horses from a few farms, and there are no permafrost and the summer wasn’t particularly warm there either.

      As usual you don’t need any proof to put the blame of anything on global warming.

      1. “As usual you don’t need any proof to put the blame of anything on global warming.”

         Except for putting the blame for global warming on anthropogenic global warming. Sufficient proof for that.

         1. I agree that anthropogenic release of GHGs has contributed to global warming, but by how much? Nobody knows since we do not know how clouds have changed or contributed, and we don’t know other feedbacks so our estimate of climate sensitivity has not advanced much in 30 years.

            I find it unlikely that a 400 year old warming just vanished because we happened to burn fossil fuels. I don’t believe in coincidences. We are just deluded that all the warming comes from GHGs.

            1. “We are just deluded “

               Speaking for yourself.

            2. Hi Javier,

               It is only your misinterpretation of an IPCC chart that makes you think that someone believes that all of the increase in temperature since 1850 is due to AGW. No mainstream climate scientists believe that.

               Yes the understanding is not perfect and there is uncertainty about aerosols, clouds, carbon cycle feedback, and ice sheets.

               There are different estimates of transient climate response and equilibrium climate sensitivity. You can choose to believe that low estimates are correct, others choose higher estimates. The fact is we don’t know and this is reason to be cautious.

               Chart below uses the MAGICC probabilistic/historical constrained scenario for an emissions scenario with 1090 Pg of Carbon emissions from 1765 to 2100 from all sources (fossil fuels, natural gas flaring, cement production, and land use change) and low Sulfur emissions (which fall to zero from 2070 to 2080 and remain at zero until 2250).

               The 25% to 75% likelihood estimate is 1.9 to 2.5 C above pre-industrial around 2085 with a median estimate of 2.2 C.

               

               1. 1.5 in 2030 in the earlyest scenarios. We touched upon the 1.5 mark at the peak of the recent El Niño. With the speed record heat temperatures have become normal and later unusually cold the latest decades I assume this is way to conservative.

      2. You don’t need global warming or thawing carcasses to have an anthrax outbreak.

         Of course not. But that isn’t what was said, was it?

         What was said was this:

         “Record high temperatures in Arctic Russia are believed to be one of the main factors behind the emergence of the deadly anthrax disease in northwestern Siberia… Temperatures have been between 25C and 35C, which is way above the average for the time of year…

         Now to be very clear, record high temperatures in Siberia are not even proof of global warming and nobody is saying that either.

         What is being said is that if high temperatures continue and perhaps become the new normal then one has to assume that there will be an increased risk of such occurrences from here on out.

         Your continued pretense that such risks are not real is becoming rather tiresome.

         1. Science is not about believing, but about demonstrating. Otherwise we would still believe in Geocentrism. What haven’t changed the least despite Darwin’s efforts, is our firm believe in Anthropocentrism. So now we are responsible for climate.

            There is absolutely no evidence linking the warm summer in the Arctic to the outbreak. It is just a belief. They don’t even know the origin of the outbreak. Past outbreaks show absolutely no relationship to climate. They always take place in summer because that is when reindeer can graze in the Arctic areas.

            Your (and others) deduction from the evidence that there is an increased risk with global warming is absolutely not supported. Most serious outbreaks date from several decades away when it was cooler. That is one of the biggest problems with climate alarmism. It is all based on unproven assumptions and not supported by available evidence. Yet somehow their proponents are under the delusion that they base their belief in science.

            1. “What haven’t changed the least despite Darwin’s efforts, is our firm believe in Anthropocentrism. “

               The “biologist” Javier likely doesn’t believe that man was responsible for wiping out the passenger pigeon species in the span of a few decades. According to him “deduction from the evidence” is circumstantial and can’t be separated from coincidence.

               I agree this guy’s act is getting tiresome.

               1. You are tiresome in your feeble attacks that let you in evidence. Best to ignore you.

               2. “You are tiresome in your feeble attacks that let you in evidence. “

                  That sentence doesn’t even make any sense.

10. The German Post Office (aka DHL) is getting into the electric vehicle business. They’ve been begging the car industry to build them electric vehicles for years, and decided to take things into their own hands.

    http://www.streetscooter.eu/modelle/work

    They have a delivery van with 80 km range and maximum speed of 80 kph. They also have an electric freight bike and an electric trike.

    http://www.streetscooter.eu/modelle/e-trike

    The advantages are size and maneuverability, fuel cost, pollution reduction, noise reduction and maintenance costs.

    The pollution issues issues are very important to city governments in Germany, who are required to maintain livability standards.

    They are also testing a self driving version that follows the postman down the street in Holland.

    1. I’ve been thinking about electric freight bicycles for awhile as food delivery, since from what I see now it costs me more to market and delivery soybeans than it does to grow them.

       If the auto industry isn’t going to figure out a product you can actually use (or listen to your needs), then I guess you need to build it yourself.

11. The comment below was moved from the Bakken Update thread.

    I have also moved some of the replies.

    Please use the appropriate thread.

    Comments on climate change belong in the non-petroleum thread.

    In the future they will simply be deleted if they are in the wrong thread.

    Hightrekker23 said:

    Well, July 2016 blows everything else out of the water:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp7TXFaWAAAIxgD.jpg
    July 2016 was absolutely the hottest month since the instrumental records began.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp-2E1yXEAAx4FX.jpg
    Reply

    GoneFishing says:
    08/16/2016 at 9:49 am
    That graph seems to show the winters have gotten colder than average, not warmer than average.
    Reply
    George Kaplan says:
    08/16/2016 at 1:26 pm
    And the ENSO index for May-June-July was 0.2 – neutral (down from 0.6 for April-May-June), so El Nino it can’t be blamed anymore.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

    1. Mr. Kaplan,

       You seem to ignore everything about the delayed response of the atmosphere to the sea surface temperature increases and decreases from El Niño. A simple comparison of Niño 3.4 temperatures and atmospheric temperatures should suffice to show you there is a 2-3 month delay. El Niño peaked in early December and temperature anomalies peaked in February. They are still going down, so it is premature to say that El Niño can’t be blamed.

       1. Nice that you are studying the models that Dennis and I have put together tracking the temperature rise. A 6 month lag is about right when using the ENSO SOI as a multivariate regression component in the global temperature time-series.

          Dennis, would you agree that the latest temperature numbers are firming up a value for TCR at 2C and equilibrium value close to 3C? I certainly find that to be true.

          1. Dennis, would you agree that the latest temperature numbers are firming up a value for TCR at 2C and equilibrium value close to 3C? I certainly find that to be true.

             Given what is already happening at the current temperature increase of still less than 1C, my personal opinion is, that at an equilibrium value of close to 3C we would pretty much be FUBAR!

             Javier’s previous claims, that continued warming might actually be beneficial, notwithstanding.

             1. I really don’t see the point in saying these short term weather modifying heat exchanges between ocean and atmosphere are affecting climate. They do change weather for short periods but are merely short term energy exchanges that do not effect long term climate. First it’s warm and then it’s cool, no overall change.

                1. Hi Gonefishing,

                   I believe the idea is to get a handle on some of the natural variability due to ENSO and other global cycles. Webhubbletelescope has done some interesting modelling on this.

                   See http://contextearth.com/ and note that the analysis is very math heavy, but most physicists would be pretty comfortable with the level of mathematics. My math skills are quite rusty so I find it a challenge.

             2. Hi Fred,

                With 1000 Pg of Carbon emissions from all sources, an ECS of 3 C implies warming of about 2.1C above pre-industrial around 2090 with temperatures falling from there, a lower level of emissions would be better, but anything less than 900 Pg of carbon is not very realistic. We have already emitted about 565 Pg C, so limiting future emissions to under 335 Pg C will be difficult at best.

          2. Hi WHT,

             I am very far from an expert on climate science, based on your CSALT model I also get roughly 2 C for TCR and 3 C for ECS and as far as I have read this matches what most climate scientists give as a best estimate.

             There is still more research needed of course, but for now I agree with your assessment.

12. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/08/16/ford-promises-driverless-transport-2021/88826072/

    Self driving fully electric cars are COMING, and if the price of oil spikes up and stays up , due to depletion and low levels of upstream investment, they are apt to arrive in large numbers sooner than anybody except the technocopians expect.

    Now to get back to Suyog’s new VOLT.

    It will still have a basically new engine when it has a hundred thousand or even two hundred thousand miles on it, and I am willing to bet that it will run DIRT CHEAP, in terms of overall maintenance.

    I am very much of a gear head myself, and know LOTS of people who make their living in the car biz, most of them working on cars.

    At one time, a fairly long time back, Japanese and European cars WERE vastly superior to domestic models.
    But now, and for the last decade at least, the difference is minor to non existent, and a lot of guys I know right now will tell you in no uncertain terms that the cheapest car you can own and operate is a GM or Ford model.

    I own a rather shabby old Ford Escort which was in great shape when I bought it for HALF what I could have bought a comparably equipped Toyota or Honda for, in comparable condition and with comparable miles on the odometer.

    It has given me almost a hundred thousand miles of near trouble free service, and when it needs work, parts cost half what they cost for Toyotas and Hondas.

    I have a Toyota pickup out in the cow pasture, a ninety eight, with the frame broken in half due to rust. I have NEVER seen a Ford or Chevy rust out that way in this part of the world.

    A few years back I swore I would never buy another GUV’MINT MOTORS vehicle, but I eventually got over that.

    1. “if the price of oil spikes up and stays up , due to depletion and low levels of upstream investment” what is likely to happen is that the economy will do so bad that self driving fully electric cars will come in lower numbers, not higher.

       The 2010-14 period of high oil prices is unusual. Despite a huge European debt crisis world economy resisted high oil prices due to extraordinary debt expansion and commodity demand from China. That is unlikely to be repeated.

       1. It seems to be an extraordinarily popular position to take , among those who want a simple explanation for the world wide economy doing poorly, to say that the worlds economic troubles are due to the high price of oil.

          I have no doubt that the high price of oil over the last decade or so, on average, has had a LOT to do with the economy being sluggish, but personally I think blaming it on the price of oil, without even MENTIONING anything else, is ………… well , I just can’t come up with any words except simple minded, naive, ill informed, or others even less polite.

          Coming to the conclusion that high oil prices HAVE HAD a lot to do with the slow economy is entirely justifiable, no doubt.

          But concluding that the economy will REMAIN slow if the price of oil goes up again is in my estimation is jumping to an unjustified conclusion. It might indeed stay sluggish, but if it does, it will be due to many factors, with the price of oil being only one of the many.

          I may be too much of a generalist or big picture thinker, and not enough of a specialist, but unless oil spikes up VERY sharply, over a short time frame , the price of oil is not going to break the back of the world economy.

          There is this phenomenon we call adaptation, and while we are sort of slow at getting started adapting sometimes, we can and do do so with a vengeance, once it becomes a an obvious practical matter involving our day to day life.

          WHEN the price of oil goes above a hundred bucks plus per barrel, the assembly lines at electrified automobile and battery plants will be humming around the clock around the calendar.

          People will respond, given time, to high oil prices by buying cars and light trucks that get far better fuel economy, changing their driving habits, moving closer to town, using more transit, more car pooling, etc.

          The overall economy will adapt by way of minimizing travel, such as for tourism, which will be very painful for the people in tourism, but they will find other things to do, eventually.

          This will take some time, no question. But cars and trucks that get twice the miles per gallon are easily doable. We don’t really NEED a huge airline industry, although it employs a lot of people. Farmers are producing more units of food output per liter of diesel year after year.

          In five to ten years, with the price of oil creeping up steadily, we will see VOLTS , LEAFS, Tesla THREES and similar cars getting to be quite common place indeed.

          New building codes will reduce the amount of energy needed to heat and cool houses and other new buildings by twenty percent or more within a decade or so.

          Now for what it is worth, I do expect the overall economy to remain sluggish to bed ridden, compared to recent go go decades, but not just because of the price of oil going up. We are running short of many things, not just oil, and politicians have made a hell of a lot more promises than they are ever going to be able to keep.

          I don’t expect cars to keep selling in record numbers world wide too many more years, but I DO expect to see the production of new pure electric or plug in hybrid cars and light trucks to grow extremely rapidly, ESPECIALLY WHEN the price of oil goes up.

          Now as far as the self driving aspect of new cars is concerned, once the technology is fully developed, it will be cheaper to own and operate a self driving car than a conventional car, due to lower insurance costs and lower fuel costs. Durability will be as good or better than conventional new cars.

          Self driving cars can easily be programmed to go automatically to the nearest unoccupied charging station, and such stations will become very common as time passes. So even with a smallish battery capable of only fifty to a hundred miles driving range, such cars will be capable of running quite a few miles on a daily basis.

          A fully self driving VOLT will be able to handle a hundred mile round trip commute with near zero gasoline consumption by plugging itself into an automated charging station near the owners place of employment. A fully autonomous VOLT will probably be available in five or six years. A BOLT will need to plug itself in only once in three days in most cases, because most people don’t drive that far on a daily basis.

          I worked with horses and mules as a child, enough to learn how, and my grandparents grew up without electricity or motor vehicles. Now I am sitting here playing with a flattened out crystal ball better than any crystal ball I ever encountered in a fantasy novel.

          1. Old Farmer, we need cheap, reliable, easily repaired high mpg cars and electrics. I think the techno-wiz game is great, but it doesn’t get most people down the road and back. Median household income in the US was $52,000. I think a big portion of the market is looking for cars under $20,000 or even under $10,000.

             Maybe some smart fellow will start producing modular 3D printed cars at low price for the “under-market” and make a killing. Much fewer parts, strength from geometry and design and simpler power systems. Not glitzy or high techno, just a radio and maybe an internet link at most. Although I am finding less and less worth listening to on the radio in my area.
             People need to get to work, the grocery store and the doctor as well as a few social runs. They do not usually need the car to drive them.
             Autonomous cars or cheap vans to run the elderly or infirm around is a great idea. Not sure if it will ever make the country mile, but could be made to work in town and city areas.
             I wonder how autonomous cars will respond to deer and moose or dogs and cats. This will also put a whole new twist to road rage.

             1. I think a big portion of the market is looking for cars under $20,000 or even under $10,000.

                That’s used cars. More affluent buyers pay for the early depreciation, subsidizing lower income buyers who buy them used.

                1. There are a number of new cars under $20,000 right now. MSRP.
                   Those snobby, nose in the air new car buyers ditch their cars early and pass along all the coming repair bills to the next buyer. So tell me about subsidizing.

                2. Yes, there are new cars under $20k. They don’t sell very well. Which makes sense: they’re not good values.

                   Used cars are much better values. The cost of new car depreciation (in years 0-5) is much higher than the cost of used car repairs (in years 5-10).

                   So, if you want a small, less expensive car, it’s far cheaper to buy a used small, less expensive car. It’s better to pay $10k for a 5 year old Corolla than $20k for a new one. Much, much cheaper.

                3. You are saying that the Corolla and Honda Civic are poor values at less than $20K. Two of the most reliable cars on the road. I think both will make it to at least 200,000 miles.
                   Of course one can buy a BMW 428, Buick Encore, BMW 528, and Mazda Mazda5 for more money. But they are not very reliable.

                4. A new Corolla is a poor value compared to a used Corolla.

          2. The major reason for a sluggish economy is the continuation of legacy business. Time to move on and rebuild the whole country, how we energize it, feed it, transport it and house it. If we keep with the bread and circuses chromed up with techno-glitz and don’t get down to a full remodel job, the economy will slowly eat itself up and stall.
             We need to modify or dump some of these global trade agreements that are preventing new business from growing here in the US. Getting sued by foreign countries for using local labor and materials is just outrageous.

          3. For the record, I do not think, nor I have said that the worlds economic troubles are due to the high price of oil.

             I believe that the world economic problems are the result of a series of very long trends that got established in the 70-80’s, from demographic to debt expansion, increased cost of resources, and financialization. The situation has no cure and results in diminishing returns that progressively reduce growth.

             Of all the problems the oil problem is in my opinion the most likely one to choke the economy in the short to medium term, but that doesn’t mean that I have a simplistic view of the problem. Incorrect maybe, but simplistic no.

             1. Hi Javier,

                I am sorry I misinterpreted your earlier remarks involving the price of oil and the economy.

                I see from your twelve fifty five comment that we think VERY much alike about the topics of debt, growth, resource shortages, financial shenanigans, and such.

                I am somewhat agnostic about the long term effects of the debt load, because in my personal opinion , it could be managed successfully, or it could be mismanaged thru poor leadership, or it could due to a few bits of bad luck morph into a problem that WILL break the back of the world economy.

                Debt is a tricky subject. So much of it is ” off the books ” it’s scary as hell.

                I for one don’t think the coming generation is going to collect old age bennies from the welfare state to anything like the extent of my parent’s generation, or my own, unless productivity increases at a steady fast pace. The demographics just don’t appear to support the idea the current old folks welfare state can last without some severe pruning.

                And Sky Daddy himself can’t really predict how well, or how poorly, we will do in the future as the one time gifts of nature such as fossil fuels and easily mineable phosphate ores deplete.

                I am cautiously optimistic that a few rich countries that still have substantial resources and relatively modest populations in relation to those resources will manage a successful transition to a new generation business as usual based mostly on renewable energy, low per capita energy consumption, etc.

                But I am pretty much convinced that most of the world is getting started too late to manage such a transition.

                In a nut shell, my advice to anybody who might be willing to pay the price of it, is this.

                “DON’T GET CAUGHT IN EGYPT.”

                Any body who is trapped in Egypt, or any other country similarly situated in terms of resources and population, is going to find life difficult indeed.

                I expect the people fleeing such countries are going to be met at the borders of more fortunate countries with very tall fences and machine guns before population peaks, and most likely, crashes, in many poor parts of the world.

                It’s not that the technological ambulance can’t save us in principle, but rather that I expect it to run out of gas on the way to the future, for most parts of the world.

          4. Yair . . .
             Oldfarmermac.

             I like my crystal ball too . . . good analogy. (grins)

             I too worked with horses and on suburban door to door daily milk runs they were way more efficient than a vehicle, always in the right position and would keep up as we jumped fences and took shortcuts down the street . . . I believe the latest versions of delivery vehicles have been equipped with this feature and can be programmed.

             Just some useless horsy information that may be of interest to some.

             Cheers.

             1. Hi Scrub,

                I must admit I have never even seen a horse drawn milk wagon, except in pictures. I grew up too far out in the boonies.

                But my grandfather’s horses knew exactly when to move, and how far, and when to stop, when we used them in the field to haul in some of the produce. It was actually easier and quicker to pick sweet corn using the horse and wagon, or load up a few bushels of apples or peaches, than it was with a truck or tractor.

                But the horses were already mostly history by the time I was big enough and old enough to work one. I actually learned to operate a tractor sooner.

                The thing about a tractor that animal power advocates never seem to understand is that you don’t have to feed a tractor except on days you actually use it.

                And when you do use one, even twenty dollar diesel would be substantially cheaper than hay and grain per unit of work done, even before you figure in the cost of hiring a man to work horses or mules.

                I can plow as much in a day with my “utility” diesel tractor with twenty gallons of fuel as three men using TEAMS of the very most powerful horses, and you can’t hire three good tough hard working men these days for two hundred bucks, never mind raising, training, and feeding those horses.

                Mechanics are cheaper that vets, and one diesel tractor will outlast three generations of horses. I have two that are fifty years old , and it surprises the hell out of me when I have a problem with either one of them , other than a dead battery, or a flat tire, or something of that nature.

                If the tractor needs to go all night , you give her a couple of squirts with the grease gun, and fill the fuel tank, and flip on the lights, and any body handy can plow all night.

                1. Yes Old Farmer, tractors are machines, not living creatures. Although you grew up in the age of the tractor, a few generations from now when the fossil fuels are gone, people are not going to want to wait millions of years for new fossil fuels to be made. They will use whatever energy source is available then and there.

                   Too bad about all the pollution, destruction, warming, and overpopulation, otherwise the fossil fuel blip would have just been a curiosity in historical terms and we could just get on with the business of living.

                   Yes, fuel for the tractor is cheaper than supporting a horse, but only because all the external costs are not charged at the pump. People would go back to horses if they got charged for all the costs. But that won’t ever happen so keep running that tractor.

                   If we would respect horses and work with them, they are kind enough to work with us. However, horses have been terribly abused throughout history by people, so better to use a machine. Until the fuel runs out, then who knows.

                2. People would go back to horses if they got charged for all the costs.

                   Nah. They’d go to electric tractors, or synthetic fuel.

                   Synthetic fuel is the likely thing, but if you have a hard time with that, then consider an electric tractor with PV panels. Far, far cheaper than horses.

                3. Assuming that 1hp is in fact the power of one horse, that is equal to .75 kw.

                   A 1hp motor at Home Depot is $150. PV can be had at what, $0.60/w now?

                   So add another $600 and you have the power of a horse for $750, and it probably won’t die for 30 years, minimum.

                   Add in the mechanical parts to purpose it for something useful. a tractor might be somewhat hard, but transport is easy.

                   I’d take a 350w electric bike w/ ~800 amp hour battery over a horse any day.

                   (2) 60v 6AH Dewalt lithium ion FlexVolt batteries can be had for $180.

                   An electric bike hub motor is ~$100.

                   We’ll abandon our fixation on huge, heavy, personal vehicles long, long, before we go back to (other) animal based transportation, and our cities will be more livable as a result.

                   

                4. When you say synthetic fuel, are you thinking coal to liquid, Fisher Tropsch, or Oil Sand synfuel?

                5. I’m thinking electrolytic H2 combined with carbon (probably from seawater CO2), so pretty much Fischer Tropsch. The cost right now is roughly $1.5-2.50 per litre, and that’s likely to fall sharply in the long run.

                   Also biofuel (mostly ethanol), which is relatively important now in the world of alt liquid fuel, but would become much less so.

                6. OFM, you should check out this blog:

                   http://www.strongtowns.org/

                   I think it might appeal to you.

                   For example this recent article: http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/8/16/suburban-transit-doesnt-really-solve-the-problem

          5. I think an important point is that liquid fuel in many cases is important as a way of storing energy, not as a source of energy. A lot of doomsday scenarios around peak oil mix these two uses.

             Assuming for the sake of the argument we have enough electricity, we don’t need oil where it is only marginally valuable as a way of storing energy, such as heating oil.

       2. Hi Javier,

          The debt expansion was from 2008 to 2010, after that World debt to GDP was stable.
          The hypothesis that the World economy will stop growing due to high oil prices (over $100/b) is unproven.

          https://www.bis.org/statistics/totcredit.htm?m=6%7C326

          

          1. We have already talked several times about this. I think that graph is deceiving you, Dennis. The debt expansion by China between 2008-2013 is the biggest in history. That money has been used to buy commodities and build things like ghost cities pushing up GDP. As GDP and debt grew hand in hand unlike in 2009-10 the graph remains flat, but debt expansion of that kind cannot be repeated because it was only possible due to historic very low debt levels from China that no longer exist.

             If/when a bad economic period comes the high debt is going to spook the economy and that graph is going to go through the roof without warning.

             1. Hi Javier,

                No the economy will be spooked simply because it is not doing well, it will have very little to do with debt. The rise in Debt to GDP was because governments spent more than they received in taxes in an attempt to recover from the financial crisis, since that time debt to GDP has been stable and keep in mind, the graph is not zero scaled so at the World level the increase in debt to GDP was about 10% higher than earlier levels.

                Debt is not as much of a problem as you think. In fact as the World becomes more developed there is greater access to credit and debt to GDP would naturally tend to rise.

13. At one time, I owned a Volvo. Nice car, four cylinders, good mileage, even at 80 mph.

    Bought it used, but it was like new, had a comfortable interior, made my day owning it.

    I decided I would not need to own a car. I swore I would never own another car, expensive to own, etc. The decision was made in part because I once paid 75 cents per gallon for a gallon of gas, the highest price ever at the time. Everything changes.

    I had a good job in the city working for the man every night and day. Then I left the job. Now, I need a good vehicle to travel from point A to point B. It will be a vehicle that does have an internal combustion engine. It is the motive power I can trust for what I must have done. I am a hypocrite, I said I would never own a vehicle again, then I go buy one.

    Electric cars are glorified golf carts, I don’t mind golf, but I don’t need a hundred thousand dollar golf cart to make a chip shot into the river. An electric car for thee, but not for me!

    Besides, my dog thinks golf is a game where he can grab the golf ball and run with it after I place the ball on the tee. Golf to him is keep away and he is better at it than anybody. I then use two golf balls, one to place on the ground so he can then grab it, then the other golf ball to place on the tee so I can drive it, well, shank it to the trees far from the fairway. He figured out my trick, now he can take away both golf balls and he can’t be fooled, so I use three golf balls, but he has figured that out too and bats the third golf ball with his front paws. It gets frustrating. The dog is better at golf ball keep away than I am at real golf. har

    I need electricity worse than a drink. Like Little Big Man, I need a drink worse than the breath of life itself. Not really, but it is fun to say it. Ich trinke gern bier!

    Everyone wants electricity, all of the time, can’t use a computer without electricity. These days, a computer is better than a car. I can see the top of Greenland with a computer, a car can’t get you there, no matter how you try. I can see the coastline of Chile with a computer, a car would cost an arm and leg to get you there. You can fly, but it’s not the same.

    Electricity is better than oil.

14. Is anybody here keeping up with what’s happening in Turkey?

    The whole east west political shooting match could change depending on what happens there.

    There are too many hot spots to keep track of them all these days unless you aren’t doing anything else.

    1. I do to a certain extent.

       The scandal of the jour is the filtration of a German Secret Service report that points to Turkey being behind several terrorist groups like Al-Nusra in Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. So now Merkel will have to apologize to Erdogan for letting everybody know what was well known before by anybody with an interest in the area and access to internet.

       Erdogan is mismanaging every problem that Turkey has, from the Kurds, to Syria, terrorism from Daesh, the relations with Russia or the European Union, and its stance in NATO. The tourism is in shambles. No wonder that the military wanted to give him the coup, and that his secret service did not inform him. From an efficiency point of view, next time they need to kill him as the first move, like they did in Egypt with Sadat.

       1. I basically agree. He has been systematically establishing himself as a dictator for some years now. Undermining the economy and the rule of law is part of that strategy.

15. Ocean warming could be causing collapse of mountain species in highland forests of Costa Rica.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6728/abs/398611a0.html

    Growing differentiation in migration and breeding site availability at high altitude due to warming trends. Warming is also affecting hibernating species and leading to longer periods of starvation.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26486/

16. THIN TROPICAL CLOUDS COOL THE CLIMATE

    “Thin clouds at about 5 km altitude are more ubiquitous in the tropics than previously thought and they have a substantial cooling effect on climate, report researchers. The cooling effect of mid-level clouds is currently missing in global climate models.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160817090614.htm

    1. Additional missing parameters,

       WILDFIRES IN RUSSIA’S FAR EAST

       “While CO and soot are not included as greenhouse gases by the IPCC, they can have strong warming impact. CO acts as a scavanger of hydroxyl, thus extending the lifetime of methane. BC [soot] results from biomass burning, which a study by Mark Jacobson found to cause 20 year global warming of ~0.4 K. Moreover, BC [soot] has a darkening effect when settling on snow and ice, making that less sunlight gets reflected back into space, which accelerates warming. This hits the Arctic particularly hard during the Northern Summer, given the high insolation at high latitudes at that time of year.”

       rctic-news.blogspot.ca/2016/08/wildfires-in-russias-far-east.html

       1. Less uncertainty ???

          NEW ANTARCTIC ICE DISCOVERY AIDS FUTURE CLIMATE PREDICTIONS

          “We know that the Earth’s climate is changing and that climate models predict a warmer world. What we are not yet sure about is the precise magnitude of future change or the timeline. This is where looking into the past can help. We used a number of analytical techniques to quantify change in sea ice extent around Antarctica during this important past warm period…We were expecting to see a relationship between warm temperatures around 128,000 years ago and a past collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Surprisingly, we found that a major retreat of Antarctic sea ice is a more likely explanation. Our analysis suggests that a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet occurred later during the last interglacial. Something that our team will be looking at in more detail through another collaborative UK-US project.”

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160816084738.htm

          1. The answer is in the clouds,

             FEWER LOW CLOUDS IN THE TROPICS AS EARTH WARMS

             “With the help of satellite data, scientists have shown that low-level cloud cover in the tropics thins out as the earth warms. Since this cloud cover has a cooling effect on the climate, the two-degree warming target may therefore be reached earlier than many models have predicted.”

             https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160816110756.htm

       2. I pray to Sky Daddy that the pictures in this link are coming up a lot darker on the computer screen than they are if you are just looking at Greenland ice.

          http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/why-greenland-dark-snow-should-worry-you

          It seems rather likely that the pictures used are cherry picked from some of the worst spots, otherwise I can’t imagine how the msm could fail to be talking about how black the Greenland ice sheet is this year.

          Even if I am right about the pics being unrepresentative, the article gives me the creeps. I don’t have the option of moving easily to a higher elevation, and I am already located in a place in the mountains that has a very pronounced hot microclimate during the summer months.

          Temps at my place are typically five to seven degrees and sometimes as much as ten degrees higher than at the weather station less than fifteen miles due south, during the middle of the day. It used to be rare that I would see the shaded porch thermometer hit a hundred, but recently I see this a lot. Today my micro climate is eleven degrees at one hundred above the official current reading at the weather station of eighty nine.

          This is scary as hell for farmers, because we are much more affected by unusually high highs and unusually warm late winter weather, etc, than by a degree or two or even three or four degrees higher AVERAGE temperatures.

          Frost is getting to be a FAR more serious problem than it used to be, as the result of warm late winter days bringing the fruit trees out of dormancy too early, and the apples are literally cooking on the trees today in the orchard across the road from my house. A full quarter of them are badly sun burnt, and will have to be sold for culls.

          They might bring enough at the juice house and cannery to pay the picking and hauling bill, and they might not.

          Averages matter, but on the farm, consistent weather is more important and highly desirable.

          I could easily adjust my operations to the average seasonal patterns that prevail two or three hundred miles south , or five hundred miles south. Adjusting to erratic weather is not so simple.

          From here on out, being retired and looking to make day to day life simpler and easier, I am converting to a cow calf grass operation, which is nearly bomb proof in terms of weather, except sometimes you have to buy a lot of feed in the event of a drought.

          So far we haven’t had any KILLER droughts in my neck of the woods, and I plan on keeping a good bit of feed on hand anyway. Hay and grain are easily stored , and the price of feed varies substantially from one year to the next. Keeping some on hand if you have the money is the prudent way to go. I have known some people to sell out both their cows and their feed supply in the event of a drought, making money by doing so and buying back new cows before the price of them goes up again.

          Long range weather forecasting is getting to be a subject of EXTREME interest to farmers as the forecasters get to be better at their art. Long range forecasting just doesn’t quite make it to the level of science yet.

          1. It may be the case that soot is only a problem at lower elevations near the coast line. This study says the higher inland elevation ice is not darker than formerly, that the problem is degrading instrumentation on the satellites.

             http://phys.org/news/2015-10-arctic-darkening-due-soot.html

             1. Now wait a minute, the researchers claim that the darkening of Greenland Ice sheet at high altitudes is due to satellite sensor degradation. Wouldn’t that darken all the results across the globe and become obvious ?
                They should be able to see the degradation drift during their calibration sequences against sun, moon, space and black body.

                MODIS On-orbit Calibration Methodologies
                https://earth.esa.int/workshops/ivos05/pres/03_xiong.pdf

             2. This study says the higher inland elevation ice is not darker than formerly, that the problem is degrading instrumentation on the satellites.

                Judging from these photographs my eyes must be degrading as well!

                https://unhypnotize.com/global-warming-climate-change/103346-black-snow-mystery-what.html

                Why Greenland’s ‘Dark Snow’ should worry you

                September 19, 2014

                JASON Box knows ice. That’s why what’s happened this year concerns him so much.

                Box just returned from a trip to Greenland. Right now, the ice there is … black.

                We’re not talking just a little dark – it’s record-setting dark. Box says he’s never seen anything like it. I spoke to Box by phone earlier this month, just days after he returned from his summer field research campaign.

                “I was just stunned, really,” Box said.
                
                .

                

                1. It’s a sooty world.
                   http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-change-dimick/

                2. Greenland’s Ice Is Getting Darker, Increasing Risk of Melting

                   Feedback loops from melting itself are driving changes in reflectivity
                   “The feedback loops work like this: During a warm summer with clear skies and lots of solar radiation pouring in, the surface starts to melt. As the top layers of fresh snow disappear, old impurities, like dust from erosion or soot that blew in years before, begin to appear, darkening the surface. A warm summer can remove enough snow to allow several years of impurities to concentrate at the surface as surrounding snow layers disappear. At the same time, as the snow melts and refreezes, the grains of snow get larger. This is because the meltwater acts like glue, sticking grains together when the surface refreezes. The larger grains create a less reflective surface that allows more solar radiation to be absorbed. The impact of grain size on albedo – the ratio between reflected and incoming solar radiation – is strong in the infrared range, where humans can’t see, but satellite instruments can detect the change.”
                   http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3275

                   One more feedback loop to change the world. We provide the impetus, nature takes over amplifying the results.

                3. Antarctic lakes forming:

                   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/17/these-stunning-blue-lakes-just-gave-us-a-new-reason-to-worry-about-antarctica/?utm_term=.eaba19313f16

                4. Is there a chance such a large crust forms on top of the ice, that it shields the ice from the sun? It would require so large amounts of soot that it wouldn’t be a misscolorization, but a thick layer.

17. Are you eating food irrigated with oil field waste water?
    http://civileats.com/2016/08/17/are-you-eating-food-that-was-irrigated-with-oil-wastewater/

18. Potentially the biggest scientific discovery of my lifetime,

    FIFTH FORCE OF NATURE COULD BE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING DARK MATTER

    “Recent findings indicating the possible discovery of a previously unknown subatomic particle may be evidence of a fifth fundamental force of nature, according to a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters by theoretical physicists at the University of California, Irvine…..“If true, it’s revolutionary,” said Jonathan Feng, professor of physics & astronomy. “For decades, we’ve known of four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. If confirmed by further experiments, this discovery of a possible fifth force would completely change our understanding of the universe, with consequences for the unification of forces and dark…” matter.”

    http://astronomynow.com/2016/08/16/fifth-force-of-nature-could-be-key-to-understanding-dark-matter/

    1. For those with a decent physics background (only wish my wife were around to see this),

       PROTOPHOBIC FIFTH-FORCE INTERPRETATION OF THE OBSERVED ANOMALY IN Be8 NUCLEAR TRANSITIONS

       “Recently a 6.8σ anomaly has been reported in the opening angle and invariant mass distributions of e+e− pairs produced in Be8 nuclear transitions. The data are explained by a 17 MeV vector gauge boson X that is produced in the decay of an excited state to the ground state, Be∗8→Be8 X, and then decays through X→e+e−. The X boson mediates a fifth force with a characteristic range of 12 fm and has millicharged couplings to up and down quarks and electrons, and a proton coupling that is suppressed relative to neutrons. The protophobic X boson may also alleviate the current 3.6σdiscrepancy between the predicted and measured values of the muon’s anomalous magnetic moment.”
       http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.071803

       1. Hi Doug,

          The details you give are so far over my head I haven’t the faintest clue, but I do know enough science and history in general to appreciate that if this possible discovery is confirmed, it’s like you say, possibly the most significant discovery in our lifetimes.

          So – If we were sitting around betting beers on it, what odds would you offer that it will be verified ?????

          1. Sure,

             Odds = 50:50. Time frame = 2 years to confirm/refute (that’s because required experiments can be done with relatively low power machines already in existence). Furthermore, odds of my being around to find out results also 50:50. Beer talk.

             1. Damnit,

                I hope if you are serious you are already as old as the hills.

                1. Not really so old, its a health issue. At least brain still works which is the key (to my mind) 🙂

                2. Hi Doug,

                   Sorry to hear of your poor health. As you say, you seem sharp as ever (since I have been reading your comments).

                   I hope you have underestimated your longevity as you will be missed.

                3. Thanks Dennis. My philosophy is: “It’s not the years that matter but the life in the years.” I’ve been extremely fortunate having great family relations, excellent work-travel-education experiences and I may last a few years yet, or not. Would have preferred to have my wife outlast me but………. Actually I didn’t think you bothered reading my comments. 🙂

                4. Hi Doug,

                   I always read your comments with great interest.

                   When I have nothing to add, I remain silent, usually this means I agree.

                   Often my comments just aggravate you, so I try to keep that to a minimum. 🙂

                5. Hi Doug,

                   You will be SORELY missed by all the regulars here, and in any other place you are known, when you depart.

                   The generations come and go , the Earth abides forever.

                   Best of luck to you.

                   And keep posting as long as you can keep typing!

                6. Thanks Mac,

                   You know I have a big old dog. I’m determined to keep around for him and vice versa: we keep each other going. Vet says he’s good for a couple years and I’m not gonna abandon him.

    2. Hey Doug, I’m sure you know the story, when Enrico Fermi wondered where the aliens were? Leo Szillard told him they were already here and they called themselves Hungarians… 🙂

       What I’d really like to hear, is someone like Frank Wilczek comment on how this proposed fifth force might fit in with Grand Unification Theory.

       1. Ah yes, Enrico Fermi (and Paul Dirac), the god(s) of modern physics. I had a geophysics professor who studied with Dirac but to this day cannot follow his “Quantum Math”. My wife knew Richard Feynman well enough to call him Dick. Feynman gave her a copy of his Lectures on Physics (to pass along to our kids; one of whom treated the “Lectures” like her personal bible). How wonderful/lucky my life has been! I expect you’ll have to wait a couple of years on the GUT question Fred, or maybe not.

          1. How wonderful/lucky my life has been! I expect you’ll have to wait a couple of years on the GUT question Fred, or maybe not.

             We do live in wonderful times. Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can read Feynman’s lectures for free online.

             http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

             Or watch videos of his Messenger Series from Caltech, courtesy of Colombia University.
             http://www.cornell.edu/video/playlist/richard-feynman-messenger-lectures

             I have watched these more than once and probably will again!

19. Clean sweep: NOAA, NASA, JMA agree July 2016 was globe’s warmest month dating to late 1800s.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqE6PORWAAAC0YW.jpg

    1. More evidence for the coming ice age. Clearly Evil-Eye Fleegle delivering a triple whammy to the global warming crowd.

    2. Paint all the tarmac roads and parking lots white, use white roofing shingles and siding, drive white cars. Plant white flowers. Large buildings should be all white. Only white boats, piers and bridges too. No more dark clothing either.

       That should cool things down some, though it will be rough to see things in snowstorms and fog, but then it is already.

       1. The best single hope for the human race, and the “as it exists now” biosphere, is probably the emergence of a new highly contagious very fast moving incurable disease that permanently sterilizes every body who catches it.

          Sometimes I like to day dream about being rich and funding a large scale effort to create the bug.

          From a hypothetical point of view, it seems to be altogether possible that the creation of such a disease could be easily accomplished within the next decade or two, as the relevant technologies advance.

          I wonder if the art of curing such artificially created diseases will advance nearly as fast as the business of creating them.

          It is surely a good thing that most of the little ( as opposed to nation state type ) bad guys are underachievers sorely lacking in imagination.

          I am forty years behind the times, at least, technologically, but there is no doubt in my mind I could create enough problems, personally, to disrupt the lives of countless people, tens of thousands of them, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe a few billion, to fix them.

          And except for the fact that I have posted this comment, and similar ones elsewhere, and so might be on a watch list or two, or half a dozen, I would almost for sure get away without even being identified as a so called person of interest.

          1. http://www.darkbiology.com/plague.htm

          2. Old Farmer, you need to take your megalomania pills and watch the plants grow for a while. Also cancel your subscription to Dr. Strangelove magazine and burn your copy of Clive Cussler’s “Plague Ship”, it’s definitely a novel and not to be taken seriously

             You have some strange company though.
             “Saying there’s no way around it at this point, a coalition of scientists announced Thursday that one-third of the world population must die to prevent wide-scale depletion of the planet’s resources—and that humankind needs to figure out immediately how it wants to go about killing off more than 2 billion members of its species.

             Representing multiple fields of study, including ecology, agriculture, biology, and economics, the researchers told reporters that facts are facts: Humanity has far exceeded its sustainable population size, so either one in three humans can choose how they want to die themselves, or there can be some sort of government-mandated liquidation program—but either way, people have to start dying”

             http://www.theonion.com/article/scientists-look-one-third-of-the-human-race-has-to-27166

             Even Ted Turner mellowed, stop wanting to kill off most of the world population. Probably better medication.
             http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerenblankfeld/2011/09/21/ted-turners-plans-to-save-the-world/#3b331bc3633f

          3. It is surely a good thing that most of the little ( as opposed to nation state type ) bad guys are underachievers sorely lacking in imagination.

             No worries! A couple teenagers with one of these kits will be sure to figure it out sooner rather than later!

             http://newatlas.com/home-crispr-gene-editing-kit/40362/

             CRISPR genome editing is one of the most significant, world-changing technologies of our era, allowing scientists to make incredibly precise cut n’ paste edits to the DNA of living organisms. Now, one synthetic biologist from NASA plans to make it as accessible as a home science kit, so you can bio-hack yeast and bacteria on your kitchen bench.

             If you’re not up to date with how CRISPR gene editing works, take a quick look at this excellent MIT video. In short, CRISPR/Cas9 is a radically fast and easy way to precisely cut and replace DNA sections in a living organism. It has revolutionised biomedical research and opens up all kinds of opportunities for gene therapy and genetic engineering.

          4. Mac wrote: “The best single hope for the human race, and the “as it exists now” biosphere, is probably the emergence of a new highly contagious very fast moving incurable disease that permanently sterilizes every body who catches it.”

             Yeah, it’s a bit depressing to think that aside from our domesticated species which would quickly go extinct without us, the remainder of the biosphere would in fact greatly benefit from human extinction.

             It’s kind of looking like it is likely an us or them situation, or an us and them one.

          5. Hi Old Farmer Mac,

             I will repeat that free education up through University level and free birth control, along with the empowerment of women worldwide is the better approach.

             1. Give women equal political and economic rights.

                It works every time—
                Just giving a woman a 6th Grade education halves the birth rate,

                1. Hi Hightrekker,

                   I didn’t realize that 6th grade was enough, I have read research suggesting the higher the education level the lower the total fertility ratio.

                   I figure we can aim high, we aren’t likely to have everyone in the World with a University education, but more education for those that choose to study is probably a good thing in general, imo.

                2. Hi Everybody,

                   I occasionally post something over the top in order to see what other regulars will have to say.

                   Thanks for all the comments.

                   I have outlined a couple of doomer novels and novellas using various plot devices any university educated guy with experience in the construction trades etc could actually pull off in the real world.

                   Consider for instance the current California fire situation. Who is to say for SURE that the hottest fire in the country at the moment wasn’t started by somebody who’s a sleeper terrorist who may have been here years already?

                   That would have taken just one paper match, not much imagination needed.Even little kids know how to strike a match.

                   Seriously, Fred tells us the next generation of kids will likely be able to whip up new diseases to order. Will the people tasked with curing them be able to keep up ? Seriously?

                   I am all in favor of educating women, etc, but I am also convinced that the technology ambulance ( and education is a basic structural part of the tech ambulance, in general terms) is going to run out of gas before it gets us to the hospital, collectively speaking.

                   In world wide terms, I believe we don’t have time enough for the education of women, etc, to giterdone before the shit hits the fan hard and fast.

                   Some of us MAY manage a successful transition to a new generation business as usual way of life based on renewable energy, lower population, low per capita energy consumption, etc. I am reasonably confident that if every thing goes well, and not too many things go wrong, a few countries such as the USA, Canada, etc, have a pretty decent shot at a successful transition.

                   But I am also reasonably sure that it’s already too little too late for most of our kind, and most of the larger wild animal species still remaining.

                   Don’t get caught in Egypt.

                   Incidentally there ARE a lot of serious scientists who agree with me about our future prospects.

                   Overshoot is not a joke, unfortunately.

                3. I also believe we are going to face overshoot. We have grown too fast and too much under too good conditions, and whenever this happens in Nature, overshoot is around the corner.

                   And by the way, I’m one of those scientists.

                4. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2101657-synthetic-supermicrobe-will-be-resistant-to-all-known-viruses/

                   Ten or twenty years ago most or nearly all of us didn’t believe we would ever be able to build batteries capable of propelling cars hundreds of miles on a single charge.

                5. I never thought much about batteries, but I remember distinctly believing in the mid 70’s that by now we would have permanent colonies in the space and the Moon.

                   Somehow the future has been a little disappointing.

          6. OFM,

             Your interest has been noted.

             Remain in your present location. Wait for the knock on the door.

             1. Wait for the knock on the door.

                LOL! There will be no knock. You will be visited in the middle of the night by a swarm of near silent AI micro drones equipped with poison delivery systems. They will not have been seen and will leave not a trace. The autopsy and the toxicology results won’t even be able to identify or detect the poison that took you out. The report will say that you have died of natural causes.

                Then again, while GMO mosquitos carrying a lethal virus might not work so well against a particular individual, they could easily decimate an urban population.

                Ain’t technology great? 🙂

          7. Overshoot of the human population ain’t a problem in Wyoming. Plenty of space in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Just move a couple of billion people to those empty spaces, no one will notice. har

             The possible answer, in my often times very wrong opinion, would be for 2/3rds of humans to contract Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease and their brains would turn to mush.

             Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is a rare, degenerative, invariably fatal brain disorder. It affects about one person in every one million people per year worldwide; in the United States there are about 300 cases per year. CJD usually appears in later life and runs a rapid course. Typically, onset of symptoms occurs about age 60, and about 90 percent of individuals die within 1 year. In the early stages of disease, people may have failing memory, behavioral changes, lack of coordination and visual disturbances. As the illness progresses, mental deterioration becomes pronounced and involuntary movements, blindness, weakness of extremities, and coma may occur.

             http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/cjd/detail_cjd.htm

             1. Impossible. Life-long non consumers of mammalian meat are protected from getting CJD. You don’t even have to be a vegetarian. Even some mammals like pigs don’t have the disease.

                CJD is also a very late killer, so hardly a solution except for retirement home space.

    3. “Clean sweep: NOAA, NASA, JMA agree July 2016 was globe’s warmest month dating to late 1800s.”
       Not so clean. Satellites do not agree and have July 1998 (previous big El Niño) as warm or warmer. But don’t let the satellites spoil a story.

       1. I won’t– I’ll go with the “Clean Sweep”.

          1. We just can’t trust any of the numbers organizations like NOAA, NASA, UK Met and on, publish because they have been caught red handed so many times over the past 10 years fudging AKA “re-calibrating” their land based and satellite temperature measurements to make past years look colder and more recent years look warmer. As a result, one of the only things we actually can conclude about these taxpayer funded organizations is that they are working for certain political interests rather than the general public interest.

             Best regards,
             Ralph
             -Cass Tech ’64

             1. I’m way behind on troll alerts. Apologies.

                The above refers to Rutledge and Franti entities both. But we all know that.

             2. You forgot to mention that NASA has been withholding information about alien abductions! Dang, the little trolls have really been out in force recently…

       2. We can no longer trust any numbers these organizations like NOAA, NASA, UK Met and on publish because they have been caught red handed so many times now fudging AKA “re-calibrating” their land based and satellite temperature measurements to make past years look colder and more recent years look warmer. As a result, one of the only things we actually can conclude about all these taxpayer funded organizations is that they are working for certain political interests rather than the general public interest.

       3. Completely agree with you. I’ve read of several instances where the satellites were putting out completely unreliable data or the temperature recordings done way back a long time ago were made with less sophisticated technology that we must now be suspicious of. The reality is we will probably never know certainly whether any month was really the warmest or the coldest or the wettest and such. Any headlines that use words like warmest, and so on are done for sensationalism or political purposes—the mainstream media will try whatever they think is needed to get people to consume their content.

    4. Test post. Trying to post information about the big climate change scam but none of my messages are going through.

       Best regards,
       Ralph
       Cass Tech ’64

20. Posted in the wrong spot. Moved.

21. Melt accelerating again.

    http://icdc.zmaw.de/thredds/fileServer/ftpthredds/smos_sea_ice_thickness/sea_ice_thickness_latest.gif

22. Dazzling blue lakes are forming in Antarctica — and they’ve got scientists worried

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/17/these-stunning-blue-lakes-just-gave-us-a-new-reason-to-worry-about-antarctica/?utm_term=.14210239654a

    1. My best advice to you along with all these nervous nellie scientists would be to just accept the fact that climate change is going to happen as a perfectly natural process. It surely is only very minutely influenced by the human factors the 5th Estate media, unionized public schoolteachers, leftist college professors, and left-leaning political parties try to pound into our heads seemingly everyday. Understand that one more government agency, one more tax, or one more unionized workplace is not going to be able to reverse any kind of worldwide climate trends, no matter what any of these special interest groups try to cook up from one day to the next. I made a career out of drilling wells in the North Slope of Alaska. I saw firsthand many times just how incompetent supposedly smart scientists and number crunchers in the public sector can be. In the end, such incompetence makes you and me—the taxpayers and consumers of the world—have to give up more of our valuable money while also restricting the freedoms to do what we wish or buy what we want.

       1. So how is that North Slope working out? Heard they have a problem producing much oil, can’t keep the pipeline full.

       2. Hmmm. What media outlets do you rely on for news reporting?

          1. Same question to you. Or do you seriously believe that the media outlets you rely are bias-free? When it comes to climate news it is impossible to get unbiased news from the media. And it is probably the same for many other news.

             1. Javier,

                You don’t think Fox News and Rush Limbaugh (and the like minded talk radio programs) are honest, do you?

                There’s a difference between political propaganda and well intentioned reporting. Roger Ailes never intended to provide objective information. Ever. He was acting as an arm of the Republican Party.

                When we see tired tropes like ” climate scientists and greenies want to take away our freedoms”, we know we’re looking at propaganda.

                Right?

                1. Nick,

                   If your point is that there are conservative/right/Republican heavily biased media outlets, I already concede it.

                   The problem is that you think that similar progressive/left/Democratic media outlets are not similarly biased.

                   The Guardian and the Huffington Post come easily as very heavily biased in their climate news reports.

                2. The problem is that you think that similar progressive/left/Democratic media outlets are not similarly biased.

                   No. Not even close. That kind of false equivalence will make it very hard for you or anyone to think rationally, with good information.

                   There’s an enormous difference between deliberate dishonesty, and unconscious bias. Sure, sometimes liars come to believe their own lies, but…

                   Again:

                   You don’t think Fox News and Rush Limbaugh (and the like minded talk radio programs) are honest, do you?

                   There’s a difference between political propaganda and well intentioned reporting. Roger Ailes never intended to provide objective information. Ever. He was acting as an arm of the Republican Party.

                   When we see tired tropes like ” climate scientists and greenies want to take away our freedoms”, we know we’re looking at deliberate, dishonest, game-playing, propaganda. Propaganda intended to make people afraid and angry, not rational and well informed.

                3. Nick,

                   I don’t get Fox News or Rush Limbaugh in Spain, but if I did I doubt I would follow them because I don’t follow conservative media in Spain. Nevertheless I believe you if you say that they are dishonest.

                   But now let’s just see what Jeremy Berg, the new Editor-in-Chief of Science has to say:

                   https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/science-editor-chief-sounds-alarm-over-falling-public-trust
                   Science editor-in-chief sounds alarm over falling public trust

                   “But researchers are not entirely blameless for this rising hostility, thinks Berg. “Scientists are guilty of behaving in some ways of making this stick more than it needs to,” he says.

                   Too often they have gone beyond explaining the scientific situation and ventured into policy prescriptions, notably in the case of climate change, he thinks. “The policy issues should be informed by science, but they are separate questions,” he says. “Scientists to some degree, intentionally or otherwise, have been mashing the two together,” he adds, and urges scientists to be more “transparent” about “where the firmness of your conclusions end”.

                   But some in the scientific community argue that high-profile journals such as Science are partly to blame for the very overhyping of results that Berg decries.

                   A paper published in 2011 made waves after it found that there was a correlation between journal impact factors (JIFs) – which measure average paper citation rates over the past two years and are highest for prestigious journals such as Science, Nature and Cell – and the rate of retractions. Science had the second highest rate of retractions among the journals studied, below only the New England Journal of Medicine.”

                   So if even Science has become biased and mixed in policies issues, what hope is there for the mainstream media of being neutral?

                   Nevertheless I expect an improvement from Science, since Jeremy Berg is a far cry from Marcia McNutt who was an alarmist and advocacy defender.

                4. I’m not sure what this has to do with my question to “Bill Franti”.

                   He appears to pay attention to different media from you, so you may have to let him answer my question to him…

       3. In the end, such incompetence makes you and me—the taxpayers and consumers of the world—have to give up more of our valuable money while also restricting the freedoms to do what we wish or buy what we want.

          I get the impression that you don’t have the slightest idea how your supposed freedoms to do what you wish or buy what you want affect the billions of people living on the very edges of survival in many places around the world. We live with ever shrinking resources, and the available slices of the pie are getting smaller and smaller yet you seem to believe that you alone have a right to bigger slice than everyone else. Well you don’t!

          1. Fred,

             I sympathize with your feelings, but don’t even begin to agree with the propaganda that climate scientists or activists want to “take away our freedoms”.

             In fact, no one wants to take away anyone’s freedom – they just want to reduce pollution and make us all better off than we would be otherwise (even if some believe that the best possible outcome isn’t that great, they still believe that mitigating climate change will make us all better off…).

             Not to mention that things like EVs and renewable power are better in almost every way.

             1. You got it Nick. Even if by some strange circumstance people did not cause global warming, the end result of the changes we would make to counter warming are the same changes needed to counter fossil fuel pollution and peak fossil fuels. Conservation and cleaning up the environment along with employing sustainable energy scenarios are all good things. They also reduce CO2 emissions. Same fix for a lot of the predicaments.

                1. Yes.

                   Not to mention that CO2 does more than create global warming: ocean acidification is a big risk, too.

                   That’s one of the reasons that apologists for FF industries like to refer to “global warming” rather than “climate change”: it misleads people into thinking that CO2 and other pollutants are a much narrower problem than they really are.

23. 2016 Arctic cyclone, update 2

    Posted by Neven on August 19, 2016 , Arctic Sea Ice Blog

    The impact on the extent and area graphs isn’t as outspoken as in 2012, because there was a lot of weak, preconditioned ice back then that was poised to go poof. But make no mistake, the current exceptional weather is keeping 2016 in the race for that top 3 position when the minimum is reached next month.

    1. A significant change from the February to May song that the Arctic was going to see a catastrophic melting a could become ice free this summer.

       The reality is that Arctic sea ice melting is experiencing its own pause and it is essentially unchanged since 2006, 10 years now, with good years and bad years. And it is really hard to say which are the good years, if the ones with more ice or the ones with less ice. If Arctic sea ice started advancing almost every year that could not be considered good news.

       1. It’s a slow process – at the moment artic ice is getting thinner every year, with multiyear ice getting more scare.
          The time with the core ice about 4-6 meters thick and more than 5 years old have been gone, most ice is only 1-2 years old now.

          1. That is nonsense. Multiyear ice has been growing since 2012.

             Go to this graph from the Danish Meteorological Institute and see for yourself that Arctic sea ice thickness is higher than in 2012 and 2015 and right at the 2004-2013 average.
             http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

             Either you are being lied to or you don’t care enough to find out.

             Climate alarmists are like Jehovah witnesses. It does not matter how many times you prove them wrong, they still believe in the same BS.

             

             1. That is nonsense. Multiyear ice has been growing since 2012.

                Javier, why don’t you actually read the information provided in your link! It is your own claims backed up by information that is available on the site you linked to that clearly shows you are are the one spouting nonsense, and that, quite frankly, is being kind!

                http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php

                Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.

                I am at a loss to understand what your agenda is!

                1. Fred,

                   I follow the evidence. That is my agenda.

                   The minimum in Arctic sea ice took place in 2012 and since then there has been a recovery both of extent, volume and age. This is an indisputable fact. The minimum in 2012 took place due to weather phenomena, a strong Arctic cyclone.

                   The alarmist agenda is to use Arctic sea ice data since 1979 only, when we have satellite ice data since 1972, and systematic observational data since 1935.

                   What the evidence shows is that Arctic sea ice depends on Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation. This is very well known by cryologists but ignored by the general public so they don’t get distracted from the global warming cause.

                   Miles, Martin W., et al. “A signal of persistent Atlantic multidecadal variability in Arctic sea ice.” Geophysical Research Letters 41.2 (2014): 463-469.
                   http://folk.uib.no/ngftf/CV/PDF_Furevik/miles_et_al_grl_2014.pdf

                   “This study provides strong, long-term evidence to support modeling results that have suggested linkages between Arctic sea ice and Atlantic multidecadal variability [Holland et al., 2001; Jungclaus et al., 2005; Mahajan et al., 2011].

                   Given the demonstrated covariability between sea ice and the AMO, it follows that a change to a negative AMO phase in the coming decade(s) could—to some degree— temporarily ameliorate the strongly negative recent sea-ice trends.”

                   For as long as AMO is stable, Arctic sea ice will probably continue being stable. When AMO turns negative, it is possible that Arctic sea ice could grow.

                   So, given the evidence, what is the agenda of those defending an “Arctic sea ice death spiral”?

                   

                2. This I have already said multiple times here at POB, but it seems that the evidence and the truth, even when they explain what it is happening, do not make a dent in the firm (but wrong) beliefs of climate alarmists.

                3. I follow the evidence. That is my agenda.

                   Well, this is what the evidence says!

                   The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.

                   What part of it do you not understand?!

                4. I understand that perfectly well. What I don’t understand is the reason to be alarmed by it.

                   “a change to a negative AMO phase in the coming decade(s) could—to some degree— temporarily ameliorate the strongly negative recent sea-ice trends.”

                   It is expected that this trend is not to continue unabated.

                   What part of it do you not understand?!

                5. Surely you are kidding!

                   could—to some degree— temporarily ameliorate the strongly negative recent sea-ice trends.

                   Wow, some that could temporarily affect the negative trend, eh? Well I guess we should all go out and celebrate then!

                6. That depends on whether you like sea ice or not. What it means is that we should not be very alarmed about Arctic sea ice. It isn’t going anywhere in the next decades.

                7. Mercy Mercy Me

                   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ShXwamvksQ

                   Woo ah, mercy mercy me
                   Ah things ain’t what they used to be, no no
                   Where did all the blue skies go?
                   Poison is the wind that blows from the north and south and east
                   Woo mercy, mercy me, mercy father
                   Ah things ain’t what they used to be, no no
                   Oil wasted on the ocean and upon our seas, fish full of mercury
                   Ah oh mercy, mercy me
                   Ah things ain’t what they used to be, no no
                   Radiation under ground and in the sky
                   Animals and birds who live nearby are dying
                   Oh mercy, mercy me
                   Ah things ain’t what they used to be
                   What about this overcrowded land
                   How much more abuse from man can she stand?
                   Oh, na na…
                   My sweet Lord… No
                   My Lord… My sweet Lord

             2. If you can not see the declining trend in the material you provide here, then no body can help you.

       2. Hi Javier,

          Cherry pick. Ten years not significant.

24. 1936 will be tough to beat.

    https://www.weather.gov/fsd/daysabove100

    Occurrence of 100 degree or higher temperatures was most frequent
    in 1936. The top 10 years for frequency of occurrence were:

    1936 21 days
    1988 14 days
    1894 12 days
    1934 10 days
    2012 9 days
    1974 8 days
    1947 7 days
    1941 7 days
    1931 7 days
    1930 7 days

    …Decadal Data…

    100 degrees or higher occurred most often during the decade from 1930-1939.
    The breakdown by decades follows:

    1893 – 1899 19 days (partial decade)
    1900 – 1909 9 days
    1910 – 1919 12 days
    1920 – 1929 8 days
    1930 – 1939 58 days
    1940 – 1949 22 days
    1950 – 1959 13 days
    1960 – 1969 10 days
    1970 – 1979 31 days
    1980 – 1989 23 days
    1990 – 1999 6 days
    2000 – 2009 3 days
    2010 – 2015 9 days (partial decade)

    …Record Data…

    The highest temperature on record for Sioux Falls is 110 degrees,
    reached on July 17 1936 and June 21 1988.

    1. Contiguous US is the region of the World where we have better temperature record for the past.

       I already showed that summer temperatures in contiguous US during the 30’s were as high or higher than at present. What recent global warming has done has been mainly increase winter temperatures and night temperatures, which for many people is a positive, since cold winters kill a lot of people globally.

       All the talk about heat waves is complete nonsense. Heatwaves were worse in the 30’s, as summer day temperatures were higher. Your data supports that.

       

       1. Great graph Javier, there is a definite rising temperature anomaly trend from the early 1900’s to the present. The climate is getting warmer, even in the summer.

          1. I’ve had enough! See my comment above regarding sea ice, Javier is definitely a denier of reality when it comes to climate change. The only thing I don’t know is, if it is purely ideological blindness on his part, or if he his getting a paycheck from some special interest group!

             1. Fred, regarding climate change I expect Javier is getting a paycheck from some special interest group because it’s hardly conceivable he could be as ignorant as he appears. Best to ignore his comments and maintain your dialogue with well informed individuals – like me. 🙂

                1. For example,

                   HISTORICAL DATA SHOWS ARCTIC MELT OF LAST TWO DECADES IS ‘UNPRECEDENTED’

                   Sea ice melting since 1979 is ‘enormously outside the bounds of natural variability’ and clearly linked to humans burning fossil fuels, research shows…Arctic sea ice has not been at levels as low as today’s for at least 5,000 to 7,000 years, according to Julienne Stroeve, a researcher with the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), who was not involved in the study. “It may have been sometime during the mid-Holocene, based on driftwood found in Greenland that came from Siberia,” she said. “Some other studies have suggested at least 800,000 years.”

                   https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18082016/arctic-sea-ice-melting-historical-data-noaa-climate-change-global-warming-greenhouse-gases

                2. I happen to be a lot better informed about climate change than you are because I get my information from scientific articles while you get it from vested interest organizations like InsideClimate and media outlets.

                3. That’s funny. I presume you’re joking.

                4. Dead serious. Do you regularly read scientific climate articles like I do? because I never see you citing them.

             2. Fred, he is a great resource on climate denial technique.

                

             3. So Fred, I see that when someone doesn’t share your views he must be ideologically challenged or sold to special interest groups.

                I don’t know if you realize that you are falling into a fallacious trap and recursing to ad hominem attacks. It doesn’t say much of your capacity to accept diversity of opinion.

                1. I don’t know if you realize that you are falling into a fallacious trap and recursing to ad hominem attacks.

                   I’m not the one calling people Alarmists or Jehova’s Witnesses.
                   However I think there are more that a few smart people on this site and even a scientist or two other than yourself.

                   Do you take everyone here for a fool?! Do really believe none of us has read any scientific papers?
                   Do you think no one here is capable of critical thinking and that we can’t understand the analysis of all the science from multiple fields.

                   When you post a link such as this:
                   http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

                   Then state:

                   Either you are being lied to or you don’t care enough to find out.

                   Climate alarmists are like Jehovah witnesses. It does not matter how many times you prove them wrong, they still believe in the same BS.

                   Then when we go the site and find this clear and unequivocal statement:

                   Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed.The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.

                   Then you counter with you don’t see any reason to be worried?

                   Seriously?! Next I guess you will be questioning our reading comprehension.

                   Just in case you are wondering that paragraph can only be interpreted one way and that is: “HOUSTON WE HAVE A FUCKING PROBLEM!”

                2. Fred, it is clear that some things are lost to you.

                   Eulenspiegel said: “at the moment arctic ice is getting thinner every year, with multiyear ice getting more scarce.”

                   This is obviously not true since 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all had thicker and more multiyear ice than 2012. I have shown evidence. That is also what the link I put demonstrates. And that is why I said: “Either you are being lied to or you don’t care enough to find out.”

                   Now you come with a completely different statement from that page but you want to mix it with the previous argument: “we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.”

                   That statement is true in general terms because they are talking about long term changes, not about the last years. When they say that during the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, that is only true up until 2012. Since 2012 the melting of sea ice has decelerated.

                   You are trying to demonstrate that the site I linked somehow disproves what I said. It doesn’t. Go there and look at the data. Everything I have said is true, and what Eulenspiegel said was wrong.

                   Now do not try to put things that I have not said over me. You are running the fallacy manual today. This place is full of intelligent people and many of them obviously do a lot of scientific and technical reading. Almost everybody is capable of critical thinking. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and I understand very well that a majority believe that climate change is a very serious issue. I respect that. On matters that one doesn’t know well is better to rely on the opinion of experts. There can be no criticism on that. But the experts do not agree and I have showed that with the hundreds of scientific articles that I have cited in my posts at POB, always contradicting climate alarmism.

                   I only have issue with the people that come here to parrot climate alarmism from advocacy groups and mass media and think that they know a lot about climate change when they don’t. Doug Leighton is an example. He might be a genius physicist, but regarding climate change he clearly knows a lot less than he thinks he knows. GoneFishing is even worse as he doesn’t know even the basic stuff.

                   “Houston we have a fucking problem!”
                   They have failed to prove that. Global warming is 400 years old. The observed effects are net positive. Despite the increase in CO2 over the past 20 years ice melting is not accelerating, sea level rise is not accelerating, temperature increase is not accelerating. That is what Science says, not me. What they are telling us is:

                   Trust our predictions for 2100.
                   Ignore our predictions from 1990.

                   Use your critical thinking skills.

                3. Javier, you were the guy who said this to Dennis:

                   You are misrepresenting the problem. It is not a problem of getting “each wiggle of natural variability exactly right”, but of getting the trend (rate of change) right.’

                   Well you can’t have your cake and eat it too!
                   So even if a wiggle here and there shows an increase in ice thickness, the overall trend is what is important!

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

                   This is the trend:
                   .

                   

                4. Javier the 3% scientist,

                   Did you get your education at Trump University ?

                   You really are two standard deviations from the norm.

                5. Thanks Javier, your resounding declaration of my incompetence makes me feel I must be a genius. I couldn’t get a better endorsement than your negative one, since so many of your statements are beyond wrong. Stop making a fool of yourself here, it is getting to the point of being just sad.

                6. Ah shit Fish, you came off even worse than I did; not much but a bit. BTW “just sad” is very kind.

                7. Doug, damn, must be doing something right to get that score on the Javier Scale.

                8. Fred,

                   You are just looking at a window marked by the red arrow. Now, let’s increase the window to 1935.

                   So yes, please tell me what is the trend when we consider all the available data since 1935 and when we consider the AMO dependency of Arctic sea ice.

                   Is it going to increase, decrease, or stay the same?

                   Frankly we don’t know. No matter how sure you are that you know, you really don’t.

                   

                9. Hi Javier,

                   The Arctic Temperatures were at a high point in 1935 (relative to 1900) and then temperatures decreased until 1980.

                   AMO might have some effect, but the Sea Ice extant is easily explained with Arctic Temperatures. Reality is that it is likely to be a combination.

                   On the 65 year cycle, that is an interesting hypothesis, but it is not clear that we have enough data to prove that hypothesis.

                10. Javier, you haven’t the bloody faintest idea of how to understand the statistics of the data being presented.

                    NAOM

                11. Tks NAOM,

                    I had prepared a response with links to multiple papers from a few different research institutes to elucidate what Javier is (deliberately?) misunderstanding about this entire issue.

                    Your succinct response has convinced me that it would be just another exercise in futility. What is worse, is that it would continue giving him a stage on which to push his agenda of obfuscation. I think we should all just stop responding to him.

                    I will give him this, he has done a superb job of playing all of us! I’m done!

                    Cheers!

                12. Naom,

                    Nor do I need to since what I say is published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. The authors must respond for that.

                13. Javier admits that he does not understand it.

                    NAOM

          2. Here is where you can plot your own weather temperature anomaly graphs.

             http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/

             

          3. That the climate is getting warmer is not discussed, GoneFishing. What is being discussed is if there is any reason to be alarmed by it and how is it going to change from here.

             I see no reason to be worried about climate and find most predictions very outlandish.

             1. Yes, your opinions are noted.

                1. And time is likely to prove me right. So remember them.

                2. Hi Javier,

                   With 1000 Pg of Carbon emissions from all sources (fossil fuels, cement production, land use change and natural gas flaring) from 1765 to 2100 we are likely to see 2 C or more of warming above pre-industrial Holocene temperatures.

                   https://www.dropbox.com/s/15bawa6v66lc24y/RCP45d.SCEN?dl=0

                   The scenario at the link above can be used with http://live.magicc.org/

                   Note that total carbon emissions from 1765 to 2015 are about 565 Pg of carbon, so 1000 Pg C means only 335 Pg of carbon emissions after 2015, over 85 years that would be about 4 Pg per year, lately total carbon emissions per year have been about 9.8 Pg per year.

                   I suppose one could argue that ECS will be very low (2 C) or that 2.5 C above pre-industrial Holocene temperatures would be “nice weather”, so we should not be concerned.

                   Many biologists and ecologists think that many species will have difficulty adapting and that the problems of overshoot are likely to be exacerbated.

                   Using the probabilistic/historical option in live MAGICC
                   as described below I get the chart at the bottom using the 1000 Pg C scenario (a modification of the RCP4.5 scenario with lower total C emissions).

                   If you select this option, we will run your emission scenarios 600 times. Each of these 600 runs will use a slightly different parameter set to run MAGICC � with all of these parameter sets drawn from a historical constraining exercise, where MAGICC is sought to match historical observational records of land, ocean surface air temperatures in both hemispheres as well as ocean heat uptake. Full details of this truly probabilistic setup are described in the 2009 Nature paper, available at link below.

                   https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/usys/iac/iac-dam/documents/group/climphys/knutti/publications/meinshausen09nat.pdf

                   

                3. Dennis,

                   Most species will have no difficulty adapting because we are not going to see such warming. There is plenty of biological and climatic evidence that indicates that climate sensitivity to GHGs has been greatly overestimated and the influence of natural factors underestimated.

                   Already the pause has shown that predictions are based on incorrect assumptions and that natural variability is not correctly modeled. Answering to that criticism with models instead of evidence does not constitute proof.

                4. Hi Javier,

                   The models are not perfect, in fact if we take the average temperature from 1850 to 2005 for both model and data (Land Ocean from BEST), we find that from 1860 to 2005 the centered 21 year average of the model underestimates the temperature change relative to the data. The temperature is relative to the 1850-2005 average (set to zero C).

                   We cannot predict the future without a model, hand waving doesn’t really tell us much.

                   Your claim that the models run hot is not borne out by evidence. This chart is based on the MAGICC default model which emulates 19 AOGCMs and 9 carbon cycle models.

                   

                5. Dennis,

                   I know you live in a world of models, but you should not try to deceive me. EVERY SINGLE MODEL REPRODUCES PAST TEMPERATURES. They are adjusted to do that. The model you use PROVES NOTHING. And more importantly, cannot tell us anything about the future.

                   To demonstrate that a model works you have to run it forward into the future, publish the results and then wait to see how it performs. This is what was done with CMIP5 and the models showed an abysmal performance after only 10 years. That is why we know models don’t reproduce the climate and run too hot.

                   You have zero real evidence that models do not run too hot, while I have lots of published evidence that they do.

                6. Hi Javier,

                   I freely admit the models are not perfect, modelling the natural variability is a challenge. It is not important to get each wiggle of natural variability exactly right. The models match the general trends in temperature quite well, particularly when we look at ensembles of models.

                   The range of values represents the uncertainty due to incomplete understanding. One can claim that the low estimates of climate sensitivity are correct or that the higher estimates are correct, I make no such claims and simply report the median estimate (along with the uncertainty) based on current scientific understanding.

                7. Dennis,

                   You are misrepresenting the problem. It is not a problem of getting “each wiggle of natural variability exactly right”, but of getting the trend (rate of change) right.

                   As I have said, that models hindcast says nothing about the models. Models however fail at forecasting by a great amount. This means that we do not understand climate enough to build a working model.

                   Models also use a climate sensitivity of 3. That is one of the reasons that indicates that this value might be too high.

                8. Dennis said:

                   ” It is not important to get each wiggle of natural variability exactly right. “

                   and then Javier said:

                   ‘Dennis,

                   You are misrepresenting the problem. It is not a problem of getting “each wiggle of natural variability exactly right”, but of getting the trend (rate of change) right.’

                   Why don’t you just go away Javier? You are obviously here just to listen to yourself. You even have to twist and then argue with against a statement that is identical to your own.

                   Your affliction is knee-jerk contrarianism. You share that with a bunch of denier climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Murry Salby.

                9. Hi Javier
                   BEST looks at climate models and finds there are differences.

                   They are not all the same.

                   Why don’t you read the paper I linked and explain why a probabilistic model constrained by historical data is a bad approach.

                   It’s the way it’s done in physics and chemistry.

                   Perhaps microbiology is different 🙂

                10. Hi Javier,

                    The models have a variety of climate sensitivity with most models between 2.5 and 3.5 C, the MAGICC model is based on CMIP3 models and the average is about 2.9C, one model has a much higher ECS than the others at about 5.5C, I throw out this model (which I consider an outlier because the next highest model has an ECS of about 4 C) and the ensemble average od 18 AOGCMs has an ECS of 2.71C, which I use for the MGICC model rather than the default of 3C.

                    These models stopped being developed in 2005, I use actual fossil fuel emission data from 2006 to 2015 and leave other emissions as in RCP4.5 and use average the Temperature from 1880 to 1909 as the zero temperature point for both model and BEST LO data.

                    The Chart below shows the 3 year centered moving average temperature from 1990 to 2014, it is clear the ensemble (18 model) average underestimates the temperature change from 1895 to 1990 until 2008 and then overestimates from 2009 to 2014.

                    The model does not get the trend just right over every period and does not get the natural variability just right for every period. Nobody has ever claimed the models are perfect.

                    

                11. Hi Javier,

                    Over the 1881 to 2014 period the correlation coefficient of model to data is 0.994.

                    

                12. Hi Javier,

                    There is plenty of published evidence that the models do not run too hot, you simply choose your publications very carefully citing those that confirm what you believe.

                    I look at all the evidence, I don’t only select those that confirm my prior views.

             2. if you’re not worried about it then just relax man. It will all be good.

    2. R Walter, Javier,

       You’ll see those high temperature levels in the ’30s on a global curve but they vanish if North American data are removed. That says to me that these data should not be viewed as recording global conditions.

25. Dennis,

    No. It is not a cherry pick. The analysis of Arctic sea ice dependency from AMO has 800 years. The last 35 years is a cherry pick.

    And it is not a question of mathematical analysis of the data. We have a very good scientific reason to suspect a change of trend: the periodic change of trend in AMO. The data is already supporting this interpretation.

    

    1. Hi Javier,

       Arctic temperatures were decreasing from 1935 to 2000 at 0.06 C per decade, from 1900 to 2000 arctic temperatures rose by about 0.07 C per decade, so not a lot of temperature change especially from 1900 to 1980 with a decrease from 1930 to 1980 of more than 0.07 C per decade. From 1980 to 2000 Arctic temperatures rose by about 0.48 C per decade. The rising arctic temperatures are likely to lead to loss of sea ice, but it may be modulated to some degree by the AMO.

       http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php

       Chart from link above.

       Another nice paper at link below:

       http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.277/full

       Provider: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
       Content:text/plain; charset=”UTF-8″

       TY – JOUR
       AU – Comiso, Josefino C.
       AU – Hall, Dorothy K.
       TI – Climate trends in the Arctic as observed from space
       JO – Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
       JA – WIREs Clim Change
       VL – 5
       IS – 3
       PB – John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
       SN – 1757-7799
       UR – http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.277
       DO – 10.1002/wcc.277
       SP – 389
       EP – 409
       PY – 2014
       ER –

       

       1. Thank you for the linked information, Dennis.

          Now lets check that graph you have posted. I don’t know about you, but I see a periodic oscillation taking place. More importantly the centurial trend is only 0.06°C. Not very scary. And if you want to play the card of recent increase (0.48°C/decade in 20 years), I have bad news for you. The rate of increase between 1917 and 1937 was even higher (about 0.7°C/decade in 20 years) when anthropogenic forcing was very small.

          This graph does not support the role of GHGs in Arctic warming, and similarly to what happened after 1937, it raises the possibility that Arctic warming might end at any time.

          1. Hi Javier

             There are other factors such as aerosols that affect climate.

             Older data for Arctic temperature is not very good large error bars.

    2. Hi Javier,

       Do you have a link for that paper, or at least a citation?

       Generally 35 years gives some idea of the climate trend, I suppose if we should ignore 35 years of satellite data for Sea Ice that means we should also ignore the 36 years of data for satellite temperatures and use the more extensive (in time) surface temperature data exclusively.

       Or does 36 years of data only count when it agrees with Javier’s viewpoint? 🙂

       1. Dennis, you must agree that if you are looking at a 65 years cycle, 35 years of data might completely deceive you.

          Satellites are a technical improvement, since they look at the entire planet. They raise a consistency problem between temperature datasets. It has nothing to do with the length of the record.

          1. Javier

             No satellites don’t cover the poles..

             1. They have a lot better coverage of the poles. From RSS page:
                “Compared to in situ measurements, the main advantage of satellite data records from polar orbiting satellites is the nearly complete global coverage and homogeneous data quality.”
                http://www.remss.com/research/climate

                Frankly it is very hard to defend that land stations have an adequate coverage of the poles. Almost all the data over there is made up by kriging, infilling, or simply left out. So we are really comparing real measurements from satellites to made up data from surface databases.

                1. Javier,

                   You do realize the satellite temperatures are far from perfect, you seem to have little confidence in physical models and there is quite a bit of modelling behind the satellite temperature data, along with calibration issues, instrument drift, changing equipment. I have more confidence in the data from Berkeley Earth, which set out to show that the existing sur.face temperature data had problems and found that existing data was pretty good.

       2. Sorry Dennis,

          The citation was above in another post:
          Miles, Martin W., et al. “A signal of persistent Atlantic multidecadal variability in Arctic sea ice.” Geophysical Research Letters 41.2 (2014): 463-469.
          http://folk.uib.no/ngftf/CV/PDF_Furevik/miles_et_al_grl_2014.pdf

26. Daily CO2

    August 18, 2016: 402.53 ppm

    August 18, 2015: 399.13 ppm

    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. You really should stop trying to mislead people by posting these CO2 measurements without a scientific explanation of what they mean.

       Additionally reference Wikipedia Atmopshere of Earth entry: “The three major constituents of air, and therefore of Earth’s atmosphere, are nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Water vapor accounts for roughly 0.25% of the atmosphere by mass. 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.“

       1. Where did this silly meme come from, originally?

          Anybody know what Koch think tank came up with this bright idea?

          1. In respect to L T’s ten thirty four pm comment:

             It is unfortunate that common sense can mislead us so badly, on occasion, when it serves us so well, most of the time.

             Common sense certainly proves to us that the world is flat, because any damned fool knows we would fall off, it it were round, unless we were sitting at or near the NORTH POLE.

             Common sense tells us, in no uncertain terms, that the sun goes around the Earth, rather than the Earth around the sun, spinning, because any damned old fool can go up on top of a mountain, and look out over the Earth, and see instantly that something as big and solid as the entire Earth cannot POSSIBLY move.

             But then again, something ain’t right, because HOW can the sun go AROUND something that ain’t round, at least more or less round, itself?

             And considering that the sun is powerful enough to light up half the world at a time, which cannot be denied even by the LEVEL HEADEDEST hillbillie who knows the world is flat rather than round, because he has talked to HIS OWN LITTLE GIRL on the phone, who assured him it was the middle of the night where she was, when it was about noon HERE, where HE lives????

             Well that old sun must be one hell of a hot ball of fire, ya know. Common sense tells us in no uncertain terms that the Devil himself must have a damned big crew of demons hauling hot brimstone from Hell, around the clock around the calendar, to keep her lit up.

             And figuring out the path the sun must be taking? Well, it must be sorta similar to the path the junebugs used to fly when we caught them back when we were kids, and tied a thin light little string to them, and played helicopter with them.

             Sometimes common sense let’s us down.

             It sounds perfectly reasonable to say that since CO2 is only a trace gas, it can’t play a very big role in climate, and that adding more of it won’t matter.

             Unfortunately, it just ain’t so.

             There’s an old saying in my part of the world , used to describe people who know a LITTLE bit, but not nearly ENOUGH, about a line of work where in a mistake can easily get you killed, that goes “He knows just enough to be dangerous”.

             This is to say he knows enough to THINK he understands the work, and is not afraid to try his hand at it, with the result he is apt to kill himself or any coworker or by stander.

             There is little or nothing to be gained debating a person who takes the old KJB literally, as so many of my own family and community still do, because they simply DON’T KNOW ENOUGH to understand that while they know a few things they don’t know enough to UNDERSTAND what little they DO KNOW.

             Louie T. may be serious, he may believe what he has posted. I know people like that, there are LOTS of them around.

             He may be a Koch brothers paid troll. There are plenty of that sort around too.

       2. Atmopshere => Atmosphere

       3. Try Wikipedia to clear up your confusion.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

          Also look up the infrared spectra of the various greenhouse gases to get an idea of their absorption bands.
          Basically, the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere causes long wave infrared from warm surfaces to be blocked in certain frequency ranges . It is then reradiated in all directions by the molecules and will be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule, to be reradiated again. Finally way up high in the atmosphere some of the infrared (heat) is radiated away to space. As more greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, the temperature of the earth surface system and atmosphere rises. That is good because without greenhouse gases the earth would be a giant snow and ice covered ball, never to thaw.
          Water vapor is unique in that it phase changes (vapor to liquid, liquid to solid and back) within the normal atmospheric temperature ranges. Each state has different properties. Little water vapor is found at high altitudes because it condenses or freezes into clouds and later precipitation. High concentrations of water vapor will be found near the surface due to evaporation from wet land and bodies of water. The other gases don’t do this in the troposphere.

       4. I think you already posted this exact BS on a previous occasion. Do you get paid by the post?

       5. My brain weighs approximately three pounds, the rest of my body then probably weighs somewhere between 195 to 205 pounds, depending upon if it is right after Thanksgiving and Christmas or not.

          If I remove my brains, I would still weigh some 205 pounds.

          It would be a significant loss to the other vital organs, but no big loss of weight.

          The brawn is greater than the brains by some 70 times!

          I hardly ever use my brains, so it really would be no big loss.

          No brains, no headaches! har!

          1. No brains, no headaches! har!

             Actually the brain has no pain receptors and therefore can not feel any pain at all… Now if you got rid of your head, that might solve the problem. Har!

             1. This song “No Brains” reminds me of many of the “discussions” concerning climate change and global warming on this site.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnkZNu2Hl7o

                http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+all+brawn+and+no+brains

                1. Here’s one of my absolute favorite renditions of
                   Jonathan Coulton – Re: Your Brains – ASL Song
                   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQYjZc7gKXc

                   I don’t want to nitpick, Tom, but is this really your plan?
                   Spend your whole life locked inside a mall?
                   Maybe that’s OK for now but someday you’ll be out of food and guns
                   And you’ll have to make the call
                   I’m not surprised to see you haven’t thought it through enough
                   You never had the head for all that bigger picture stuff
                   But Tom, that’s what I do, and I plan on eating you slowly…

       6. Louis Tennessee,

          That 21% oxygen is provided and maintained by photosynthesis, and photosynthesis is supported by the trace gas CO2; photosynthesis requires CO2, LT.

          Remove that trace of CO2 and there would be no photosynthesis; without photosynthesis there would be no oxygen in the atmosphere; without oxygen in the atmosphere there would be no animal life, including human life, on the planet. That trace gas CO2 is of global importance, you see. “Trace” does not mean unimportant.

          It is also that trace of CO2 that keeps Earth’s average surface temperature higher than about -15C–that is, keeps the temperature well above freezing.

          The takeaway: “Trace”does not mean unimportant.

27. Here is an ICE vehicle that costs below $10,000 and gets over 80 mpg.

    https://amp.businessinsider.com/elio-motors-first-drive-2016-8

    1. I am most assuredly not an engineer, except of the self trained trades man type, but I do know a hell of a lot about machinery.
       There is no reason at all, other than federal mandates and the quirks of the auto market why there can’t be a very cheap new car from any major manufacturer. I am not arguing that the federal rules are unjustified, but rather pointing out that they are forcing up the price of cars while still allowing effing bicycles and motorcycles on the road, both of which are hundred times as dangerous as a Model T.

       But the real problem, which is a hundred times bigger than the federal mandate problem, is that anybody who can afford a totally plain jane stripped down brand new small car is almost dead sure to opt for an infinitely nicer, relatively new used car.

       So excepting Elio, nobody I know of is willing to risk the money to build a super plain jane car for sale in the USA or just about anywhere else excepting the third world.

       My opinion is that the Elio will not sell. I don’t know a soul who would even consider buying one, and I know a hell of a lot of people who are extremely practical minded when it comes to cars and drive junkers and clunkers because they are cheap to buy and cheap to run.

       By the time gasoline is expensive enough to really matter, some of the bigger companies will have more conventional looking two seater fore and aft cars on the market that will get the same or better fuel economy, and they will be backed up by the KNOWN manufacturer.

       Elio ain’t Tesla.

       My opinion for what it is worth is that plug in hybrids such as the new generation VOLT will own the auto market a few years down the road, WHEN oil prices spike up sharply and stay up.

       A few years after that, pure electrics will

       1. I agree, if we let “free” market forces decide what we get and what we don’t, then we are in a terrible amount of trouble.

          You also point toward the idea that the typical citizen has no real concept of the value of money and being conservative with money. They don’t realize that for every dollar they spend, they had to earn anywhere from 1.20 to 1.50. Even more when the cost of the loan is added. Also more expensive things are often more expensive to use, maintain and repair.
          Quality is another concept that is of limited view in the market. Spending a little more to get a quality product that will last much longer is the way to go. Buying glitz and electronic icing is not.

          I wonder if 3D printing is going to come to the rescue once they get over the wow factor and get serious. No need for retooling to make changes. The ability to easily produce complex, strong, lightweight structures and reduce the number of parts dramatically may just bring the vehicle cost back down to earth.
          https://3dprint.com/111644/3d-printing-revolutionize-auto/

          https://all3dp.com/3d-printed-car/

28. Warm Arctic Storm Tearing Sea Ice to Shreds amidst Big 2016 Heat Spike

    https://robertscribbler.com/2016/08/18/warm-arctic-storm-tearing-sea-ice-to-shreds-amidst-big-2016-heat-spike/

    http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/navgem/2016081812/navgem_z500_mslp_nhem_8.png

29. This one is for Doug.

    http://phys.org/news/2016-08-classical-nova-captured.html

30. New CO2 sounder nearly ready for prime time. Aerial tests and technology improvements have shown that a space based real time global CO2 detection system is possible.

    “After years of work, a team of NASA scientists and engineers is poised to realize a lifetime goal: building an instrument powerful and accurate enough to gather around-the-clock global atmospheric carbon-dioxide (CO2) measurements from space.

    The instrument, called the CO2 Sounder Lidar, is a strong contender for a potential next-generation carbon-monitoring mission, the Active Sensing of CO2 Emissions over Nights, Days and Seasons, or ASCENDS. Although the scientific community supports such a mission, scientists say its development depends on whether the National Research Council endorses the mission in its next Earth Science Decadal Survey, which represents a consensus of the most important research areas and the order in which they should be built.”

    http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2471/new-co2-sounder-nearly-ready-for-prime-time/

31. “NASA’s Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) mission is a first-of-its-kind project that aims to answer key questions about the consequences of climate change on the health of our oceans and their relationship with airborne particles and clouds. PACE will use a wide spectrum of wavelengths from an “ocean color” instrument to provide scientists with this information.”
    ““PACE represents a major effort to truly combine ocean research with atmospheric research,” Project Scientist Jeremy Werdell said.”
    “The primary instrument for this mission is named the Ocean Color Instrument (OCI), which will collect hyperspectral measurements from the ultraviolet to the shortwave infrared—a range that is broader than its predecessor satellite instruments, SeaWiFS, MODIS, and VIIRS—to examine and monitor how phytoplankton communities in the ocean are changing in space and time. The OCI will provide precise measurements of the ocean surface to allow researchers to see the concentrations of different phytoplankton communities all over the globe. The spectral range and resolution of the OCI design will substantially advance the ability to distinguish between different species of phytoplankton compared to predecessor satellite instruments.”

    http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2467/pace-mission-will-uncover-new-information-about-health-of-our-oceans/

    1. GF,
       As a physicist, you can’t possibly even understand the basics of the planet’s climatic system because understanding that system requires a deep understanding of physics, which you obviously do not have!

       So to put it bluntly, you have no chance whatsoever of understanding the complex dynamic interactions of physical, chemical and biological systems such as: ‘NASA’s Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem’. Don’t even try!

       However, there are other’s here who might benefit from reading papers such as this one:
       http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/2964.abstract

       Abstract
       Anthropogenic climate change has shifted the biogeography and phenology of many terrestrial and marine species. Marine phytoplankton communities appear sensitive to climate change, yet understanding of how individual species may respond to anthropogenic climate change remains limited. Here, using historical environmental and phytoplankton observations, we characterize the realized ecological niches for 87 North Atlantic diatom and dinoflagellate taxa and project changes in species biogeography between mean historical (1951–2000) and future (2051–2100) ocean conditions. We find that the central positions of the core range of 74% of taxa shift poleward at a median rate of 12.9 km per decade (km⋅dec−1), and 90% of taxa shift eastward at a median rate of 42.7 km⋅dec−1. The poleward shift is faster than previously reported for marine taxa, and the predominance of longitudinal shifts is driven by dynamic changes in multiple environmental drivers, rather than a strictly poleward, temperature-driven redistribution of ocean habitats. A century of climate change significantly shuffles community composition by a basin-wide median value of 16%, compared with seasonal variations of 46%. The North Atlantic phytoplankton community appears poised for marked shift and shuffle, which may have broad effects on food webs and biogeochemical cycles.

       Since none of us can predict the future… Let’s spin that roulette wheel a few more times and see what happens! 🙂

       1. Well Fred, I don’t understand a single word of that but it’s obviously alarmist, isn’t it? 🙂

          1. Hey Doug,
             While I don’t expect you to fully grasp even the meaning of this one simple word, biogeochemical I can assure you that just as you suspect it is indeed part of a text that can only be construed as deeply alarmist! Not to mention completely false!

             If you think the anthropogenic climate change hoax perpetrated by liberal socialist leaning climate scientists engaged in a master plan to deprive god fearing Americans of their hard earned money and freedom to pursue happiness as they please, was bad! Well, that conspiracy, pales in comparison to the much more evil and wide spread global conspiracy that ecologists are currently engaged in!

             If you hear the buzz words, species extinction or biodiversity loss due to anthropogenic climate change, know that you are a first hand witness of a much more massive global conspiracy! These people will stop at nothing short of completely destroying our way of life and the global economy!

             1. You got it man, you really get it. Alarmists and perverts, those guys what hug trees and stop logging trucks who should all be machine-gunned. Sooo good to see southern Yankee common sense finally leaking into this here commie-pinko-fascist Blog. Man, we think sooo much alike: don’t you just loove the sound of chainsaws? Now that’s music, real music, dude.

             2. Here you go Fred and Doug, Vicki sings a Climate Change song just for you two.
                http://www.broadjam.com/artists/songs.php?artistID=109188&mediaID=692171&play=true
                Climate Change
                (Chorus)
                Well, I studied history. It ain’t no mystery.
                We had a ice age, thousands a years ago.
                You know, it’s their fault. They shoulda seen it comin’.
                And done somethin’ like this here, I’m gonna say…
                I. Why didn’t those dense Neanderthals rub two sticks together?
                And set some forest fires to warm this planet up!
                Too busy rabbit humpin’ for more a God’s creation.
                At least they made more humans to leave a carbon print.
                And how ’bout this?
                II. Those big ole hairy mastodons shoulda done their part.
                Shoulda ate more cabbage to make some big damn farts!
                All that methane stinko woulda made more greenhouse gas.
                And all that fruity flatulence, coulda saved th’ planet’s ass!
                (Bridge)
                Oh, climate change is th’ new buzzword.
                Politicians say I’m to blame for th’ end a th’ world.
                Climate change. We’re all in peril.
                How can I keep on breathin’, if I’m a climate changin’ girl?
                III. Now that we’re all warmed up and goin’ th’ other way.
                It’s time to see our folly, or man we’re gonna pay.
                We got a fix our climate for th’ world to be saved.
                Or we’ll go back full circle and starve in some damn caves!
                (Chorus)
                Well, I studied history. It ain’t no mystery.
                We had a ice age thousands a years ago.
                You know, it’s their fault. They shoulda seen it comin’.
                And done somethin’ like this here, I’m gonna say…
                (Tag)
                Oh, climate change, screw you!!!

                1. All climate change solutions must work within the established capitalist paradigm of unlimited growth.

                2. Why?

                3. ‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System’ by Donella Meadows.

                   “…The classic example of that backward intuition was my own introduction to systems analysis, the world model. Asked by the Club of Rome to show how major global problems — poverty and hunger, environmental destruction, resource depletion, urban deterioration, unemployment — are related and how they might be solved, Forrester made a computer model and came out with a clear leverage point1: Growth. Not only population growth, but economic growth. Growth has costs as well as benefits, and we typically don’t count the costs — among which are poverty and hunger, environmental destruction, etc. — the whole list of problems we are trying to solve with growth! What is needed is much slower growth, much different kinds of growth, and in some cases no growth or negative growth.

                   The world’s leaders are correctly fixated on economic growth as the answer to virtually all problems, but they’re pushing with all their might in the wrong direction.”

                   Emphasis mine.
                   Cheers!

                4. As a practical Midwestern Marxist, I tend to agree more with Adorno, who said, “wrong life cannot be lived rightly.” Or, in my own cruder, sexier (read: “preferred”) parlance, “there are no clean hands in a dirty world.” By this I mean that all attempts to live ethically under capitalism—whether by consumption, vocation, or any other means—will ultimately fall short.

                5. Marxism ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.

                   Because historic memories in the United States tend to be short, there has been a resurgence of romanticism about Marx and Lenin by those who believe that Stalin’s Communism perverted what was intended to be a benign philosophy of creating a just world. Many people on the far left of the political spectrum hold this view, but so do all utopian and dystopian tyrants in the world, who secretly like Stalin better than Marx and Lenin.

                   The pronouncements (often private) of Marx and Engels shocked me the most. I had thought that they were expounding a philosophy that addressed civilization’s inequities as philosophers have always done. But this is not so. They both wrote to each other and to their inner circles bombastically, advocating the benefits of war, the necessity for slavery, ethnic hatred and virulent anti-Semitism (Marx was born Jewish). They advocated genocide, mass murder, assassinations, and terrorism, all of which, they said, would clear the way for a brave new world. (Hitler learned from them, as did Pol Pot, and certainly Stalin and Mao).

                   They advocated “exterminating” the peasants of the Ukraine by starving them to death (which Stalin did); they also set up concentration camps and advocated and executed mass deportations of entire peoples (such as the Chechens and Tatars) to Siberia.

                   https://obrlnews.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/book-review-demeos-marx-engels-lenin-trotsky-genocide-quotes/

                6. Because historic memories in the United States tend to be short, there has been a resurgence of romanticism about Marx and Lenin by those who believe that Stalin’s Communism perverted what was intended to be a benign philosophy of creating a just world. Many people on the far left of the political spectrum hold this view, but so do all utopian and dystopian tyrants in the world, who secretly like Stalin better than Marx and Lenin.

                   Surely you jest! Har!

                7. Yair . . .

                   Ummm?

                   Fred Magyar.

                   “The world’s leaders are correctly fixated on economic growth as the answer to virtually all problems, but they’re pushing with all their might in the wrong direction.”

                   Is that “correctly” in first line a typo? . . . .I would agree with the statement if was “currently”.

                   Cheers.

                8. Hey scrub puller,

                   No, that is absolutely not a typo!

                   What Donella Meadows was saying is that world leaders are rightfully fixated on economic growth.

                   Where they are wrong, is that they are still pushing it as a solution to the world’s problems.

                   What they haven’t fully grasped is that economic growth is actually the cause of most of the problems they are trying to solve!

                   Basically what she is saying is that an infinite economic growth paradigm is no longer possible on a finite planet and we are hitting resource limits and going into ecological overshoot.

                   Not to mention that what limited resources we still have are not being distributed equitably and are becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of a very small group who are the owners of power and capital and the one’s who benefit from the existing economic system.

                   Growth has costs as well as benefits, and we typically don’t count the costs — among which are poverty and hunger, environmental destruction, etc. — the whole list of problems we are trying to solve with growth! What is needed is much slower growth, much different kinds of growth, and in some cases no growth or negative growth.

                   Since she wrote those words it has become increasingly clearer that economic growth as we have practiced it over the last century or so has only made matters worse for the majority! Yet every economist, politician, and world leader is almost without exception telling us that we need more growth to solve our problems.

                   If you are interested here is the full text of:

                   http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/

                   ‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System’
                   Donella Meadows, first published 1997

                   BTW, this is also precisely the point that the late Dr. Albert was trying to make when he said:
                   “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”

                   Cheers!

                9. Yair . . .

                   Dunno mate, we talk different.

                   I agree with everything you’re saying in the 3:24 post apart from Donella Meadows saying world leaders are “rightfully” fixated on economic growth.

                   There are nuances of meaning but it came over wrong to me.

                   World leaders are “currently” as in “at the moment” fixated on economic growth but growth is no answer to the world problems we have to live within our means.

                   It is not “rightful” that growth should be promoted as a fix.

                   Cheers.

                10. Grow or die—
                    The capitalist Achilles Heel.

                11. Dunno mate, we talk different.

                    Ya, think? 🙂

                    I agree with everything you’re saying in the 3:24 post apart from Donella Meadows saying world leaders are “rightfully” fixated on economic growth.

                    I still think you are misunderstanding what she is saying! What she is saying is that world leaders are fixated on economic growth as well they should be! However they think it is a solution and she is saying they should be fixated on it because it is the root cause of many of our problems!

                    Anyways, if you should ever find yourself in South Florida we’ll throw a couple of prawns on the barbie for ya and give ya a couple of nice cold Hawaiian pale ales to help ya wash em down… since I don’t drink Fosters 🙂

                    Cheers!

                12. SP,

                    I get what Fred is pointing at. You yourself may be “fixated” on the word “fixation” and are not realizing you are are assuming an additional modifying word in the sentence that isn’t actually in the statement. I will illustrate by inserting that word for you in parenthesis.

                    SP’s assumed additional word – “The world’s leaders are correctly fixated on (promoting) economic growth as the answer to virtually all problems, but they’re pushing with all their might in the wrong direction”

                    Note that “fixation” does not tell one the direction of the fixation. Only that there is intense focus. It does NOT necessarily mean “obsessed to promote”. It COULD equally mean “obsessed to stop”. The issue of direction is what Meadows’ follow-up phrase “pushing with all their might in the wrong direction” implicitly tells us. She believes economists need to re-focus the DIRECTION of their fixation on economic growth – to fixate on STOPPING growth – but not to stop fixating.

       2. Similar shift in bird migration patterns and ranges is occurring, however, birds can fly and leave the dark winters behind.

          What happens when all these communities reach their final destination? Bio-collision? I hope they have insurance.

          They probably just heard the Arctic was melting and are making a mad rush north to claim new real estate. See I understand things.

32. A Year in the Life of Earth’s CO2.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04

33. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/08/20160820-kenworth.html

    Hybrid-electric powertrains are expected to be required within seven to 10 years to meet emissions requirements in several major metropolitan areas of the United States. Already California is considering regulations requiring port drayage trucks to run at zero-emission levels when operating in economically disadvantaged communities. These T680 Day Cab projects are a great opportunity for Kenworth to advance the development of key technologies that may play a critical role in the trucks of the future.

34. Thaw could release Cold War-era U.S. toxic waste buried under Greenland’s ice

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-greenland-usa-idUSKCN10G1ON

35. For those interested in such things, the slow changes in earth orbital parameters do affect climate. However they are too slow to be of much consequence in the near future.

    Orbital Parameters

    Long. of
    Year Eccentri Obliquity Perihel.
    (A.D.) city (degrees) (degrees)
    —— ——– ——— ——–
    -130000 0.037319 24.2512 17.948
    -128000 0.038231 24.2405 49.101
    -126000 0.039035 24.1272 80.439
    -124000 0.039726 23.9220 112.027
    -122000 0.040300 23.6459 143.926
    -120000 0.040754 23.3281 176.176
    -118000 0.041090 23.0041 208.792
    -116000 0.041307 22.7110 241.755
    -114000 0.041411 22.4829 275.008
    -112000 0.041403 22.3465 308.459
    -110000 0.041290 22.3171 341.993
    -108000 0.041077 22.3964 15.486
    -106000 0.040770 22.5727 48.823
    -104000 0.040375 22.8233 81.911
    -102000 0.039898 23.1186 114.693
    -100000 0.039347 23.4263 147.147
    -98000 0.038726 23.7158 179.287
    -96000 0.038042 23.9616 211.155
    -94000 0.037300 24.1445 242.807
    -92000 0.036504 24.2528 274.309
    -90000 0.035658 24.2816 305.725
    -88000 0.034766 24.2320 337.117
    -86000 0.033830 24.1105 8.541
    -84000 0.032854 23.9278 40.044
    -82000 0.031838 23.6981 71.664
    -80000 0.030785 23.4385 103.430
    -78000 0.029695 23.1680 135.355
    -76000 0.028572 22.9066 167.435
    -74000 0.027417 22.6744 199.646
    -72000 0.026234 22.4898 231.942
    -70000 0.025025 22.3689 264.255
    -68000 0.023795 22.3238 296.491
    -66000 0.022553 22.3610 328.542
    -64000 0.021305 22.4806 0.286
    -62000 0.020063 22.6752 31.594
    -60000 0.018841 22.9305 62.341
    -58000 0.017656 23.2260 92.408
    -56000 0.016529 23.5367 121.697
    -54000 0.015484 23.8357 150.134
    -52000 0.014551 24.0963 177.687
    -50000 0.013761 24.2948 204.382
    -48000 0.013145 24.4120 230.330
    -46000 0.012728 24.4352 255.744
    -44000 0.012527 24.3591 280.939
    -42000 0.012544 24.1866 306.292
    -40000 0.012764 23.9301 332.177
    -38000 0.013158 23.6109 358.898
    -36000 0.013691 23.2586 26.647
    -34000 0.014322 22.9087 55.496
    -32000 0.015014 22.5987 85.415
    -30000 0.015732 22.3636 116.292
    -28000 0.016445 22.2303 147.963
    -26000 0.017128 22.2137 180.233
    -24000 0.017759 22.3143 212.905
    -22000 0.018321 22.5180 245.799
    -20000 0.018800 22.7986 278.768
    -18000 0.019182 23.1218 311.714
    -16000 0.019460 23.4508 344.586
    -14000 0.019626 23.7507 17.375
    -12000 0.019675 23.9924 50.110
    -10000 0.019605 24.1552 82.842
    -8000 0.019413 24.2276 115.638
    -6000 0.019101 24.2076 148.568
    -4000 0.018670 24.1018 181.701
    -2000 0.018123 23.9243 215.101
    0 0.017466 23.6954 248.820
    2000 0.016704 23.4398 282.895
    4000 0.015844 23.1840 317.348
    6000 0.014895 22.9538 352.179
    8000 0.013867 22.7714 27.373
    10000 0.012768 22.6531 62.909
    12000 0.011612 22.6074 98.771
    14000 0.010411 22.6350 134.971
    16000 0.009179 22.7291 171.575
    18000 0.007933 22.8769 208.745
    20000 0.006693 23.0615 246.818

    Notice that the eccentricity is moderate now and descending, and that right now perihelion occurs in the January, giving Antarctica and the southern oceans a larger amount of solar energy in their summer and less in their winter than the opposing hemisphere. Perihelion will occur in the northern summer about 10,000 years from now.

36. So how did Earth escape runaway climate change in the past? Here is one set of ideas based on CO2 reduction at the rock interface despite a very dry atmosphere over central Pangea.

    “This is a new model which explains some of the events in the 80 million years following the start of the Carboniferous period, and of course the ideas need to be confirmed before we can be sure that the model is completely accurate. The take-home message is that the factors affecting atmospheric CO2 over geological periods of time are complex, and our understanding is still evolving.”

    http://www.science20.com/news_articles/how_did_earth_avoid_runaway_global_warming_in_the_past-138386

    1. Tks GF,

       From the paper:
       “So it would eventually have been self-correcting,” said Dr Godderis, “but there’s no doubt that this would have stalled Earth’s temperature at a high level for a long, long time. The world would look very different today if these mountains had not developed when they did.

       Hey maybe we can trade in California, Oregon and Washington for some new crust and mountain ranges that might help ameliorate our excess CO2 emissions.

       Paging Doug! Where can we expect weathering of geological formations around the planet that are large enough to perhaps make a difference in CO2 removal from the atmosphere?

       1. No problem.
          Fred, the weathering process is slow, a lot can happen before geological processes take over.

          GLOBAL WARMING AND BROWN CLOUDS
          V. Ramanathan Director Center for Atmospheric Sciences of Scripps Institute of Oceanography speaks about the research done into global aerosols and atmospheric brown clouds and their effects on weather and climate.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-7t4blgpKs

       2. Actually Fred,being new at this CO2 business I seem to be stuck fretting about the next few decades rather than mountain building epochs: small minded I know.

       3. “Hey maybe we can trade in California, Oregon and Washington for some new crust and mountain ranges that might help ameliorate our excess CO2 emissions”

          Look Fred, Florida is going under long before the wild west. There going to call your number first.

          1. Hey Fred, when the hip waders aren’t enough and you move out west, make sure you truck some fresh water along. Stuff will be more valuable than gold out west by the time Florida goes under. 🙂

             1. Or you can come up to Jersey (forget Delaware), less than half of that will go under. I see great opportunity taking tourists by boat to see the remnants of the great skyscrapers and casinos along with other urban miasma. I wonder how long those buildings will stay up with the ocean pounding at their bases.

                Here is a scary note, what happens if another tidal wave hits Fukishima? Have they learned yet?

                1. Here is a great map of sea level rise and fall around the world produced by NOAA.

                   http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

                2. Fish, I see Fred running a scuba diving tourist business looking for lost treasures inside the buildings. Kind a 21st century coral reef.

                3. Fish, I see Fred running a scuba diving tourist business looking for lost treasures inside the buildings.

                   Yeah, the number one destination will be Trump Towers Miami…

                   http://www.trumpmiami.com/

                   🙂 🙂 🙂

                4. Fred, there is no sea level rise in TrumpWorld.
                   https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/trump-buildings-underwater?utm_term=.ntN9leNop#.puBRqa28W

          2. Look Fred, Florida is going under long before the wild west. There going to call your number first.

             Hey HuntingtonBeach,

             Trust me, I know! I’ve been watching it happen already for the last 20 years!

             Cheers!

    2. GoneFishing and all,

       The Carboniferous is named for the great sequence of coal seams in Great Britain (and the Appalachians–think of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania.) They record the spread of the first real forests across the land. Those forests took a great deal of CO2 out of the atmosphere; it is that CO2 that we have been returning by burning the coal those forests became.

       Yes, weathering resulting from the Hercynian Orogeny would have removed CO2 from the atmosphere too, but it seems silly to ignore the spread of forests.

       1. The trees started in the Devonian, which also saw a steady reduction from 4000 ppm CO2 to 1500 ppm at the start of the Carboniferous period. Trees were well established by the start of the Carboniferous. During the Carboniferous, CO2 fell from 1500 to levels lower than today and the world entered a long ice age.
          Let’s hope the trees that formed the coal didn’t sequester enough carbon to get us back to 4000 or even 1500 ppm. More than likely a lot of the carbon was stored as methane clathrate and released after the ending the ice age of the Carboniferous/Permian. CO2 went back up to the 3000 ppm level 250 million years ago, around the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction event.
          With most of the species gone, the lesson is that it can be very rough coming out of an ice age into a warm period again. The world experienced a 15 deg C change in temperature.
          Right now there is a lot of methane clathrate in the world, enough to turn it warm again.

37. Still the Iron Age

    http://www.vaclavsmil.com/just-published-still-the-iron-age-iron-and-steel-in-the-modern-world/

    1. It’s the Everything and Anything Age.

38. Railroad slump continues (week ending August 13th yoy)
    U.S. railroads logged 267,589 carloads, down 7.1 percent, and 266,944 intermodal containers and trailers, down 3.4 percent, compared with the same week in 2015. Total U.S. rail traffic was 534,533 carloads and intermodal units, down 5.3 percent compared with the same week last year.

    Canadian railroads during the week posted 69,369 carloads, down 5.7 percent, and 61,971 intermodal units, down 3.6 percent. Mexican railroads reported 15,187 carloads for the week, down 10.1 percent, and 10,931 intermodal units, down 7.3 percent.

    Biggest drops in the US were oil, coal and wood products. Grain was up and chemicals were up.

39. Things like this lead me to be cautiously hopeful that things MIGHT get better, rather than worse for some of us.

    If this sort of thing can be commercialized, and then made cheap enough for every day stuff such as common machinery and appliances, they will be corrosion proof and can be expected to last just about forever.

    The super strength would mean super light weight, thus reducing energy consumption enormously.

    A current day battery installed in a car built out of this stuff would probably go four hundred miles easily on a charge.

    http://compositesmanufacturingmagazine.com/2016/08/mit-research-lead-lighter-damage-resistant-aircraft/

    1. A material that is much stronger and corrosion resistant etc, will be much harder to recycle, and far more likely to pollute the environment.

       PCBs were wonder chemicals until they weren’t. Ditto Asbestos. I still have an asbestos outhouse, and I am not looking forward to the bill for ‘safe’ disposal.

       Weight is only one factor in energy efficiency for an electric car. It is less of a factor than for an ICE, because regenerative braking reduces acceleration losses. Tesla owners are bemoaning the repair bills for minor bodywork damage on their carbon composite cars.

       Technology is well into the phase of diminishing returns in most areas.

       1. Ralph, do a little research before you start moaning how bad things are. Recycling carbon fiber composites is here now and steadily improving. The resin is easily removed, which is the binding agent and small nanotubes will probably wash right off the contiguous fibers since they do not bind.

          December 2014
          Recycled carbon fiber update: Closing the CFRP lifecycle loop
          http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/recycled-carbon-fiber-update-closing-the-cfrp-lifecycle-loop

          http://www.adherent-tech.com/recycling_technologies/carbon_fiber_reclamation_faqs

          1. I hope they have good dust control in those plants.

             I haven’t seen much recent technical literature, but this blog covers the
             feared problem.

             http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-health/2014/11/26/are-carbon-nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/

             Once carbon fibre becomes widespread, it will end up in the third world, where ‘recycling’ involves children smashing up components with a hammer to extract anything that can be melted down for scrap.

             http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1870162,00.html

             1. Ralph,
                If you have knowledge of gross negligence on the part of others, please notify your congressmen and senators of the specifics and ask for action against the parties involved. Economic pressures can be placed against non-complying governments.

          2. I hope they have good dust control in those plants.

             I haven’t seen much recent technical literature, but this blog covers the
             feared problem.

             http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-health/2014/11/26/are-carbon-nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/

             Once carbon fibre becomes widespread, it will end up in the third world, where ‘recycling’ involves children smashing up components with a hammer to extract anything that can be melted down for scrap.

             http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1870162,00.html

             second time of posting. Maybe caught in spam trap.

       2. I think the Tesla Model S and X bodies are largely aluminum, not carbon fiber. Musk put in a massive aluminum stamping facility inside the Tesla Fremont plant to punch out all the panels on-site. Aluminum also has high repair costs.

          BMW’s i3 is the EV that has a lot of carbon fiber in it.

          Tesla said their upcoming Model 3 will be using more high-strength steel and less aluminum to control costs.

          1. The Tesla is not an advanced EV. It is a practical EV luxury sedan made from laptop batteries, aluminum and has some advanced computer control. Much of it was built from existing tech.
             Advanced EV’s have in-wheel motors, super-capacitors for better regen braking capture, carbon composite bodies and of course the best battery technology. Efficiency is closer to 0.2 kWh per mile. They have been built but it was too soon to introduce Siemens holds the patent on the in-wheel motors or at least the rights to build them.

    2. The steady increases in technology that have occurred in the composite laminate field have been very impressive. Moving from glass fiber and polyester resins to vinyl esters with glass/nylon/Kevlar and then epoxies with carbon fibers meant going from brittle fairly weak structures to much stronger, more ductile composites. Carbon fiber systems are extremely strong, but this new improvement allows much better bonding between the resin and fiber in an almost omnidirectional system across the laminates. Delamination is a problem with time, so reinforcing the laminations is a huge step forward for the technology.
       We were headed to aircraft using less than half the fuel of current ones, so this will give an even better result as far as fuel use and durability.

40. Henry Ford’s hemp plastic panels on a Ferd are tough and more or less indestructible.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=srgE6Tzi3Lg

41. Some things, if properly designed, might last almost forever, as a practical matter, and thus never actually need recycling.

    A carbon fiber bicycle frame for instance could potentially last indefinitely, with the bearings and brakes being replaced as routine maintenance items,along with the tires.

    There is really no reason at all, barring MARKETING and profit considerations, why cars can’t be made to be almost infinitely repairable, with the oldest ones being recycled only as newer designs become more energy efficient and safer and easier and cheaper to build.

    Commercial trucks are already built to be easily repairable, with a substantial amount of component standardization right across the board.

    1. I do a lot of cycling. Carbon fiber is lighter and strength can be focused at key stress points. It can be a joy to ride, but there is a return-to-steel movement within the industry. High-strength-steel is narrowing the weight gap between it and more exotic materials. There are tons of 30+ year-old bikes around with steel frames, still going strong and easy to repair at your local bike shop. I don’t see that same longevity and ease-of-repair built into the carbon frames and components. Failures mean sending the frame back to the factory, usually to exchange for a new frame. I’ve had two carbon framed bikes. My next bike – my retirement bike – will probably will be steel.

42. I have not actually predicted the outcome of the presidential election yet, although I have been saying the odds are tilted heavily in Clinton’s favor for the last few weeks. I have not yet made up my mind about the winner yet because I have been expecting more surprises.

    We have news of fifteen thousand more surprises today.

    I also expect some unpleasant surprises on the opposite side of the fence, but how big and how soon I can’t guess.

    I never expected things to go downhill so fast in terms of our leadership in this country.

    Trump is doing everything he can to alienate every young woman and nearly every minority person in the country, which is likely to be enough to guarantee Clinton wins, unless she has a stroke or something.

    1. Pat Paulsen – where ever you are, your country needs you.

       From Wikipedia –
       “All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.”
       “I don’t want to say too much about illegal immigration. I’m afraid my views will be reported on the Cinco O’Clock News.”
       On the Miranda warning: “Why should we tell kidnappers, murderers, and embezzlers their rights? If they don’t know their rights, they shouldn’t be in the business.”
       “A good many people feel that our present draft laws are unjust. These people are called soldiers.”
       “Sex doesn’t have to be taught. It’s something most of us are born with.”
       When originally “denying” he was running, borrowing from General William Sherman in 1884: “I will not run if nominated, and if elected I will not serve.”
       Presidential campaign slogan: “I’ve upped my standards. Now, up yours.”
       Presidential campaign slogan: “If elected, I will win.”
       Campaign supporters’ rallying cry: “We can’t stand Pat!”
       “We have nothing to fear but fear itself…and of course the boogieman.”
       “I am neither left wing nor right wing. I am middle-of-the-bird.”
       “If either the right wing or the left wing gained control of the country, it would probably fly around in circles.”
       “Marijuana should be licensed and kept out of the hands of teenagers. It’s too good for them.”

43. The lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) is an umbrella species for the short- and mixed-grass prairie ecosystem of the south-central United States. This species has suffered large population declines over the last century that mirror the loss of prairie. Populations have become increasingly fragmented, and habitat connections between populations are being severed. A possible new threat to lesser prairie-chickens is the rapid development of wind-energy facilities throughout their habitat. In addition to contributing to the loss of prairie, these facilities could serve as barriers to movement if birds avoid wind turbines and their associated power transmission lines. We summarize evidence for avoidance behavior in birds, propose connectivity areas between distributional cores, propose strategies for conservation of lesser prairie-chickens, and encourage lawmakers to adopt state and federal regulations on wind-farm placement. Without a concerted effort, lesser prairie-chickens and similar species are likely to disappear, as will the southern prairie on which they depend.

    http://m.bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/3/257.full

    1. This kind of impact is certainly something that should be taken seriously.

       But…the implication is that the environmental impacts of wind power are somehow comparable to those of the fossil fuels that it would help replace.

       That’s absurd.

    2. Human interaction in the bio-space with other creatures is a very complex situation at best. However, the lesser prairie chicken has a particular problem, it avoids areas with any vertical intrusion, even trees. Buildings, storage tanks, drilling rigs are all vertical problems for this bird.
       Forget windmills, a lot of the remaining range is right in fracking country.

44. Wind turbines impact ground water quality:

    http://www.ogwa.ca

    http://www.pressreader.com

    1. That’s absurd. As noted in the article:

       “Nolet noted the power sector is one of the world’s largest consumers of water.

       “Therefore a shift from conventional forms of thermal sources of power towards renewable technologies such as clean wind energy, which does not require water to operate, will reduce the demand we place on our water resource,” he said.”

Comments are closed.