441 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, February 12, 2019”

  1. Long over due callout to Dennis. We don’t acknowledge the strong work he does hosting this site. And helping to keep all of us highly emotional curmudgeons in line (yes I’m talking about you).
    Even if you don’t agree with him ( or anyone else) about everything, you’ve got to admit he does it a hell of lot better than you/I would.
    Thank you Dennis!

    We live in interesting, tragic, and challenging times.

    2. Thanks Hickory and Tom Wilson,

      I try to sometimes interject an alternative point of view, even though some people don’t like to be questioned. Sometimes others might make mistakes as I often do.

      I will repeat that if anyone has any interesting post ideas. I am happy to post them, generally I do very little editing. Lots of you have very interesting things to say and almost anything related to future ecological sustainability (or lack thereof) could be a topic for the non-petroleum thread.

      1. anything related to future ecological sustainability (or lack thereof) could be a topic for the non-petroleum thread.

        Actually, that is akin to preaching to the choir, it’s mostly the folks on the petroleum side that need to be made more aware of how it will affect them… 😉

        1. Speaking of the petroleum thread, it may be worth considering making that a ‘fossil fuel’ thread, to encompass coal and nat gas production as well?

          1. Hickory,

            I consider petroleum as Oil and Natural Gas, we can discuss coal in the non-petroleum thread.

            Fred,

            The petroleum guys read both threads, they just don’t bother to comment much on the non-petrol side.

            1. I can relate, I read the petroleum thread but rarely comment there. 😉

        2. Fred,

          It would be an opportunity for anyone so inclined to present their ideas more fully.

          Sometimes it is not easy to lay out one’s ideas very fully in a 100 word comment.

    3. We don’t acknowledge the strong work he does hosting this site. And helping to keep all of us highly emotional curmudgeons in line (yes I’m talking about you).

      Yeah, Keeping curmudgeons in line is a lot like herding grumpy cats… 😉

      1. Herding people is a sign of thought suppression and control. I refuse to be herded.
        Enjoy the cattle chute.
        Excelsior you Fatheads!

          1. It’s very, very hard work to moderate a blog (let alone prepare articles!).

            Most of the time blogs deteriorate without careful, fairly aggressive policing. Trolls try to start fights or distract, and even sensible people forget to treat each other thoughtfully.

            You’ve got my support to herd…

        2. GF, smile! You are on candid camera. For the record, neither cats nor curmudgeons can be herded!

          1. Yeah, you are right, it’s a comedy show not a place to even present simple concepts, let alone pursue where that might lead.

      2. Herding cats is quite easy, you just need a good water pistol or hosepipe.

        NAOM

        1. I’ve had a cat stand his ground even though she was soaking wet and my water pistol was empty.

          She got on the bed.

          1. Yeah, got one who doesn’t care unless he gets his face wet but 2 others, you just need to shake the water and they are fur-oh-four.

            NAOM

      1. Thanks everyone for commenting at this blog.

        It is all of you that make it worth reading.

        1. My thanks, too from a frequent reader and occasional poster. Thanks also to all the thoughtful posters. If you want to see an opposite band of babblers read the comments on Fox news sometime. This is a breath of fresh air!

    6. Here, hear. Thank you to all the interesting people posting and sharing information on this site.

    1. Fascinating chart on the link showing, of all places, that Vietnam seems to have the best balance of economic progress and environmental care.

  4. A topic that might be of interest and shed light on something we can’t seem to do without these days: The impact of our infatuation with electronic devices and their contribution to global waste/contamination issues.

    1. Hmm,

      Would be difficult to discuss without use of said devices. 🙂

    1. A genetically modified organism could end malaria and save millions of lives — if we decide to use it

      Let’s assume that the technology works flawlessly! The question no one seems to be asking is what happens to those people down the road?! And are there even other unforeseen consequences to the ecosystem that might occur due to completely eliminating any species even a pest such as a mosquito. Will those added millions of people cause added stresses to the environment leading to quicker complete collapse and causing an even more massive die off far greater than the malaria itself? Do we really know the answers to these questions.

      Of course most people think, and I’m among them, that human suffering is a bad thing and that should be kept to a minimum where ever and when ever possible. So will eliminating malaria or other parasitic diseases cause more, or less suffering if we also stay on our current path of endless growth?

      In the case of malaria, the idea is to change the three species of mosquito most responsible for its transmission — Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles coluzzii, and Anopheles arabiensis — so that all their offspring would be male, effectively leading to the species’ extinction. Or you could just add a gene making them resistant to the malaria parasite, preventing its transmission to humans.

      That would seem like a no brainer, right?! Keep the mosquito species and just eliminate it’s role as a vector for the parasite. Something tells me that nature would find a way to change the parasite. So could we engineer the parasite itself into extinction? Perhaps, but do we know the consequences of that? We are back to unknown unknowns aren’t we?

      The science behind the tool, while not quite ready for release, is very, very, very close. I asked Ethan Bier, a professor at UC San Diego and one of the first people to help build an actual working CRISPR gene drive, how soon a drive targeting malaria could be released, as a scientific matter.

      Bier hesitated, and stressed that we shouldn’t release anything without regulatory approval and much more consideration. But he concluded, “To be honest with you, if there were some kind of emergency and one absolutely needed to do it, we could pretty much do it.”

      And Esvelt, whose work helped pave the way for Target Malaria’s efforts, is terrified, simply terrified, of a backlash between now and then that could derail it.

      And I, on the other hand am terrified, simply terrified that well meaning scientists like Esvelt together with politicians policy makers will make decisions based on what they think they know to be best for the rest of us and end up opening multiple Pandoras boxes!

      But at the end of the day what’s another uncontrolled experiment such as the one we are doing with our climate?!

      Cheers!

      1. Fred is right. This is short sighted and dangerous.
        These mosquitoes and their parasites fill an ecological niche.
        They have evolved in a way that they don’t kill off the host species- us.

        If you kill them off, something else will slide into that niche.

        It might take a while for it to reach (or be forced into) equilibrium, like AIDS…or it might be Native Americans and Smallpox.

      2. If you read more about Esvelt, he is spending a lot of time on asking the big questions of his colleagues rather than just plowing ahead on applications. And rightly so.

        Unlike the Chinese researcher who applied it in human embryos, and without any authorization from anyone.

        1. I’ll look him up. tks!
          At first blush, it seems he is one the good guys!
          https://www.media.mit.edu/people/esvelt/overview/

          Edit:
          I also need to read up on Daisy Drives:

          The problem with current CRISPR-based gene drive systems is that they can spread indefinitely—potentially affecting every population of the target species throughout the world. It’s unclear how such “global” drives can be safely tested, much less whether nations will ever agree to use them. To return power to the hands of local communities, we devised a new form of drive system called a “daisy drive” that can only affect local environments. The trick was to teach DNA to count. We hope that daisy drives will simplify decision-making and promote responsible use by allowing local communities to decide how to solve their own ecological problems.

      3. Seriously LOL people can’t agree Black Lives Matter, they definitely won’t agree Mosquitoes Lives Matter when almost everybody see’s mosquitoes as a pest we would welcome the extinction of!

        1. Did you drop out of kindergarten voluntarily or were you expelled?!

          1. Yea I get your point but it’s like people see a mosquito and immediately think I gotta kill it before it bites me. Can’t change that.

            1. We have Dengue around here so, for me, it is the mosquito or me.

              Oh, the dragonflies larvae eat the mosquito larvae, then the adult dragonflies then eat the jejene that would otherwise feast on me. So do I support the mosquitoes for feeding the dragonflies or…

              NAOM

    2. CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) technology may have unintended consequences (what a surprise!). A good friend of mine who has worked in molecular genetics for the past decade says that the enthusiasm for the new, whiz-bang, hubris inducing technology has induced a bit of amnesia over possible side-effects. She says that, while CRISPR can enable one to perform impressive DNA editing feats, it can also be accompanied by unintended changes elsewhere in the genome with unknown and possibly bad consequences. In other words, the technology is not ready for prime time.

      All this technology comes out against the backdrop of a general crash of insect populations. The cynical impulse is to say, “Just wait a while and the bad mosquitos will be gone, just like the rest of insects.”

      1. DNA editing feats, it can also be accompanied by unintended changes elsewhere in the genome with unknown and possibly bad consequences. In other words, the technology is not ready for prime time.

        While it is certainly true that the precautionary principle should be applied in spades if one is intending to use CRISPR to edit the human genome in any way, even if it is to cure a genetic disease. Generally the idea is to edit embryonic stem cells to correct a genetic defect and then those cells are reimplanted.

        I highly doubt unintended changes in the genome would be a major concern if one is using CRISPR to create a gene drive with the intent of driving a species to extinction. These are very different applications with very different risk sets.

        1. Fred,

          “I highly doubt unintended changes in the genome would be a major concern if one is using CRISPR to create a gene drive with the intent of driving a species to extinction. These are very different applications with very different risk sets.”

          Point taken WRT the safety of this particular technology. But it kind of sticks in my craw that this particular example of ‘driving a species to extinction’ is just one more instance of humans usurping ecological niches in the process of gaining an ultimately destructive hegemony over the planet.
          It is totally understandable for people to tilt the balance of nature in their favor, whether by dosing their crops with insecticides and herbicides, or by excessive use of antibiotics, etc. But the common good gets sacrificed in what is basically a ‘tragedy of the commons’ problem.

          We like to think we can have our cake and eat it too. I used to think that, but now I think collapse is fairly certain.

          1. Point taken WRT the safety of this particular technology.

            The point I was trying to make was more about the consequences of applying CRISPR editing technology o create a gene drive in the first place. Which is a somewhat different issue than how it may or may not cause unwanted deleterious effects to parts of an organisms genome that were not the intended original target.

            I do agree with you that a lot of this does become part of the tragedy of the commons. When pesticides such as DDT were originally applied to control mosquitoes back in the day, not many imagined the silent spring that Rachel Carson eventually wrote about. Compared to that, applying a gene drive may have even more perverse unintended consequences.

            But as Camile said: A lot of people think that eliminating mosquitoes would be a good thing. Well, they might find out the hard way they could be very wrong.

            Cheers!

            1. 10,000+ people are using CRISPR– it is already in the rear view mirror.

            5. I would be more in favour of properly controlled use of DDT but trying to control that would be a lost cause.

              NAOM

            7. Proper use would not be the problem to birds we saw with indiscriminate use. If used in homes to spray surfaces such as ceilings DDT is extremely effective in long term control of mosquitoes. Please note my comment “but trying to control that would be a lost cause.”.

              NAOM

            8. I believe the word “human” destroys any hope of that happening.

            10. Yeah! I actually agree.

              For example, mosquito nets treated with DDT placed like tents over beds are quite safe and effective as a control mechanism. Indiscriminate spraying quite another matter. Controlling humans and how they use such tools, impossible.

              But comparing the potential consequences of DDT use and gene drives is still an apples to oranges comparison.

            11. Yes, DDT is sometimes used. Indoor spraying is much cheaper and more effective than outdoor spraying. Sleeping under insecticide soaked mosquito nets is even better.

              The number of deaths from malaria has fallen by half since 2000. We are winning the war.

              Neither CRISPER nor DDT is a silver bullet against malaria. As so often, the real solution is good public health policy.

            12. Rachel Carson? LOL. I haven’t heard her name in years, brings me back to when my papa when I was younger unintentionally taught me the naughty words to describe a woman when he would get going on a real good rant about her various crusades.

            13. Though Rachel Carson is probably best know for her book, The Silent Spring, she was a marine biologist. She understood complex ecological systems. She also wrote a number of books on marine ecology, I recommend The Sea Around Us and The Edge of the Sea.

              While given that your papa was born and grew up at a time when knowledge was much more difficult to obtain than it is today we might cut him some slack for being ignorant.

              You on the other hand have no such excuse!
              Though, I’m betting you are more interested in trolling than learning and sharing knowledge!

              http://www.rachelcarson.org/

              In her books on the sea Carson wrote about geologic discoveries from submarine technology and underwater research — of how islands were formed, how currents change and merge, how temperature affects sea life, and how erosion impacts not just shore lines but salinity, fish populations, and tiny micro-organisms. Even in the 1950’s, Carson’s ecological vision of the oceans shows her embrace of a larger environmental ethic which could lead to the sustainability of nature’s interactive and interdependent systems. Climate change, rising sea-levels, melting Arctic glaciers, collapsing bird and animal populations, crumbling geological faults — all are part of Carson’s work. But how, she wondered, would the educated public be kept informed of these challenges to life itself? What was the public’s “right to know”?

              Evidence of the widespread misuse of organic chemical pesticides government and industry after World War II prompted Carson to reluctantly speak out not just about the immediate threat to humans and non-human nature from unwitting chemical exposure, but also to question government and private science’s assumption that human domination of nature was the correct course for the future. In Silent Spring Carson asked the hard questions about whether and why humans had the right to control nature; to decide who lives or dies, to poison or to destroy non-human life. In showing that all biological systems were dynamic and by urging the public to question authority, to ask “who speaks, and why”? Rachel Carson became a social revolutionary, and Silent Spring became the handbook for the future of all life on Earth.

            14. Eastcoast Chuck- too bad about your Dad. Sounds like you have a lot of bad teaching to overcome.

  6. “https://electrek.co/2019/02/12/tesla-powerwall-sydney-blackout-house-cool-heatwave/

    Australia is going solar at the home owner level faster than any other country in the world.

    “In Prins’ case, he says that his power bills went from about $4000 a year to $600 since he combined a solar system and a Tesla Powerwall.”

    The article doesn’t say how much he spent for his solar array, but it must be a big one. Depending on when he got it, it probably cost anywhere from ten grand US self installed within the last year or two up to thirty grand if he got it back before panel prices crashed.

    If it saves him four thousand a year, and he has thirty thousand in it, including the Power Wall, he’s earning an excellent return on his money.

    2. Well, sounds good for sure. In a similar vein our power bill on northern Vancouver Island is about $700/year with nothing more behind it than good windows, passive solar orientation, and a woodstove for heat. 🙂 This also includes lighting, hot water, electric range, backup electric heat, power for shop tools, an occasional welding job, and my wife’s art studio. We have just experienced a 10 day run of -10C lows to -1 daily highs and we’re snug as rug bugs. Total sq footage including shops etc over 2,000. The Hydro is renewable, of course.

      I also supply wood to a 78 year old friend, and lately to my 90 year old neighbour who lost access to supply. I just drag them in the odd log to their woodpile and they poke away at it to stay fit and involved.

      Obviously, with over 7.2 billion folks this is not an energy solution, but I cannot emphasize enough the pleasures of using wood heat for health and satisfaction if one lives in a forested and sparsely settled area. The windows and passive solar is key. We are an hour from sundown,the day is cloudy and threatening to snow, and I just confirmed there isn’t a light on, anywhere. It all helps. Respectfully, I don’t accept that solar panels are a solution, either. They simpy don’t work worth a damn where I live and would be about as helpful as installing a woodstove in a condo. But windows, ample insulation, and conservation….you bet!!

      regards

      1. Thats very impressive Paulo.
        Hard to beat that hydro in Washington, Oregon and BC.
        Rain, trees and salmon. Great combo.

  7. At the end of the previous Non-petrol thread Long timber posted the link below.

    Good article in my view.

    https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/10/to-all-german-automakers-believe-me-you-are-still-sleeping/

    I published an article last year starting with the first sentence of this article, which to my surprise drove quite some unexpected attention. Usually, I try to avoid attention, and let’s face it, I am a German auto enthusiast in Germany and live in the midst of German auto enthusiasts — for good reasons, if you are in that situation, it’s better to think twice before you express an unpopular opinion.

    1. I really and truly do understand that such flooding is unprecedented, the scale of the disaster, and so forth.

      But I can’t help laughing at the tone of the words of the owner of the six figure sized ranch talking about cows as if they were the children’s personal pets. That’s all pr bullshit. Those cows are each and every last one of them going to be murdered, dismembered, and processed into people chow and dog chow.

      I’m not criticizing their operation,being in the same biz, just their whiny tone. They have five or ten times more to say about their goddamned cows than they do the people who have lost their homes and jobs.

      And full disclosure, I have murdered a few cows personally, and ATE them, too, using a GUN and an axe,to dismember them, no less, so by the Guardian standard, I suppose I’m an axe murderer as well as a hopeless cave man who probably ought to be locked away for the good of society.

      In the USA, the owners of coal mines that have historically treated their employees like cattle used to talk about their employees the same way, as if they really gave a flying fxxk about them. You don’t hear much of that sort of talk from mine owners anymore, with most of them out of business.

      I love the Guardian, and read it often.

      But sometimes it reads like it’s written by people who apparently have zero contact with the real world.

  10. The Tiny Swiss Company That Thinks It Can Help Stop Climate Change
    By Jon Gertner

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/magazine/climeworks-business-climate-change.html

    It may now be that another gas — carbon dioxide (CO₂) — can be removed from the air for commercial purposes, and that its removal could have a profound effect on the future of humanity. But it’s almost certainly too soon to say for sure. One sunny morning last October, several engineers from a Swiss firm called Climeworks ambled onto the roof of a power-generating waste-incineration plant in Hinwil, a village about 30 minutes outside Zurich. The technicians had in front of them 12 large devices, stacked in two rows of six, that resembled oversize front-loading clothes dryers. These were “direct air capture” machines, which soon would begin collecting carbon dioxide from air drawn in through their central ducts. Once trapped, the CO₂ would then be siphoned into large tanks and trucked to a local Coca-Cola bottler, where it would become the fizz in a soft drink.

    The machines themselves require a significant amount of energy. They depend on electric fans to pull air into the ducts and over a special material, known as a sorbent, laced with granules that chemically bind with CO₂; periodic blasts of heat then release the captured gas from the sorbent, with customized software managing the whole catch-and-release cycle.

    Climeworks’s captured CO₂ has already been injected deep into rock formations beneath Iceland; by the end of the year, the firm intends to deploy 50 units near Reykjavik to expand the operation. But at that point the company will be moving into uncharted economic territory — purveyors of a service that seems desperately needed to help slow climate change but does not, at present, replace anything on the consumer or industrial landscape. To complicate matters, a ton of buried CO₂ is not something that human beings or governments have shown much demand for. And so companies like Climeworks face a quandary: How do you sell something that never existed before, something that may never be cheap, into a market that is not yet real?

    1. The real question, for now and for the easily foreseeable future, and maybe forever, is why we should spend ten dollars, or fifty, or however many dollars it takes, to capture and sequester a ton of CO2……… when we can avoid generating it in the first place for only a very minor fraction of the cost of sequestration…. because make no mistake, there is NEVER going to be a market for CO2 in the quantities we create it by burning coal, not to mention oil and gas……. or cow farts!

      Just ONE coal fired power plant probably generates enough CO2 to run the world wide soft drink industry for a day……… in a minute or two.

      Maybe a few decades down the road, it will be possible to manufacture liquid fuel from water and CO2…. at a cost that’s only three, four, maybe five times the price of a gallon of petroleum based diesel or gasoline……… and maybe wind and solar power will be so cheap we can afford to manufacture a little liquid fuel this way……. maybe enough to run a few military aircraft, as a last resort.

      But there will be plenty of oil available for such limited use, for at least another century or two, and the cost of it is probably going to be WAY less than the cost of made from scratch CO2 based fuel.

      Bottom line…. clean coal is basically nothing more than a PR campaign implemented to keep the coal biz IN biz as long as possible.

      1. I generally agree with that. But, here’s a quibble with one part: synthetic fuel could easily be affordable.

        The primary cost of synthetic fuel would be the energy inputs. A gallon of gas or diesel has about 35-40 kWhs equivalent. A synthetic process might be roughly 40% efficient, so that it might take about 100 kWhs to produce a gallon. Well, if surplus wind & solar power sells (in 30-40 years) at 2 cents per kWh, the cost of power per gallon would only be $2. A couple bucks for capital and operating expense, and you’re talking $4 per gallon for fuel.

        That’s mighty affordable.

        1. Right now it takes at least 24 kWh of “other” energy to produce and distribute a gallon of gasoline. For that we get about 7-10 kWh of useful energy per gallon in our vehicles.
          Something is wrong with this picture.

            1. Natural gas, electricity, coal, coal products, petroleum used from the well to the user, mostly at the refinery. Not including infrastructure or actual well inputs. Just the energy to produce, refine and distribute.
              Have discussed this in the past in detail with references on this site at least twice.
              The reality is closer to 1:1 though. Takes one gallon of gasoline energy to produce one gallon of gasoline.

            2. I’m seeing 6 kWh of energy used to refine one gallon, but now 4 kWh due to improved refinery efficiency. Of which electricity is about 15%.

              Are you saying 18 kWh is consumed outside of refining? I can’t find any references to that.

        2. “synthetic fuel could easily be affordable.”

          Here I disagree: Even if we could produce synfuel for 0.1 USD / kWh (thermal), a barrel would be in the 150 USD range.

          At the moment synfuel is 0.2 USD/kWh.

          The energy is only one third of the costs, costs of electrolysis a second, the methanisation the third.

          1. if we could produce synfuel for 0.1 USD / kWh (thermal), a barrel would be in the 150 USD range.

            A gallon of synthetic diesel at $.1 per kWh would be $4 per gallon. That’s very affordable. You seem to be comparing the cost of crude oil to the price of a finished product, which doesn’t work.

            At the moment synfuel is 0.2 USD/kWh.

            That’s consistent with my estimate of about $8-10 per gallon for current processes.

            The energy is only one third of the costs, costs of electrolysis a second, the methanisation the third.

            That’s not quite my impression. Do you have a source for that?

            2. “I have not seen any for sale, even at $10/gallon.”

              At the moment 1 kWh syn-NG (from H2 and CO2) is in the 0.2 USD range. Liquids would be slightly more expensive.

            3. Large scale synfuel for 150 USD/barrel is a still birth, as most economies could not handle such a high price for large amounts of fuel.

              The killer argument in the next 15 years, however, is that it is f***ing stupid to generate synfuel:

              1) 1 kWh RE electricity replaces 2-3 kwH coal/NG in power plants.

              2) 1 kWh RE electricity used in households or industry for thermal applications replace 1 -1.5 kWh fossil energy.

              3) a1 kWh RE electricity gives only 0.7 kWh synfuel.

              Conclusion: Only if large capacity of REs are available, dedicated generation for synfuel makes sense. This will not happen in larger countries within the next 15 years.

            4. I absolutely agree. I don’t think anyone is really proposing the use of synthetic fuel in large scale applications any time soon.

              I suspect that the US Navy is thinking about it seriously for aircraft carrier groups, as the nuclear powered carrier could produce fuel for the planes and supporting ships during wartime.

              As I noted above, I think that in about 30 years there will be a substantial surplus of cheap, renewable power. At the same time, about 15% of current oil consumption will be inconvenient to replace. Synthetic liquid fuel is a likely candidate for those applications: aviation, seasonal agriculture, long distance water shipping, etc.

            5. ISTR that the USN is working on that and has been doing tests. Sorry, no further info.

              NAOM

    2. How many tons of CO2 produced, powering the devices, for every ton captured?

      NAOM

  11. https://slate.com/business/2019/02/high-speed-rail-in-california-and-the-green-new-deal-it-could-work-in-america-but-were-screwing-it-up.html

    I have been spending a LOT of time wondering why we talk so much about the consequences of never ending growth in general, and the necessity of ending that growth, in order to achieve a walk away from it crash, as opposed to a crash and burn landing…… talking about cutting back on everything BUT travel, as a rule.

    Why should travel be missing from the conversation, be getting hardly any attention at all?

    For the life of me, I just simply can’t why so much travel is necessary , other than in the short term.. because we are locked into it, short term, by the fact we got used to it, when it was cheap, and it was still possible to build new railroads, new highways, and new airports, etc, and use them, with fuel cheap, and the environmental consequences not yet known and understood.

    So short term, it’s a cross country flight to Grandma’s house for the holidays, or the funeral.

    And short term, it’s sop to travel constantly from Frisco to LA in the line of business, sometimes twice in one day, lol.

    But so help me, I can’t see any reason it must stay this way. Houses these days are in one place, the jobs miles away in another place……. but who the hell says things must STAY this way, forever?

    My personal physician lives over his office. His commute time is approximately one minute per day, up and down a flight of stairs. Since he is married to his nurse and office manager, ditto. Since he relocated from the city to the countryside, he has built up a practice consisting mostly of his neighbors, saving us all a longer trip to the city……..

    In the long term, we’re going to have to do things differently.

    I don’t have good numbers, but as far as I can see, conventional train travel, at speeds of up to one hundred mph, costs only a very small fraction of what a bullet train costs.

    Why can’t we arrange things, long term, so that we seldom need to be on the road, or train or plane, more than half an hour, or an hour?

    Barring technological miracles, it’s not going to be all that much longer before we aren’t going to be able to afford travel on the grand scale.

    There’s a day coming when Fred, if he lives long enough, will have to visit with his extended family via his modern day crystal ball…… I wonder if anybody is working on an affordable spherical rather than flat screen display…… marvelous 3D effects might be possible.

    1. There’s a day coming when Fred, if he lives long enough, will have to visit with his extended family via his modern day crystal ball…… I wonder if anybody is working on an affordable spherical rather than flat screen display…… marvelous 3D effects might be possible.

      Me and quite a few other people!

      Oh, the 3D spherical ball is also known as VR. It’s been here for a while now as has holographic projection. Still a bit expensive. However the problem with all of that, is that it is no substitute for real person to person interactions. And holograms can’t help with planting new trees or chopping the fire wood either.

      There is no doubt that the world where the average person can hop on a jet and fly across the ocean is fast coming to a close. Personally I would have no problem spending a couple weeks on a sailboat if that was the only way to get to see my friends and family around the globe, in person! Though I do expect the incidence of gigantic rogue waves to increase as well to make such crossings a bit more challenging in the near future 😉

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301418886_Wave_Steepness_and_Rogue_Waves_in_the_Changing_Climate_in_the_North_Atlantic

      Wave Steepness and Rogue Waves in the Changing Climate in the North Atlantic

      Abstract
      Wave steepness is an important parameter not only for design and operations of marine structures but also for statistics of surface elevation as well as occurrence of rogue waves. The present study investigates potential changes of wave steepness in the future wave climate in the North Atlantic. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses four scenarios for future greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). Two of these scenarios with radiative forcing of 4.5 and 8.5 W/m² by the end of the 21st century have been selected to project wave conditions in the North Atlantic. The analysis includes total sea, wind sea and swell. Changes of wave steepness for these wave systems are shown and compared with wave steepness derived from historical data. Long-term probability description of wave steepness variations is proposed. Consequences of changes in wave steepness for statistics of surface elevation and generation of rogue waves are demonstrated. Uncertainties associated with wave steepness projections are discussed. Copyright © 2015 by ASME Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

      Lotta changes coming!

    3. I completely agree OFM.
      One could argue that all plane travel is optional.
      Some people would call for exceptions, like hurricane hunters, organ transplant flights, search and rescue, evacuation type of missions.
      But all leisure/family travel, all cargo flights, and military flights, all business travel could be forsaken worldwide, and the quality of life for human beings on the whole would be ok.
      To some degree, the same thinking could be applied to considerable portion of our land travel as well.

      Many people are trying to rationalize biofuels for air travel. I find that ecologically ludicrous.

      1. “One could argue that all plane travel is optional.”
        One could argue more strongly that people are optional.

        Electric flight and hybrids will solve all the problems, don’t you know that? No more highways needed. EV’s can just be little things that take you to the local grass strip or just walk to the neighborhood VTOL, which takes you to the bigger STOL and then to an even bigger high efficiency blended body electric hybrid.

        I say a flying car in every yard. Regular cars are boring (pun related to Elon Musk)

        Disclaimer: I have only used commercial flights a few times so not sure what the draw is anyway. Unless I get the need to be poked, prodded, told what to do and x-rayed, probably will not use them ever again. Oh course that could be fun in other circumstances. 🙂
        .

        1. I think that Thoreau had an interesting take on travel. He calculated how many hours he would have to work to save an hour of travel time relative to walking. I’m sure that the numbers have changed in 150 or 160 years but the concept is valid for travel as well as all of the “time-saving” things in our lives.

          With regard to high speed rail vs “100 mph” ones I think our new CA governor has made the right decision by cancelling the high speed train project. If the state had chosen to upgrade our existing rail lines instead of bullet train tech we would probably already have a huge improvement in transportation options at a fraction of what has already been spent and is now all wasted.

          1. Yep–
            We need to get our trains back up to the standards of 1935, for a start.

  12. UNDERSEA GASES COULD SUPERHEAT THE PLANET

    “If undersea carbon reservoirs are upset again, they would emit a huge new source of greenhouse gases, exacerbating climate change. Temperature increases in the ocean are on pace to reach that tipping point by the end of the century. For example, a big carbon reservoir beneath the western Pacific near Taiwan is already within a few degrees Celsius of destabilizing. Moreover, the phenomenon is a threat unaccounted for in climate model projections. Undersea carbon dioxide reservoirs are relatively recent discoveries and their characteristics and history are only beginning to be understood.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-02-undersea-gases-superheat-planet.html#jCp

    1. Ok, so how did the Eemian escape such a carbon release? It supposedly got quite warm for a short period.
      We know that CO2 only has a small effect and methane almost none at all since it immediately disappears even when it is present.
      Maybe the ocean releases water vapor, any water reservoirs in the ocean? Talk about missing the forest for the trees, sheesh.

      AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

      “This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide.”

      Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

      “That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy,” Dessler said. “We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone.”

      https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

      1. The Eemian climate was, on average, [only] around one to two degrees Celsius warmer than the Holocene. And, sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres higher than today. And, the article is referring to potential high temperature increases in the ocean, not land.

        1. Yes, no increase in temperature even though the ocean absorbs most of the energy.
          Uh, those higher Eemian temps lasted at least one thousand years. Yet we see evidence of instability currently and the ocean has not had much time to warm up.
          With Greenland mostly melted in the Eemian, one would think that the Earth would stay warm, yet it plunged into the next glaciation. Apparently orbital changes overwhelms plus 2C.
          So we need to hit at least 4C to really get this ball of wax going to a warm world, otherwise it’s warm then cold then warm then cold. Sad situation.

          1. GoneFishing,

            (Got my Quaternary geologist hat on)

            “With Greenland mostly melted in the Eemian, one would think that the Earth would stay warm, yet it plunged into the next glaciation.”

            About that plunging into the next glaciation, now, if by glaciation you mean the next ice age after the Eemian interglaciation (called the Sangamon in North America–we’ve never managed to cure the Europeans of their stubborn clinging to names based on old misunderstandings) then that would be the Wisconsinan (but we say the Wisconsin) and that has a tag date for its beginning of 71 000 years BP (before present) or as we say 71 K BP. The peak date for the Eemian (humoring the Old Worlders here) is 123K BP. Doing the arithmetic…de dum, de dum…carry the–oops sorry, got carried away; um: 52 thousand years, give or take, between the Eemian and the Wisconsin.

            If you’re referring to the long period itself between Eemian and Wisconsin: well, it had cold swings and warm swings and the first cold swing dates to 109K BP, some 14 thousand years after the Eemian peak.

            We see this pattern of glacials and interglacials with swings within them for the last 800 000 years, roughly, and as you point out it’s timed by orbital (and axial!) factors. Ice sheets wax and wane to the beat. I wouldn’t call the transitions plunges, myself.

            If you want to see how fast changes can occur within the overall pattern then look up Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. They can be scary.

            1. What I meant was that with Greenland mostly melted, it would no longer be the high plateau, thus the earth loses a large atmospheric cooling mechanism.
              Obviously the orbital changes (which include axial) overwhelmed the warmer system and the earth went into the next glaciation.

              Yes, the temperature oscillations during these transistions and during the glaciation period are quite interesting. Just read a paper on that not long ago. I knew previously that the glaciation had ebbed and flowed but not to such an extent. It’s like the earth system is vibrating.

              To me glaciations are the periods between interglacials and Ice Age is the long term cooling that initiated 2.6 million years ago.

      2. Maybe the ocean releases water vapor, any water reservoirs in the ocean?

        I don’t think we have enough data to come to any solid conclusions at this point!

        1. “I don’t think we have enough data to come to any solid conclusions at this point!”
          I cee.

    2. “If undersea carbon reservoirs are upset again, they would emit a huge new source of greenhouse gases, exacerbating climate change.”

      If those reservoirs are upset then it is game over.

      NAOM

  13. So far, the more powerful nations have been able to prevent smaller nations from building nuclear weapons, with only a couple of exceptions, so far as I know, these two being North Korea and Israel. Everybody assumes Israel has nukes, anyway, but proof in the form of testing is missing, as far as I know.

    A couple more countries may succeed in building nukes within the next decade or two, despite various embargoes imposed on them, and even hot war being made on them, at times, both past and future.

    Now building a nuke is one HELL of a big job, in terms of manpower, material resources, and time.

    Genetic engineering is already or soon will be a technology that requires very little in the way of either manpower or materials, and the materials are going to be readily available. Stopping the trade in such items as ordinary medical and university laboratory equipment needed by physicians and biologists in training is going to be impossible, for all intents and purposes.

    Bottom line, I don’t think anybody can stop various individuals, companies, and countries from using Crisper and other GE tech to do pretty much as they please.

    Anybody who believes we are ALREADY living in interesting times ” ain’t seen nothing yet”.

    Wiping out the skeeters might be possible, it might not. My personal opinion is that there would always be some pockets of skeeters that don’t ORDINARILY interbreed with the ones engineered to that end, which would soon be carried back by running water, high winds, and people with old tires in the back of their truck, etc, which would result in the species being reestablished within a very short time. Or else people who want the skeeters to survive would collect some, and grow them thru a few generations in a lab of some sort, and release them.

    How long will it be before some tin pot politician in a country such as North Korea, or anyplace at all, with an authoritarian government, can manufacture a killer human disease, or a virus that capable of rendering humans permanently sterile, once infected?

    And do it with only a few men and women trained in the field, with only a modest amount of easily obtained lab equipment, thereby spending only a modest amount of money, as covert military research and development goes?

    Novels have been written, based on such premises.

    Personally I believe that history books are as likely as not to be written on them as well, and within the next few decades.

    Now I know it sounds incredibly insensitive, racist, etc, but suppose somebody does release a virus that renders anybody exposed to it permanently sterile, even kids?

    It’s probably safe to assume that before all the little girls and boys in highly developed countries are exposed, somebody will come up with a vaccine, so actual extinction of our species would not be very likely. And if the virus has no other host, some people would likely be able to avoid exposure…..the world is a hell of a big place, with lots of extremely isolated spots where a few people could survive for generations.

    Such a virus would sure as hell solve population problem, if it were to run wild, and it takes a few years to produce the vaccine. It would take more years to manufacture and distribute it…..

  14. If anyone is interested, the other day I mentioned I’d heard an interview with Presidential candidate Andrew Yang on NPR. This is his interview with Joe Rogan but the topic is pretty much the same… Universal basic income, Truck drivers vs AI, and violent revolution. I realize that Joe Rogan may put some people off but it is what Andrew is saying that deserves a listen.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=cTsEzmFamZ8

    1. So who will install all the PV, wind towers and new power systems if the truckers don’t do it?
      Who will do the huge amount of retrofitting of houses and buildings to bring them up to higher insulation levels?

      1. Yeah, there’s LOTS of work to do in the world.

        And I really don’t think people like sitting at home. Look at how conservative retirees are: these people are feeling quite grumpy, sitting around (in “god’s waiting room”) with nothing to do, not feeling useful to the world.

        There’s lots of work that is low status, but is still needed. Just because these jobs are currently low paid doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable. They don’t have to be low pay and low status.

        Just ask yourself: how much work is needed? How much is there, that we need to do or have done? Building energy infrastructure, retrofitting buildings, providing healthcare, eldercare (including keeping people in their home and out of nursing homes), childcare, education, research, environmental cleanup, etc. There’s a LOT of work needed in the world. Just medical research alone, and all of the possible support jobs could keep a large percentage of the population working.

        It’s really not that hard to find a way to structure things to get them done, and people working. When the world is perfect, and nothing is left to do….then we can go to negative income taxes, or some such form of income redistribution that doesn’t require work. Until then, there’s lots of work to do.

        1. When the world is perfect, and nothing is left to do….then we can go to negative income taxes, or some such form of income redistribution that doesn’t require work. Until then, there’s lots of work to do.

          WOW! You either live on a different planet than I do, or you must be living under a rock somewhere!

          There is no doubt that there is lot’s of work to do! However that fact alone does not necessarily translate to gainful employment that will actually pay people’s bills. BTW, Universal basic income will not in any way stop people from working or doing things that need to be done, quite the contrary it will grease the wheels and facilitate the process!

          1. There is an economic and environmental crisis in America and the world, but it stems from the uneducated and religious brain-dead handing over their political power to the wealthy one percent(via FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. etc. via propaganda). The wealthy have now rigged the game to the point that American adversaries are running the same con on America with the idiots support. The rich could care less about your oceans, air, children and their waste. It’s not a problem for them. What’s important to them is that there is enough slave labor(min wage) for their comfort. The best government ever on this earth is burning and your advocating free money. Your posts shows you don’t understand the situation yourself. Free money for all and not just the one percent will only bring on the end sooner.

            The problem is the freedom con men enjoy and exploit on the brain-dead. Religion has always been a tool for the rich and powerful to control the messes.

            1. Yeah, the wealthy seem to have the upper hand. Basic protections for the middle and working class (like minimum wage and union support) are being weakened. I was struck, for instance, by one rural person on this blog defending small business against higher minimum wages! It makes the actual implementation of a universal basic income a little hard to imagine…

            2. Your posts shows you don’t understand the situation yourself. Free money for all and not just the one percent will only bring on the end sooner.

              If you think universal basic income is the same as free money then it is you who does not understand the situation!

              Though I most certainly agree that there is an economic political and environmental crisis in America and the world at large, that stems from neo-classical economic thinking coming up short when faced with real world limits and all the disruptive technological revolution’s currently taking place ranging from AI to biotech. The FoxNews folk , Rush Limbaugh’s, Sean Hannity ‘s and believer’s of various isms and religions of the world certainly don’t help matters!

            3. “Unconditional: A Basic Income would vary with age, but there would be no other conditions”

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

              Fred, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. Your denial will only give you 4 more years of Trump and continued degradation of your coral reefs. There are no free lunches. Your being conned. While the rich and powerful are emptying the Federal treasury with loans instead of paying their taxes(with the Republican tax cut plan of 2018).

              Again, “the uneducated and religious brain-dead” are “handing over their political power to the wealthy one percent(via FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. etc. via propaganda).”

              What next ? The best ever Trump super coral reef miracle grow. You should know better.

          2. Jeez, Fred, think before you jump to conclusions and start criticizing people personally. It reminds me (just a little) of an old humor poster:

            “This department requires no physical fitness program. Everyone gets enough exercise jumping to conclusions, flying off the handle, running down the boss, knifing friends in the back, dodging responsibility and pushing their luck.”

            So….anyway. Of course some people are unemployed, and a lot of people are underpaid. I think I said that. But…

            Universal basic income is a solution for a much, much bigger problem. It’s a solution for general unemployment due to all encompassing automation which has simply eliminated any possibility of a job for a lot of people. We’re nowhere near that, now. Right now the basic problem is low wages, not a lack of jobs. And low wages are caused by the power of the wealthy to lower those wages.

            If we can’t succeed in raising wages, we certainly won’t be able to get a universal basic income, which would be far, far, far more expensive.

            Universal basic income will not in any way stop people from working

            You might want to explain that. I can’t imagine a lot of people volunteering to drill for oil, install PV or home insulation, or pick lettuce or milk cows for free.

            1. Universal basic income is a solution for a much, much bigger problem. It’s a solution for general unemployment due to all encompassing automation which has simply eliminated any possibility of a job for a lot of people. We’re nowhere near that, now. Right now the basic problem is low wages, not a lack of jobs. And low wages are caused by the power of the wealthy to lower those wages.

              https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198

              The real unemployment rate (U-6) is a broader definition of unemployment than the official unemployment rate (U-3). In January 2019, it was 8.1 percent.

              The U-3 is the rate most often reported in the media. In the U-3 rate, the Bureau of Labor Statistics only counts people without jobs who are in the labor force. To remain in the labor force, they must have looked for a job in the last four weeks.

              The U-6, or real unemployment rate, includes the underemployed, the marginally attached, and discouraged workers.

              For that reason, it is around double the U-3 report.

              You also said:

              You might want to explain that. I can’t imagine a lot of people volunteering to drill for oil, install PV or home insulation, or pick lettuce or milk cows for free.

              The idea of a universal basic income is that everyone who is a citizen is entitled to it regardless of their economic circumstance. Doesn’t matter if you are a billionaire or homeless and unemployed. It doesn’t stop anyone from holding a job, starting a business or investing! If you are a billionaire you could opt out if you are unemployed it could literally mean the difference between life and death!

              Did you listen to what Andrew Yang had to say?
              BTW, a $1,000.00 a month for every citizen is still a lot cheaper than what we current;y spend on putting people in prison.

            2. Yes, I’m familiar with the various ways to report unemployment. The idea that U-6 is the “real” rate is the author’s personal opinion. More importantly, the fact that it’s 8% doesn’t tell us much about the “ideal” level, or the level that could be achieved by more aggressive fiscal, monetary or regulatory action. Most importantly, it doesn’t say that we’ve gotten anywhere near the point where more jobs can’t be created, or that automation has eliminated the possibility of “full” employment, whatever that number is.

              a universal basic income…doesn’t stop anyone from holding a job

              Again, why would anyone do grueling, difficult work like drilling for oil, installing PV or home insulation, or picking lettuce or milking cows at 4 in the morning, if they weren’t forced to by the necessity of making a living? Wouldn’t almost everyone want to play guitar, surf, compose or play music or be some other kind of artist?

              1,000.00 a month for every citizen is still a lot cheaper than what we current;y spend on putting people in prison.

              $12k per person x 320M persons would equal about $4 trillion dollars, or about 20% of current GDP. That’s a lot less than the roughly $71B the US spends on it’s prisoners.
              https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/15/world/how-much-does-it-cost-send-someone-prison
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

    2. Thanks for that link Fred.

      It would be fantastic to have such an empathetic, thoughtful, informed, data driven, good humored president as Andrew Yang.

      I’m definitely giving him a contribution.

      1. I also contributed to his campaign. Though being a realist I do not expect him to win the presidency. I hope I am proven wrong! I just want his message to get out there so that as many people as possible are aware of it and talking about it!

        1. I would vote for Yang if I could.
          He’s really the first person I have heard talk about the problems we face in a way that sounds totally honest, informed and rational.

          This is not to say the D’s don’t have some people I will vote for. I will vote for any one of the ones running that I have heard of , if he or she gets the nomination.

          But they’re still prone to presenting their case in partisan tones, and in partisan language.Yang, now he talks the real talk.

    3. I listened to a Sam Harris podcast with Yang. I came away thinking his ideas were generally nice, but naive.
      Like any policy shift like this, there are big winners and big losers.
      The losers (and there are plenty), arn’t going to be onboard with paying more taxes to folks who are not.
      That was my general impression when I listened to it last year.
      What people really need is a job, and the incentive to work.
      Not to lower the incentive.
      If there was money to be distributed (from taxpayers), it should be as matching funds on wages to low paid workers, or some such scheme that encourages work. IMHO

      2. What people really need is a job, and the incentive to work.

        Unfortunately I think that jobs, as we know them today, are truly an anachronism.

        We all need to stop living in the past!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMDlfNWM1fA
        Yuval Noah Harari: Workplace Automation & the “Useless Class”
        Duration 4 mins 21 seconds.

        1. Harari is speculating about the future. He’s not talking about today’s labor market, and nothing he says is about whether jobs are an anachronism today.

          He badly overestimates the current pace of change. He seems to assume labor productivity will grow by maybe 10% per year and that whole categories of work will disappear in 30 years. The rate of productivity growth is more like 2% per year. For another view, see:

          “Economist Robert Gordon has spent his career studying what makes the US labor force one of the world’s most productive.

          And he has some bad news.

          American workers still produce some of most economic activity per hour of any economy in the world. But the near-miraculous productivity growth that essentially transformed the US into one of the world’s most affluent societies is permanently in the country’s rearview mirror.”

          https://qz.com/633080/the-rise-and-fall-of-american-productivity-growth/

          Honestly, I think Gordon underestimates the potential for improved labor productivity: Harari is correct in the very long term. But…it will take a while to get there!

      3. What happens when the jobs just are not there? There are many occupations that are endangered species: truckers, fulfillment centres, call centres, production lines, taxis etc and it is those at the high end of the payscale that are doing that to line their own pockets. If 10 million jobs get cut I cannot see 10 million new ones created out of thin air, the whole business scene is about removing the human element as it is unproductive and unreliable.

        What do you do with those people who have been cut, line them up against the wall? Universal basic income is one way and, at the same time , keeps consumers in circulation. If you just throw out your workers you will soon find there is no-one with the money to buy your goods that they were making.

        I see the current proposals as just a starting point, a place to start the conversation. I would expect a final version to be very different and a taper after a limit on wages earned applied, perhaps loose $1 for every $10 after $5,000.

        NAOM

  15. Fred —

    CHIMP COMMUNICATION GESTURES FOUND TO FOLLOW HUMAN LINGUISTICS RULES

    “A team of researchers with members from the U.K., Switzerland and Spain has found that chimpanzees use communication gestures in ways that follow human linguistic rules. In their paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the group describes their study of chimps communicating with one another in the wild and compares their observations against human communication rules.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-02-chimp-gestures-human-linguistics.html#jCp

    1. “A team of researchers with members from the U.K., Switzerland and Spain has found that chimpanzees use communication gestures in ways that follow human linguistic rules…”

      That’s just bat shit crazy! 😉

      https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/19/E2750.full.pdf

      Gelada vocal sequences follow Menzerath’s linguistic law

      Identifying fundamental principles that underpin diverse natural phenomena is a central goal of the life sciences (1, 2). The existence of such principles, revealed by the occurrence of common statistical patterns, can shed light on the basic processes shaping biological systems (3). In recent years, exploration of the
      universality of the statistical laws of human language has proved a fruitful starting point for identification and investigation of these fundamental principles (4, 5). The power of such an approach is illustrated by recent studies of the generality of Zipf’s
      law of abbreviation (6). This linguistic law, also commonly known as Zipf’s law of brevity, states that more frequently used words tend to be shorter, and it has been found to hold true in all languages assessed to date (5). Analyses of the nonvocal surface behavioral repertoire of dolphins (7), the vocal repertoire of Formosan macaques (8), close-range calls of common marmosets (9), and social calls of four species of bats (10) reveal that they too conform to an inverse general relationship between magnitude (e.g., duration) and frequency of use. This common pattern provides evidence that compression—the information theoretic principle of minimizing the expected length of a code— is a general principle of animal (including human) behavior, reflecting selection for energetic efficiency (5, 11).

      Further evidence of compression in human language—this time, not at the level of individual elements, but at the level of elements combined into sequences—may come from studies of another linguistic law, Menzerath’s law,…

      Geez next thing you know someone will suggest that cetaceans can actually sing! 😉

      https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/2.0000957

      Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics

      Mapping the phonetic structure of humpback whale song units: extraction, classification, and Shannon-Zipf confirmation of sixty sub-units

      Cheers!

        1. Great question! I haven’t checked but I’ll bet the answer is a big yes!
          Social insects such as ants and termites communicate via chemical signals, specific pheromones and tactile exchanges and these forms of communication seem to obey a Zipf distribution. Nature seems to have a knack for employing simple basic building blocks at ever higher levels of complexity.

          The Infochemical Core
          Journal of Quantitative Linguistics

          https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09296174.2016.1142323?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=njql20

          ABSTRACT
          Vocalizations, and less often gestures, have been the object of linguistic research for decades. However, the development of a general theory of communication with human language as a particular case requires a clear understanding of the organization of communication through other means. Infochemicals are chemical compounds that carry information and are employed by small organisms that cannot emit acoustic signals of an optimal frequency to achieve successful communication. Here, we investigate the distribution of infochemicals across species when they are ranked by their degree or the number of species with which they are associated (because they produce them or are sensitive to them). We evaluate the quality of the fit of different functions to the dependency between degree and rank by means of a penalty for the number of parameters of the function. Surprisingly, a double Zipf (a Zipf distribution with two regimes, each with a different exponent) is the model yielding the best fit although it is the function with the largest number of parameters. This suggests that the worldwide repertoire of infochemicals contains a core which is shared by many species and is reminiscent of the core vocabularies found for human language in dictionaries or large corpora.

          Perhaps the fact that there are connections between mathematics, physics biochemistry, biological evolution, linguistics and information theory, shouldn’t really be all that surprising, eh?

  16. THE DISARMING CASE TO ACT RIGHT NOW ON CLIMATE CHANGE | GRETA THUNBERG

    In this passionate call to action, 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg explains why, in August 2018, she walked out of school and organized a strike to raise awareness of global warming, protesting outside the Swedish parliament and grabbing the world’s attention. “The climate crisis has already been solved. We already have all the facts and solutions,” Thunberg says. “All we have to do is to wake up and change.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QxFM9y0tY

  17. Published at the start of the great fracking, the words below appear to foretell the foray into dangerous territory.

    “Implications of ‘‘peak oil’’ for atmospheric CO2 and climate”

    In contrast with all of the above scenarios, peak total
    emissions in the four SRES scenario families [IPCC, 2000]
    range from 12 Gt C a1 in 2040 (B1 marker scenario) to a
    staggering 28 and 29 Gt C a1 in 2100 (A2 and A1F1
    marker scenarios, respectively). Time-integrated 21st-century
    emissions for these SRES marker scenarios range from
    970 Gt C (B1) to 1900 and 2100 Gt C (A2 and A1F1).
    Thus it is clear that the high-end SRES scenarios implicitly
    assume that, in the absence of climate mitigation policies,
    massive amounts of unconventional or ‘‘undiscovered’’
    resources will become viable substitutes for dwindling
    conventional reserves.

    https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Kharecha_kh02000x.pdf

    Also these words: “We argue that a rising price on carbon
    emissions is needed to discourage conversion of the vast fossil resources into usable
    reserves, and to keep CO2 beneath the 450 ppm ceiling.”

    11 years later there is no price on carbon emissions in most places and the massive quantities of unconventional gas and oil are being released and burned. Notice that we are on the BAU line, no significant change yet.

    1. Notice that we are on the BAU line, no significant change yet.

      What I find sort of morbidly fascinating, and I just did a google search on the RCP8.5 scenario, that despite the fact that we continue dead center on a BAU path, almost nobody even admits to the possibility that such a scenario is even remotely plausible. So I guess we all can stop worrying it!

      My conclusion is that most people simply do not grasp the meaning of the word ‘plausible’!

      1. “My conclusion is that most people simply do not grasp the meaning of the word ‘plausible’!”

        Now that is an understatement. The best of them mostly define reality through their world view, which is backwards. They confuse hypothesis with reality. Once the world view is set, do not tread upon it, you will be bullied,ostracized or killed.
        One should recall from history that not long ago their ancestors firmly believed in witches and look at the massive slaughter that ensued from that fiction. Look at the lesson of Jesus, preach love, kindness and try to upset the order, you get killed. Then your teachings are inverted and armies are led to war in your name.
        Many people still believe in witches. But always the world view is of a religious nature. A thought pattern that is taken as reality but is not. Some of the worst are the supposedly well educated. The very small proportion of people that allow reality to guide their world view had better watch out.
        As I have known for a very long time, the inmates are running the asylum.

        An inverted world view works as long as there is world to conquer and destroy. Once limits are reached it is deadly to the extreme.

        BTW,my latest calculations show average temperatures will rise to at least 4c without adding more GWG. Take it for what it is worth, but if BAU continues for another decade, well …
        Drawdown if possible, hunker down in all cases.

        1. “Many people still believe in witches.”

          Yeah, I have a neighbor who claims (insists) he can witch for water: haven’t got around to shooting him yet. Imaging, telling a geophysicist you can witch water!

            3. Did it again just a couple of hours ago, some of it was even liquid.

            4. Next thing you will be telling us you can rise above the clouds too!

            5. Yes, without technological help.
              Sometimes I would wake up on a mountaintop and the clouds would be all stretched out below me as dawn broke. Fantastic sight.

          2. Estimable DougL,

            On alluvial fans in semi-arid and arid country you use the topo map to determine where one-third of the way up from the outer rim of the fan is along the fan midline and say “Drill here.”

            You can use whatever prefatory mumbo-jumbo you like, of course. I’d recommend against an open fire if there’s a wind. Hazel would be scarce in that setting so bring your own dowsing rod. Mine was made of sections of coat hanger bent ninety degrees with the smaller ends run through short pieces of copper tubing to serve as handles so the longer arms could swing.

            1. Synapsid —

              I’ve run into too many woo woo dowsers. One guy insisted he could find gold deposits by swinging a gold ring over a map, silver with a silver ring, maybe oil with a phile of oil. However, baring alluvial stratigraphic maps/sections, etc., you can, in my opinion, beat hazel branches with a careful look at the topography. Mind you, never tried naked dancing witches and a full moon!

              You know what you can do with your coat hangers. But what the fuck do I know? I do know that dowser talk makes me crave single malt! 😉

            2. DougL,

              Oh the coat hangers would just be the woo woo. The topo map is what counts. I can’t dowse any better than anyone else, I’m sure–or I would be if I were ever to try. I haven’t.

              Off this topic: I hope I have your approval for bringing the Okanogan River into a discussion of jade. A fellow at another site (NakedCapitalism, worth your attention I’d say) had in some context or another said that jade did not exist in North America. I, of course, went into detail about BC and Alaska (which has a Jade Mountain, for heaven’s sake) and added, as icing on the cake, that I had pulled a pebble of BC nephrite from the glacial till across the river from Omak.

              I humbly submit this to your attention and hope for your approval.

            3. LOL Providing you remember jade is a commercial term encompassing both jadeite and nephrite. The former consists of sodium-rich, high-pressure pyroxene, the latter, nephrite (which is prismatic to acicular amphiboles from the tremolite-actinolite series). All deposits here are of the nephrite variety, which occurs at over fifty sites.

              You can safely tell your friend something like three quarters of the world’s “jade” originates in B.C.

            4. Having grown up in Brazil,
              when it comes to interesting minerals, gemstones, precious and semi precious stones. let’s just say, I’m a bit jaded 😉

              I think there is even a location in the state of Bahia that has some very minor nephrite deposits.

              As a geologist, I have a hunch you’d enjoy exploring Brazil’s mineral resources!

              Cheers!

            5. Most people don’t realize it but New Jersey, USA is a glowing example of multitudinous minerals.

              “Franklin, known as the “Fluorescent Mineral Capital of the World,” is located over a rich ore body containing more than 150 minerals, many of them fluorescent and 25 of which are found nowhere else on earth.”
              List of fluorescent minerals
              https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3a261fec4eb7788172ec89/t/5b43581b0e2e72bb807d8e1d/1531140123995/Fluorescent+Minerals+of+Franklin+and+Sterling+Hill.pdf

            6. E DougL,

              Jadeite is all very well for those who value bright colors and glassy sheen above the beauty of nephrite. Oh, and who don’t mind that the stone breaks fairly easily.

              The true jade aficionado (Portuguese pronunciation please) values the pale variety of nephrite that seems to come only from the region around Khotan, at the northern foot of the Kun Lun in Sinkiang.

              We allow others to rejoice in the spinach-green nephrite with black flecks of magnetite or perhaps chromite that is found in New Zealand, Siberia, California, BC, Alaska, and other such places. We don’t mind, and in fact I’ve several nice pieces myself, in addition to the real collection.

              Hmm…perhaps time for more Port.

            7. E FredM,

              I’ve thought for decades that Minas Geraias would be a great place to spend time exploring mineral areas, but the passing years, the climate, and maybe the chance of getting too close to a claim and being shot have got in the way.

            8. GoneFishing,

              Franklin Furnace is indeed a wonder, from the pictures. I’ve never been there but it’s quite famous among the mineralogy community as well as rock hounds.

            9. Luckily I am within driving distance. The Sterling Hill Mine is a real gem.
              Have been in the area many times. The old Edison iron mines still have remnants of the structures and of course the quarries and pits. Edison’s Ogden Baby. You may still be able to get the book.
              Nice country, good hiking, lots of geology and history.

            10. Lots of jade in California.
              In Big Sur, you can pick it up on the beach—
              In Mendo, they have a Jade Beach.
              May not be as good as I acquired in Northern Thailand, but not bad.

            12. Hightrekker,

              The jade you acquired in Northern Thailand is likely to be jadeite, especially if it shows the brilliant imperial green, or lavender, or lemon yellow. As I recall, the jade in the California Coast Range is nephrite but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be jadeite there as well.

        2. BTW,my latest calculations show average temperatures will rise to at least 4c without adding more GWG. Take it for what it is worth, but if BAU continues for another decade, well …

          Sounds plausible to me…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMbeYJgH_6g
          Scientists’ Warning at Foresight Group, EU Commission

          As I have known for a very long time, the inmates are running the asylum.

    1. From your link:

      “Though it is interesting to understand the characteristics of individual years, global warming is ultimately about the long-term evolution of Earth’s climate. Since 1980, the overall trend is +0.19 °C/decade (+0.34 °F/decade). If the Paris Agreement’s goal of no more than 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) warming is to be reached, significant progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be made soon. Our current estimate is that 2019 is likely to be warmer than 2018, but unlikely to be warmer than the current record year, 2016.”

  22. GISSTEMP graph shows land-ocean global temperature increase rate at 0.2/decade over last 30 years and 0.3/decade over last 7 years. 1.15C from 1880-1920 plus 0.3C from 1750 is 1.45 C.
    Expect to cross 2C in 2030.

      1. Actually, I was more under the impression that she and her friends are pretty pissed off!

        Greta Thunberg “Our House is on Fire” 2019 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrF1THd4bUM

        But let’s not call the fire department because that might upset the neighbors!

    2. Damn that is concerning. You’d expect more severe hurricanes as a result of this.

        1. Those are twisted conclusions again from those folks. The reality of the NOAA data indicate that for most of the 2000’s there have been fewer total hurricanes and fewer high intensity storms.

          2. The reality of the NOAA data indicate that for most of the 2000’s there have been fewer total hurricanes and fewer high intensity storms.

            FALSE!

            The best one can conclude from the actual data and current models is that there has not been significant increase in the number of tropical Atlantic Cyclones. While there has been a statistically significant increase in storm strength and rainfall intensity! Which certainly does not support the contention that there have been fewer total hurricanes and fewer high intensity storms. So it is Bradley Lento who apparently is in the business of twisting conclusions!

            https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

            GFDL – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics LaboratoryGFDL – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

            Global Warming and Hurricanes
            An Overview of Current Research Results

            Last Revised: Feb. 8, 2019

            The main text then gives more background discussion. “Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes. Our main conclusions are:

            Sea level rise – which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5 – should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.

            Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.

            Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.

            The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.

            1. E FredM,

              The final paragraph is what I remember to be the prediction made a few years ago.

              Port awaits.

    3. Would like to see the first and second differentials of that curve. On the other hand that might be too scary.

      NAOM

      1. Well, since the second derivative corresponds to curvature (or concavity), why not just look at the graph? Maybe what you should want to see is the second derivative of this “function” change sign — switch from concave up to concave down. 😉

        1. Yeah, my eyeball says the rate of increase is increasing, would have liked to have seen a fitted curve and if the increase is increasing etc. My eyeball tells me ouch!

          NAOM

          1. Her you go NAOM, one fitted curve with 10 year extension from 2018.

            1. OUCH!

              Thanks, I think, that looks worse than I was thinking. Do you have the equation for that curve?

              NAOM

            3. 0.423×2 not good, at least x3 is small. Nope, not surprised just shocked at how far into dangerous territory we are getting.

              NAOM

            4. If you are surprised by that, you have no idea what dangerous territory means.

            5. Would that be a radiative forcing greater than 8.5 W/m2

              I’m not sure that is even plausible!

            6. Ahh yes, radiative forcing. That hypothetical calculated definition for greenhouse gases where CO2 is always one and for some reason the other GHG disappear over time. It underestimate the current effect of methane by a large amount. There is no good reason to assume methane concentration will fall in the future. Water vapor is hidden in there to, at least partially.

              Here is a historical review of the science of global warming.
              https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
              https://history.aip.org/climate/othergas.htm
              While all eyes were turned on carbon dioxide, almost by chance a few researchers discovered that other gases emitted by human activity have a greenhouse effect strong enough to add to global warming. In the mid 1970s, they began to realize that these gases could bring as much damage as carbon dioxide itself. But the sources and interactions of the gases were complex and uncertain, and the research made little impact on policy.

              Measurements were scanty. But the number of publications on permafrost emissions rose exponentially, from almost none in 1990 to more than 60 a year around 2010. For example, in one especially well-studied Swedish bog, researchers reported an increase in methane emissions from 1970 to 2000 of at least 20 percent, and perhaps much more. By 2006 the thawing of large areas of permafrost was visibly underway in many Arctic regions, presumably emitting ever more methane (and equally significant amounts of carbon dioxide). There was good reason to expect that much more would thaw by the end of the century. In 2010 two scientists surveyed their colleagues who published on permafrost, getting 41 responses — there was a substantial community now. “Our collective estimate,” they reported, “is that carbon will be released more quickly than models suggest, and at levels that are cause for serious concern.” A 2015 review confirmed that permafrost would make a substantial contribution to global warming, although not enough to overshadow fossil fuel emissions.(27)

              International

              Meanwhile, a 2005 study of the complex chemical interactions in the atmosphere calculated that adding methane was even more powerful in bringing greenhouse warming than previous studies had estimated. It also seemed increasingly likely that clathrates in the warming seabed would release massive amounts of the gas, although (good news for once) that would probably take thousands of years.(27a) Any of these processes might leave the planet stuck more or less permanently with a climate unlike any that had been seen for many millions of years.

            7. Ahh yes, radiative forcing. That hypothetical calculated definition for greenhouse gases where CO2 is always one and for some reason the other GHG disappear over time. It underestimate the current effect of methane by a large amount. There is no good reason to assume methane concentration will fall in the future. Water vapor is hidden in there to, at least partially.

              Yep! I was of course referring the radiative forcing of all the know greenhouse gases combined. The more I learn about tipping points and feed back mechanisms the more convinced I am that the risk of a forcing greater than 8.5 W/m2 is indeed plausible.
              BTW, this not really news nor should it surprise anyone!

              Joos, F. and R. Spahni. 2008. Rates of change in natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing over the past 20,000 years. PNAS Vol. 105 No. 5 pp 1425-1430.

              Antarctic ice core experts have now reconstructed rates of change in GHG concentrations and in radiative forcing for the past 20,000 years. The results indicate that the 20th century rise in the combined radiative forcing from the three main greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) is exceptionally high within this record. Over the past millennium, anthropogenic radiative forcing is unusually high compared to natural forcing.
              An important aspect of anthropogenic climate change is its rate of change, since it helps determine how well systems (both natural and human) can adapt. This study by Joos and Spahni compares rates of increase in anthropogenic forcing with rates of change in natural greenhouse gas forcing since the Last Glacial Maximum, as well as of solar and volcanic forcing of the last millennium. For century-scale rates of change, the authors conclude that the average rate of increase in the combined radiative forcing from CO2, CH4 and N2O during the Industrial Era, is larger than at any time during at least the past 16,000 years. In fact, radiative forcing due to the 20th century increase in CO2 concentrations alone rose more than an order of magnitude faster than any multi-century scale change during the past 22,000 years. (For comparison, the IPCC AR4 concluded that the rate of increase in the combined radiative forcing from CO2, CH4 and N2O was very likely unprecedented in more than 10,000 years). Decadal-scale rates were computed for the past 2,000 years from Antarctic Law Dome ice cores and from direct atmospheric measurements. The recent average rate of increase in the combined radiative forcing by all three greenhouse gases was at least six times larger than at any time during the period 1-1800 AD. Rates of anthropogenic forcing were then compared to other reconstructions of natural forcings over the past millennium, and were also found to be much higher.
              Bold mine.

              I just can’t wrap my mind around around why anyone would discount the risks of an RCP8.5 scenario out of hand based on future CO2 emissions alone!

              Cheers!
              P.S. BTW, I’m going to take your advice and make myself a large insect head to wear when go out about town. So if I suddenly disappear from this site it is probably because I have been locked up for my own safety.

            8. Read all about it:
              MAN BUGGED ABOUT NO BUGS TAKEN INTO PROTECTIVE CUSTODY AFTER GOING BUGGY

            10. Fred,

              Often people use plausible interchangeably with probable (that these words are synonymous).

              The RCP8.5 scenario used by the IPCC has carbon emissions of 5847 Gt from 1765 to 2500. Of that total 5640 Gt is from fossil fuel. My “high” fossil fuel scenarios consistent with research by Steve Mohr, suggests perhaps 1600 Gt of carbon emissions and many who comment here believe that estimate is implausible (that is they believe it is far too high relative to known resources). Chart below has the fossil fuel emissions to 2150.

              I would call such a scenario highly implausible. Carbon emissions are 3675 Gt from 1765 to 2150.

            11. Dennis, let’s not engage in semantic quibbles.

              My view regarding the plausibility of a radiative forcing greater than 8.5 W/m2 by the end of this century is based on an ever increasing number of studies that focus on tipping points and feedbacks and not merely actual anthropogenic CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels.

              Here’s an example of what I mean.

              https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

              Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene

              Abstract
              We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene. We examine the evidence that such a threshold might exist and where it might be. If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies. Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.

              Conclusions:

              Our systems approach, focusing on feedbacks, tipping points, and nonlinear dynamics, has addressed the four questions posed in the Introduction.

              Our analysis suggests that the Earth System may be approaching a planetary threshold that could lock in a continuing rapid pathway toward much hotter conditions—Hothouse Earth. This pathway would be propelled by strong, intrinsic, biogeophysical feedbacks difficult to influence by human actions, a pathway that could not be reversed, steered, or substantially slowed.

              Where such a threshold might be is uncertain, but it could be only decades ahead at a temperature rise of ∼2.0 °C above preindustrial, and thus, it could be within the range of the Paris Accord temperature targets.

              The impacts of a Hothouse Earth pathway on human societies would likely be massive, sometimes abrupt, and undoubtedly disruptive.

              Bold mine, conclusions continued in the paper.

  23. Attention astronomy buffs:

    GRAVITATIONAL WAVES WILL SETTLE COSMIC CONUNDRUM

    “Measurements of gravitational waves from approximately 50 binary neutron stars over the next decade will definitively resolve an intense debate about how quickly our universe is expanding, according to findings from an international team that includes University College London (UCL) and Flatiron Institute cosmologists.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-02-gravitational-cosmic-conundrum.html#jCp

    And, looking in:

    MERGING NEUTRON STARS: INSIGHT INTO FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES OF MATTER

    “The opportunity to measure the gravitational waves of two merging neutron stars could offer answers to some of the fundamental questions about the structure of matter. At the extremely high temperatures and densities in the merger, scientists have conjectured a phase transition in which neutrons dissolve into their constituent quarks and gluons. In the current issue of Physical Review Letters, two international research groups report on their calculations of what the signature of such a phase transition in a gravitational wave would look like.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-02-merging-neutron-stars-cosmic-events.html#jCp

  24. Insanity?

    STUDY USES SATELLITE DATA TO PINPOINT WIDESPREAD OIL INDUSTRY ‘FLARING’

    Cushing and her partners on the study examined satellite data developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth Observation Group for the Eagle Ford Shale Region of south Texas for the years 2012 to 2016. The area was a good fit for the study because of a large oil production boom there starting in 2010.

    The NOAA data documented widespread gas flares, which appear as circles of light that are bright in the center and dimmer at the edges. Cushing and her colleagues identified more than 43,000 flares over the five-year period. By comparing the satellite flaring data to well permit data in the area, the researchers revealed that the majority of flares were associated with the oil-producing and horizontally-drilled wells associated with fracking. “We estimate four-and-a-half billion cubic meters of gas were burned off in that five-year period, enough to heat about 2.5 million homes for a year,”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-02-satellite-widespread-oil-industry-flaring.html#jCp

    2. To give some perspective to the phys.org article on gas industry flaring.
      That is twenty-four thousandths of one percent of global natural gas production being oxidized to carbon dioxide with no practical use through flaring.
      In the US the leakage rate (non-oxidized) about 3% of production which is 125 times the flaring amount and since methane is at least 150 times more warming producing than CO2 when introduced to the atmosphere, that makes a factor of 18750.

      If the ROW is similar in leakage rate to the US, the natural gas the heating caused by this continuous flow of methane is 4.5 times the CO2 heating from burning the total production of natural gas.
      Which is why natural gas is worse than coal for melting the Arctic Ice and heating the planet now and in the near future. Once the loss of ice, snow and melting of permafrost has gone far enough we can turn off all the gas, oil and coal and the system will keep melting on it’s own. So the next few years really counts.

    1. An amazing accomplishment. A testament to the science and tech we developed that long ago.
      Imagine, 15 years running on lithium batteries.
      Finally it gave up, but not before it explored way beyond it’s predicted life.

      1. Finally it gave up, but not before it explored way beyond it’s predicted life.

        Those batteries still had a lot of life left in them even after all that time. The rover just had a stroke of bad luck!

        https://www.space.com/opportunity-mars-rover-long-life.html

        The rovers also had “the finest batteries in the solar system,” Callas added. Opportunity’s main battery weathered more than 5,000 charge-discharge cycles and still had about 85 percent of its capacity left when the mission-ending dust storm hit, he said.

        https://twitter.com/JacobMargolis/status/1095436910808358912
        The last message they received was basically, “My battery is low and it’s getting dark.”

        R.I.P.

    1. Hi GF,
      I’ve watched this guy’s videos a few times. He knows just enough to be dangerous, lol, taken all the way around.

      When it comes to TESLA’s he’s just preaching to his fan club. He gets about as many things wrong as he does right.

      I agree with him about putting serious money into a car though. I ‘ve never made a single car payment in my LIFE, period.

      The money I could have put into new cars I put into other things…… such as the farm, which has appreciated every single year, lol.

      1. Not sure where he was wrong, but then again I am not buying a Tesla anyway.

        Hey, he is the best mechanics comedy show around.

  27. Venezuela – Media Find Trump’s Coup Plan Does Not Work
    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/02/venezuela-fear-that-trumps-coup-plan-is-destined-to-fail.html

    My impression is that Trump was scammed. It was long evident that he gives little attention to details and does not think things through. Most likely Bolton, Pompeo and Rubio presented him with a three step plan:
    Phase 1. Support the self declared president Guaidó;
    Phase 2: … (wishful thinking) …;
    Phase 3: Take half of their oil!
    …
    Bolton and Pompeo are both experienced politicians and bureaucrats. They likely knew that their plan was deeply flawed and would require much more than Trump would normally commit to. My hunch is that the soon coming mission creep was build into their plan, but that they did not reveal that.

    1. If the aid crosses the regime will just confiscate it and distribute it to the military to keep support.

      NAOM

  31. Gasoline prices per gallon are approaching two dollars around here. That is with a tax hike on it.
    Hybrids running at 4 to 5 cents a mile. Small ICE cars running at 6 to 8 cents a mile. EV’s at 3 or 4 cents a mile. Nothing here to give an economic advantage.

    1. We in the environmental and peak oil community mocked the conservatives when they chanted Drill Baby Drill……. and they drilled, and now gasoline is indeed around to two bucks again, just as they predicted……..

      This wouldn’t matter much, except that it’s all the evidence the conventional growth forever regulation free capitalist crowd, like any other crowd, sees it as incontrovertible proof they were right, and are right, and that we are the fools and clowns.

      Most of us are always going to believe what we want to believe, right up until the time we wake up in the hospital with our head swathed in bandages as the result of being slammed upside the head with a broken brick of reality.

      One example or fact in our favor is worth more than ten examples in favor of the OUT GROUP, the THEM group, the cultural ENEMY.

      Liberals as a group are not all that much less susceptible to this failing than conservatives.

      They for instance seem to believe that you can take a bunch of fifty year olds who can barely read and balance a check book and train them to work in high tech industries….. which for all intents and purposes don’t even EXIST in the places where the vast majority of such workers actually live.

      (The owners of such industries have zero desire to locate in economically depressed communities, even if commercial space is available FREE…… because their management and employees have zero desire to live in such places. )

      Some of the regulars here make fun of the backward south… without ever thinking that when the textile and furniture industries that enabled millions of us southerners to buy new cars and nice houses, and send our kids off to college, even if wages in these industries were low…….

      are now in the position of just trying to hold on, and incredibly bitter about their lost jobs….. and furthermore….. are no longer able to put that some critical disposable income into getting their kids into and thru college.

      Of course shit loads of us voted for Trump…. just as shit loads of formerly better paid industrial workers in the so called mostly up north Rust Belt voted for Trump.

      The vast majority of such voters believed then, and still believe now, that they have been betrayed and forgotten by both parties. The dumber ones of course still believe Trump is in their corner, but enough of them have had the scales fall from their eyes already that the R’s are going to be in one tough spot next election.

      And anybody with brains enough to see thru the smoke a little has to understand that they did NOT vote REPUBLICAN, due to their economic problems……. they voted FOR TRUMP…… who at least SEEMED ( PRETENDED ) to be serious about doing something for them.

      The D’s are in position to mop the floor with the R’s …….. if they have sense enough to run candidates who can connect with the working class people of this country. They don’t have much real chance of taking back the state and local governments otherwise, or taking control of Washington long term.

      The thing is, they have to have party leadership that recognizes FIRST OF ALL, that minorities, women, gays, lesbians, and any and all other factions of voters are MOSTLY working class people.

      The working class is the BIGGEST class of all, because it encompasses so many voters who are members of all the OTHER classes.

      Fortunately it looks like a new generation of D leaders is emerging that understands this rather obvious fact.

      1. When a gallon of gasoline takes a gallon of energy to produce and deliver yet is still cheap, anyone with intelligence would have alarm bells ringing loud in his head.
        Government has failed, society has failed.

        It all has to change drastically, not with variations of the same old same old.
        The human world and government is upside down.
        Tip it over or it will tip over anyway and shatter.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAmmUIEsN9A

        1. It all has to change drastically, not with variations of the same old same old.
          The human world and government is upside down.
          Tip it over or it will tip over anyway and shatter.

          That is exactly the point of the discussion in the link I posted below which features both Greta and her dad. They talk about the changes they have implemented such as no more flying even though both his wife’s and his own careers depended on it. No more meat. They drove from Sweden to the Climate Conference in Poland in an EV but are clear that even private cars must be completely eliminated.

          Meanwhile in the US, the clown show continues unabated! In the next episode we might even get a full blown constitutional crisis! Be sure to get your order in for popcorn and refreshments ahead of time to avoid the rush!

          Cheers!

  34. There’s some discussion about the efficiency of electric cars over in the other thread.

    In a few more years, the overall efficiency of electric cars isn’t really going to matter much, as a practical matter, because wind and sun juice are fuel free, and will be available at dirt cheap prices whenever they are available in excess…..and the owners of electric vehicles will be plugged in to take maximum advantage of this cheap juice at every opportunity.

    Furthermore, as time passes and gas and even goal get to be ever more expensive, lots of power plant operators in the future are likely to find ways to SELL or USE the waste heat they dump into the atmosphere or rivers these days.

    Some kinds of machinery and industrial operations seem to be getting to be more efficient than they used to be, at SMALLER scales than formerly. I believe it’s likely that gas fired generating plants will eventually be more economic than larger ones, even in moderate climates, if located in cities where the otherwise wasted heat can be used for zone heating of nearby buildings or to run nearby industrial processes.This is already working in some places in Europe, where long cold winters are the rule rather than the exception.

    Hardly anybody ever mentions that millions and probably tens of people will own two or even three electric cars and or light trucks. With two or three, one or two are almost always just sitting there……. and can be plugged in so as to be fully charged for use over the next day, or two, or three.. depending on the range of the car and the miles the owner typically drives per day.

    I’m not a number cruncher, but I’m reasonably certain that almost everybody in the American South, and up thru the middle part of the country, and well into the Northeast, gets enough sun that if they install a grown up solar system of their own, say ten kilowatts or larger, that they can keep at least one of two personal electric cars charged well enough to meet their needs almost every day of the year.

    The only places in the lower forty eight this might not hold true are in the rain forest type climate in parts of the Northwest, and maybe in the worst of the winter in the upper Northeast.

    Hardly anybody ever mentions that for every twenty million or so electric cars that will eventually be running on American roads, we need around a million or so barrels of oil LESS per day, which will not only cut back on pollution, but ALSO have the effect of depressing oil prices.

    This is not to say that oil won’t be going up, but rather that it won’t be going up as much or as fast.

    Good numbers on the elasticity of demand of oil are hard to come by. If anybody has some, please post links, and thanks in advance!

    I can’t be sure, but I’m thinking that as little as a million barrels a day too little, or too much, causes the price of oil to move as much as twenty dollars or more, over a period of a few months, with it taking so long because the existing stocks of oil already in the system take that long to make it from oil field to end user.

  35. 1898 — Cuba: US battleship Maine mysteriously & conveniently explodes, sinks in Havana Harbor, killing 260. The event prompts US intervention in the Cuban-Spanish conflict on the “behalf” of Cuba. A pretext for war with Spain, the US picked up, among other new properties, Puerto Rico, Guam & the Philippines in the deal, & used its new presence in the Pacific as an excuse for “annexing” the independent nation of Hawai’i later this year. Some claime this was the maine idea

  36. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/rise-electric-vehicle/

    GF posted this link in response to one of my comments in the other thread.

    I’m with him, in that I don’t usually put much faith in anything in particular happening at any particular point in time.
    Cars and light trucks are fortunately well suited to battery power, because they are mostly used for short periods of time intermittently, such as an hour or less in the morning to get to work, and another hour or less to get home again, allowing plenty of time for recharging, so that a couple of hundred miles range is actually ample in the real world, so long as the driver can rent a long range vehicle for the occasional long trip, or simply keep an existing old ICE car for occasional use.

    But industrial machinery is another matter altogether, and batteries good enough to run a farm tractor or combine, etc, all day may never be affordable.Hell, they may never even be invented, there’s no way to say.

    And the charts given in the link don’t go past discussing the number of vehicles built using electric versus ICE engines. I think the authors are entirely wrong in saying the cost of ICE engine manufacture will rise, at least for the first decade after ICE production peaks. There will after all be plenty of machinery and expertise available to build them, and these resources will mostly be stranded, if not used for that purpose.

    Bottom line, ICE engines will get cheaper, in real money terms, at any given level of efficiency and durability, in my opinion, for decades to come, and there will continue to be robust markets for them as well.

    Of course I have been wrong before, lol.

    1. I find it interesting that so many people like think in terms of straight black and white, for example pure EV vs pure ICE. There is a huge grey zone of hybrid technology available, and the coming transition decade, or two, will be majority filled with various versions.
      For example, Ford plans to electrify its whole fleet soon, meaning not pure EV, but some level of batteries to accompany the ICE.
      I have such a hybrid plugin vehicle (not Ford) that has so far done 68% electric miles (from PV panels on the roof), and 32% petrol miles (almost all on longer trips). Imported from Detroit, no less.
      It will be nice someday to get rid of the occasional trips to the gas station, and ICE maintenance.
      But for now, its pretty damn excellent.

      Ford- “Ford Chief Executive Jim Hackett told investors in October the automaker would slash $14 billion in costs over the next five years and shift capital investment away from sedans and internal combustion engines to develop more trucks and electric and hybrid cars. Of the 40 electrified vehicles Ford plans for its global lineup by 2022, 16 will be fully electric and the rest will be plug-in hybrids, executives said.
      We’re all in on this and we’re taking our mainstream vehicles, our most iconic vehicles, and we’re electrifying them,” Ford told reporters.

      btw- people too are rarely pure black or white. Hundred shades of brown (and Neaderthal/Devosian , etc). The best festival I attended this year was put on by people from the Himalayas- Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan and N. India. The Italian one was good too!

      1. The UK is downplaying hybrids, they found that many were being adopted by fleets but the users were running them on fuel, all the time, and not charging them so the advantage was lost.

        NAOM

        1. When the different in cost/mile of petrol vs electric miles is obvious, people will plug in most of the time. Regardless of ideology.
          At some point that price difference will be pretty significant in much of the world.
          It certainly is for me right now. My battery is at 98% charge. Haven’t been to the petrol station in 6 weeks, and that was just 1/2 tank fill.

          1. I can’t be sure that I am recalling correctly but I think that some those vehicles could be charged for free at the companies and still were not being charged. It is a cultural problem.

            NAOM

            1. Well, I guess cultures do act without logic sometimes (often).
              Like spending vast resources building religious shrines, such as pyramids and cathedrals.
              Or starting wars of choice.
              Or electing stupid as shit leaders.
              For example.

            2. The logic of DNA is all that matters. It tells us to procreate and fill the world with us. When that doesn’t work out the DNA does not care because there are lots of kinds of DNA all over the planet to carry on.
              Of course if DNA makes a mistake and a creature that not only fills the world with us but with all of it’s temporal creations comes along… the blue screen of death may occur.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRLJscAlk1M

            3. It’s what you might call a “market failure”.

              The actual drivers/consumers are not being charged the cost of the fuel, so they don’t pay attention. They are probably just given access to company fuel pumps and given an access card, so they don’t pay attention.

              People respond to price incentives…

    2. I see industrial equipment as being used in a small locale so it can be supplied by cable or battery.
      Volvo just made a battery powered excavator that is 10 times more efficient than an ICE excavator and can be remote controlled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV1T5tEgZPA
      Large drag lines are already pure electric in many cases.
      Whole mines have gone to electric drilling and electric battery vehicles.

      Considering that soon carbon taxes will soon become more universal, the economy of ICE is falling.
      I don’t see how the engines can be made more cheaply considering their huge complexity. They are now fully electronic controlled to achieve less pollution and slightly greater efficiency so advances would have to be radical to compete with electrics as battery prices fall.
      I give ICE ten years at most, then they will fall from use and manufacture for most applications.
      As panic sets in from global calamity, ICE and petroleum will eventually achieve plague status.

      https://electrek.co/2018/03/16/all-electric-40-tonne-truck-mining-artisan-vehicles/

      Although not full electric yet but using a gen set with electric drive, Caterpillar is offering electric drive ultra class mining trucks. In the article they say that highly pollution controlled markets like the US and Canada are the target. Meaning higher efficiency.
      Pollution standards will increase with time in many places, making ICE;s a tough go.
      https://im-mining.com/2018/11/09/caterpillar-talks-new-electric-drive-mining-trucks/

      There are many changes afoot but due to the large scale of the human system and the huge variance of culture/living standards in the world it may be several decades before a true social/economic change is implemented. More likely nature will implement and motivate the changes before that.

      One abrupt climate change event could end all progress in all directions. No one anywhere is prepared for that. Nor do they know how to predict one.

      1. There are many changes afoot but due to the large scale of the human system and the huge variance of culture/living standards in the world it may be several decades before a true social/economic change is implemented. More likely nature will implement and motivate the changes before that.

        I’m putting my money on nature to implement radical changes to all of the above, in the near term!

  37. https://electrek.co/2019/02/15/audi-q4-e-tron-electric-compact-suv-design-unveil/

    The orange orangutang (deliberately added the G) and his home boys may believe in oil and coal, forever, but the managers of the auto industry aren’t having any problem at all reading the writing on the wall, lol.

    Let’s hope nature doesn’t throw us too many curve balls and too many fast balls aimed at our collective head before the transition is well under way.

    I’ve been working in my shirtsleeves, or with only a light jacket, for most of what passes for winter these days. The big cold snap didn’t quite make it to my neighborhood. We got a few nights around fifteen F, which is nothing at all unusual here, historically. We don’t actually talk much here locally about it being really cold until it gets down into single F digits. I’m working in just a sweater today, at fifteen hundred feet elevation in the mountains of Virginia, lol….. glad I’m retired, fighting the overwintering pests usually killed off by cold weather can put you out of business.

    1. True, and they have an SUV that will be built on the same platform as the truck.
      I suspect that their second generation production will include a smaller platform set of vehicles.

  40. A bit of perspective on our forests. One might add that the past two years in BC have seen record wildfire seasons and it doesn’t take much imagination to see forests as another new carbon SOURCE. Here’s your new word for today kids: Feedback! However, if we were to all follow Mr Trump’s advice and head into the bush with rakes, maybe we could turn this around. Has Donald ever tried raking a forest floor?

    CANADA’S FORESTS EMIT MORE CARBON THAN THEY ABSORB

    Our trees have for the past 15 years been “more of a source than a sink,” said Dominique Blain, a director in the science and technology branch of Environment and Climate Change Canada. Managed forests were a net contributor of roughly 78 megatonnes of emissions in 2016, the most recent year on record.

    This includes all areas that are managed for harvesting, subject to fire or insect management, or protected as part of a park or other designation. It covers some 226 million hectares and accounts for 65 per cent of Canada’s total forest. In 2015, largely due to raging wildfires, forests kicked 237 more megatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they absorbed.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-forests-carbon-sink-or-source-1.5011490?fbclid=IwAR3_tpkl-ZsSKo27Nz-UEVRXULeSkDeKtrNith_PbulJ_p4bIAfhfFZCcjA

    1. Halfway done we are with the mission against the trees.

      Earth has ‘lost more than half its trees’ since humans first started cutting them down

      https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/earth-has-lost-more-than-half-its-trees-since-humans-first-started-cutting-them-down-10483189.html

      They say that 340 million hectares of forest are burned each year. Somewhere else I read that the global net loss of forest was on the order of 10 million hectares per year. I can’t rightly say these numbers make sense.

      However:
      Global rates of deforestation do not capture the full damage done to the world’s forests. Forest degradation from selective logging, road construction, climate change, and other means compromises the health of remaining forests. Each year the world has less forested area, and the forests that remain are of lower quality. For example, replacing natural old-growth forests with a monoculture of an exotic species greatly reduces biodiversity.

      The spread of planted forests has been accelerating, rising from an expansion of 3.7 million hectares annually in the 1990s to 4.9 million hectares annually the following decade. Planted forests now cover some 264 million hectares, comprising nearly 7 percent of total forest area. Plantations now have the potential to produce an estimated 1.2 billion cubic meters of industrial wood each year, about two thirds of current global wood production. Where forests have already been cleared, plantations can alleviate the pressure on standing forests.

      http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C56/forests_2012

      The key word is loss of biodiversity. Fire is a natural system that trees, other plants and animals have existed with since forests began. However, the human hand in the system has skewed it and biodiversity loss is proceeding at an alarming rate. Just because it looks green does not mean it is really alive.

      Doug, I direct your attention to Figure 4.
      https://stateoftheworldsplants.org/2017/report/SOTWP_2017_8_global_land_cover_change_wildfires.pdf

      1. The key word is loss of biodiversity. Fire is a natural system that trees, other plants and animals have existed with since forests began. However, the human hand in the system has skewed it and biodiversity loss is proceeding at an alarming rate. Just because it looks green does not mean it is really alive.

        The biggest elephant in the room is still pretty much a completely taboo subject.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXuzdoKs9pI
        Climate Education is Screwed Up!

        It’s just too bad that we have pretty much run out of time to set things right.

      2. go tell somebody in the amazon not to chop down some lousy trees so they can plant avocados so they can sell or eat to live & survive.. and not to buy cellphones or other junk either.

        1. Stop eating Avocados from the Amazon and tell all the other lousy overpaid villagers to do so.

        2. go tell somebody in the amazon not to chop down some lousy trees so they can plant avocados…

          You’ve never been to the Amazon, have you?! And you know squat about avocados and where they are grown. For the record people in the Amazon are not chopping down trees to grow avocados. And BTW The natural range of avocados includes Mexico, Central America extending into the Amazonian basin so it is actually a native species.

          Mexico supplies 45 percent of the international avocado market. Of the 57 avocado producing countries, the other major producers are Dominican Republic, Peru, Colombia, and Indonesia in that order.

          California produces 90% of the United States’ avocados.
          Due to increased Southern California water costs, they are now costly to grow.

          Maybe we should start by telling the farmers in California not to grow avocados in a drought prone region.

          1. But CA grows really good avos—–
            But, as a former resident of Mexico, they have good ones.
            CA protected their avo industry in the past through tariff—
            The Hass originated in ‎La Habra Heights CA (obviously introduced, no one knows its origin).
            It is my favorite. I actually grew avo’s in Maui for the market.
            But, as you pointed out, water is an issue in CA– we shall see.

            All commercial, fruit-bearing Hass avocado trees have been grown from grafted seedlings propagated from a single tree which was grown from a seed bought by Rudolph Hass in 1926 from A. R. Rideout of Whittier, California. At the time, Rideout was getting seeds from any source he could find, even restaurant food scraps. The cultivar this seed came from is not known and may already have been cross-pollinated when Hass bought it.[

  41. Electric Cars will not help much.

    Last year 240 million ICE engines were built. Powering 100 million cars, vans and lorries, 100 million motor bikes, motorboats, ships and planes.
    At the same time, a certain few celebrated the fact that 1.5 million pure electric vehicles were sold.

    Consumption of fuel by the aviation industry increased by 3,000,000,000 gallons last years.

    If cars were to offset the increase from the aviation industry, then the number of ICE cars in the world would need to fall by 12,000,000. Unfortunately the number of ICE cars increased by around 40 million last year.
    How long will it take for sales of pure electric cars to hit 40 million? Tesla may sell 300,000 cars this year.
    How long will it take to build 10 factories to sell 5 million cars?

    https://www.industryweek.com/leadership/tesla-plans-china-plant-500000-vehicle-capacity

    Any good work done in China regarding electric vehicles is undone in other areas.

    https://www.airport-technology.com/news/china-new-airports-2035/

    The global airline industry will be consuming double the fuel by 2040, the equivalent of an additional 400 million ICE cars.

    Global shipping is increasing also.

    https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global-shipping-GHG-emissions-2013-2015_ICCT-Report_17102017_vF.pdf

    An additional 7 million tonnes consumed in one year.

    The amount of chemical fertilizers is increasing globally also.

    https://ourworldindata.org/fertilizer-and-pesticides

    How much will be used to feed 8 billion people in 2028 and 9 billion in 2040?

    Hardly surprising we are headed down a dangerous path.

    https://www.straitstimes.com/world/study-global-co2-emissions-to-hit-record-in-2018

    1. Yeah, it does look like the human race is racing toward a wall. Amazing they don’t want to see it. Must be a genetic problem.
      Oh course we knew this about fifty years ago. Efficiency has helped a lot, renewables and EVs are starting to help but collision cannot be avoided now, too much momentum and there is no steering wheel.

      Here is that archetypical under-authority from just a few years ago.
      Fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100 says IPCC
      The unrestricted use of fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100 if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, a UN-backed expert panel says.
      The report suggests renewables will have to grow from their current 30% share to 80% of the power sector by 2050.

      In the longer term, the report states that fossil fuel power generation without carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology would need to be “phased out almost entirely by 2100”.

      https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29855884

      Of course the IPCC now says we have 12 years to get our collective act together. Sure.
      Many of us know that is in the rear window already. So what will the next IPCC report tell us? We need to invent time machines?

      So now you know, governments were told they had 86 years, corporations were told they had 86 years by a conglomeration of the greatest brains in the world. No great hurry, it will all work out in a five or six decades they thought. No need for emergency action. So now you know about one of the biggest fuck-ups in history.

      We knew about Limits to Growth. Hansen warned us back in the 80’s. I think finally we might have found the brake pedal but not sure we should spend much effort pushing it down.
      It’s going to be a sad time when we dread the sunrise.

      Sunblock SPF 1000
      musical accompaniment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqDs_M2pzvw

      Here comes the sun (run run run run)
      Here comes the sun, and I say
      It’s all wrong

      Little darling, it’s been a short warm dismal winter
      Little darling, it feels like days since it’s been here
      Here comes the sun
      Here comes the sun, and I say
      It’s all wrong

      Little darling, the frowns returning to the faces
      Little darling, it seems like days since it’s been here
      Here comes the sun
      Here comes the sun, and I say
      It’s all wrong

      Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
      Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
      Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
      Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
      Sun, sun,…

      Little darling, I feel that ice is quickly melting
      Little darling, it seems like days since it’s been clear
      Here comes the sun
      Here comes the sun, and I say
      It’s all wrong

      Here comes the sun
      Here comes the sun, and I say
      It’s all wrong
      It’s all wrong

        1. Ha, Ha, ROFL. 1.5C will soon be crossed and the 280 GtC recommended by several scientific groups is being crossed this year. Now the IPCC says we have another 480 Gt left? Shifting baselines, shifting targets, carbon removal, carbon sequestratin. Like walking on quicksand.

          I think that it was made fairly clear by the secretary general of the United Nations.

          I have asked you here to sound the alarm.
          Climate change is the defining issue of our time – and we are at a defining moment.
          We face a direct existential threat.
          Climate change is moving faster than we are – and its speed has provoked a sonic boom SOS across our world.

          If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us.

          https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2018-09-10/secretary-generals-remarks-climate-change-delivered

          They say better late, than never
          This was delivered to the heads of state 5 months ago. Anyone seen a major global emergency movement being declared or acted upon?
          Or just more BAU amplified?

    2. Hugo,

      Thanks for injecting the dose of reality. An hour from where I live (on HWY 5), 7,000 diesel powered semis pass EVERY HOUR, 24 hours per day, trucking what? – trucking huge pipes, pumps, etc, to Alberta for the ongoing expansion of the “tar sands”. Most other vehicles, of course, are large pickups and SUVs. Have yet to spot an EV on that particular road – not one. Actually, I think I saw a couple of EVs last summer (carts on our local golf course) but wouldn’t swear to that.

      1. 7000 trucks/hour divided by 75 miles/hour = 93 trucks per mile of highway.
        If that is two way count and six lanes total then each truck has 340 feet to operate within. At 75 mph they should space at least 400 feet apart plus their length of 53 feet.. Really tight out there, sounds crazy. Certainly no room for cars.
        If only allowed to operate in four lanes then they only have 227 feet to operate within. Even crazier. One slow down will stretch back over the whole system!

    3. “Electric Cars will not help much.”
      For the 2020’s, globally, I agree.
      Maybe later, when oil gets tight.
      And when the heat makes carbon evil.
      Atleast the innovation happening now in the industry will set the stage for
      deployment of time-tested platforms later.

      btw- 2024 looks like the year of 8 Billion

    4. I’ve been accused of looking at life through rose colored glasses because of all my “happy talk” about solar PV, wind turbines, and EVs. Wanna know what I really think? The reality is much, much darker. I think that Peak Oil is actually a lot closer than Dennis does. As I asked in a comment on the oily side the other day, who knows when the water cut at the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia is going to skyrocket? When that happens, Saudi Arabia is going to lose somewhere in the region of 3mbpd of crude production. Who or what is going to replace that lost production? As Matt Simmons (author of “Twilight in the Desert”) has been quoted as saying, “as goes Ghawar, so goes the World”.

      So, I actually think that in addition to a global warming driven climate crisis, the world probably faces a liquid fuels crisis in the not too distant future. I took a little time to ferret out a clip of Robert Hirsch (author of the 2005 “Hirsch Report”) saying “The worst case is that it’s occurring now or very soon because the world is unprepared, it’s absolutely unprepared. There are no quick fixes in something like this.“. This clip was taken from an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary on Peak Oil (video no longer available) first broadcast in July, 2006. That documentary was one of at least four that I watched back in 2008 during my initiation into the club of doom.

      Against this background, there are several things in Hugo’s comment that I believe are sheer fantasy. Take the following statement, for example:

      “The global airline industry will be consuming double the fuel by 2040, the equivalent of an additional 400 million ICE cars.”

      That has about the same chance of happening as hell freezing over, unless people stop driving enough to free up the additional fuel that airlines will be consuming! That is not even taking into consideration that, even Dennis’ optimistic scenarios have global oil production in decline by 2040 (Peak Oil circa 2035).

      Then there’s “How much will be used to feed 8 billion people in 2028 and 9 billion in 2040”

      I found this fairly brief web page at the FAO web site: Potential Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on Populations and Agriculture that contains the following paragraph:

      “Although deltas tend to be densely populated, it is not really relevant to assess exactly how many people live in them [6]. Due to their very high productivity (generally fertile soils, water availability, multiple cropping, especially in tropical areas) they produce significantly more food than the local consumption. In Vietnam, for instance, 50% of national rice production comes from the Mekong delta in the south, while 20% is produced in the Red River delta near Hanoi. Although much of this production is for export, a disaster in the deltas would have profound effects on the whole country. This indicates a fragile situation in which any major disturbance would result in economic and possibly political shock waves well beyond the delta proper. “

      All in all, some of these statements that Hugo is putting forward as evidence that the circumstances are dire, in themselves indicate a belief that BAU is in fact possible, at least through 2040. I consider these scenarios delusional in the same way I’m sure some people around here think Tony Seba’s projections are delusional. Talking about Seba’s projections, Hugo wrote “How long will it take for sales of pure electric cars to hit 40 million? Tesla may sell 300,000 cars this year. How long will it take to build 10 factories to sell 5 million cars? First a correction. Tesla manufactured and sold roughly 193,500 vehicles in the US alone for 2018 (source Insideevs.com Monthly Plug-In EV Sales Scorecard) According to the same source, December 2018 sales would suggest they are capable of manufacturing at a rate of about 8,000 a month which would translate to 416,000 for the year, not 300,000. In addition Tesla is aiming to increase production rates with a target of 500,000. They might get closer to this if they can finish their China Gigafactory ahead of schedule. To my knowledge, Tesla had never achieved anything ahead of schedule but, this is China we are dealing with and China achieved their targets for PV capacity way ahead of schedule so, who knows?

      Second I did one of my little quick and dirty spreadsheets to project the sales of battery electric vehicles in the US going forward. There were roughly 238k BEVs sold in the US in 2018. It would take an annual growth rate of sales of about 54.5% to sell 5 million in 2025. If one looks at Seba’s projections for US car sales from Page 36 of the RethinkX report (see chart below), one will see that Seba and company are projecting that US new car sales will fall to about 5 million in 2024, making 5 million equivalent to 100% of new car sales in the US. Not exactly BAU!

      Looking at the monthly scorecard for 2018, global plug-in vehicle sales were just over two million of which just over half were sold in China ( see China Electric Car Sales Soar To Almost 160,000 In December). If plug-in car sales in China were to increase by 54.5%, the same figure I used for the US in the exercise above, they would sell over 21 million in 2025! The big question is, will transport as a service (car sharing) take off in China, or will they stubbornly adhere to the individual ownership model that persists in the rest of the developed world up to now?

      I think it is a bit early to be pronouncing that, “Electric Cars will not help much.”

  42. I copied this from Quora.
    “Oil is becoming difficult to extract, and this operation is becoming increasingly expensive. While it is true that the use of fracking has enabled the extraction of previously inaccessible deposits, this just buys us a little more time. As it is, a Goldman Sachs study found that the cost of extracting crude oil went up over 15% a year in the decade prior to the economic slowdown (and is still rising by possibly 10% a year).”

    If these numbers are good, then the price of oil will be back above a hundred bucks within the next few years, and stay there, barring a really bad economic downturn.

    This bodes very well for continued fast growth of the ev industry, given that the relative cost of driving an ice car will be going up, compared to the cost of driving an ev.

    Does anybody know if these numbers are good ones, based on his own knowledge or research?

    And here’s another question.

    Will the actual PURCHASE PRICE of ev batteries really fall by a third or half within five years or so? Just because they can be manufactured by then for half today’s cost does not NECESSARILY mean the savings will be passed along to end users, in the short term. There may be such a sellers market for them that even as the cost of producing them falls, the price the market will bear is rising.

    In that case, it might take ANOTHER five years, or even longer, for the reduction in production costs to be passed along to end users of such batteries.

    So…… if you buy yourself a nice new ev, and shortly thereafter there’s a really nasty oil crunch, and you have to wait a year to get any new ev, because the manufacturers of batteries can’t keep up…….. well you might be able to sell your new Tesla or Bolt or Leaf or whatever for double what you paid for it, lol.

    Conversely, you might be able to buy yourself a really nice tricked out conventional pickup from a seller in a panic to get rid of it, for peanuts….. and sell it a year or two later for twice what you paid. This happened countless times during the last oil crisis here in the states. I have a good friend in the used car biz that did exactly that , reselling his lucky finds within a few weeks, for nice profits, to people convinced that gasoline would soon be cheap again.

    1. I do think there is a scenario where battery manufacture can’t keep up with EV demand, in the face of a sustained oil supply crunch. Not sure of the probability of such a scenario.

      Another question mark is the PV manufacturing capacity. I’ve not seen any press on the shortage/surplus of capacity, or data like ‘days of global demand’ stockpiles of PV.

      1. We are still stuck with lithium ion, first commercialized by the Japanese in the early 90’s.
        We are getting efficient with it, but it is the same tech.
        It has been quite a while——

    2. For an insight into what is happening with the state of the art in lithium ion batteries, I highly recommend the following article and accompanying video over at insideevs.com:

      The Reason Tesla Spent $218 Million On Maxwell Technologies

      Maxwell, which was founded in 1965 as a government contractor, is based in San Diego and has about 380 employees. The company has gotten a lot of coverage in the EV press, mainly because of its innovations in the realm of ultracapacitors. The astute will recall that Elon Musk was planning to study ultracapacitors when he arrived at Stanford in the 1990s.

      However, Electrek’s Fred Lambert surmises that Tesla’s acquisition of Maxwell may have little to do with ultracapacitors, and much to do with “dry electrodes,” which the company calls “a breakthrough technology that can be applied to the manufacturing of batteries.”

      Maxwell claims to have demonstrated that its proprietary electrode can enable an energy density of over 300 Wh/kg, and predicts that it can achieve over 500 Wh/kg. Of course, the energy density of Tesla’s batteries is top secret, but it’s widely believed to be the best in the industry. Tesla owner Sean Mitchell, who discusses some of the possible reasons that Tesla bought Maxwell in a recent video, estimates that the energy density Maxwell is talking about would represent an improvement of between 15 and 50 percent compared to Tesla’s current batteries.

      So my reading of this is that Maxwell has developed a technology that Tesla is satisfied can be slip-streamed into the manufacturing of their current products, buying them an improved energy density, improved charging times and improved cycle life, while actually improving their manufacturing efficiency and thereby reducing costs. I have seen no mention of any downsides to this and apparently there is little risk in adopting this technology in the short term. If anything, it appears it will make the batteries less rather than more dangerous. While there is a fair bit of speculation as to what the outcome of this acquisition will be, if my take on the situation is right, this is just one more reason for Tesla’s competition to crap in their pants (some more).

      Apparently there is already some amount of crapping in pants happening with the arrival in Europe of the Model 3. See:

      Porsche, Audi Forced To Change Plans After Tesla Model 3 Teardown

      It seems Tesla is making incredible progress with its Model 3 manufacturing materials and process.

      According to a recent report by Germany’s Manager-Magazin via Electrek, Porsche and Audi have taken a step back, and may be planning for a new direction after reverse-engineering the Tesla Model 3. Teardowns and reverse-engineering processes are commonplace in the automotive industry. This is especially true when new products are revealed, and, of course, when new competing products are in the pipeline.

      We’ve published many Tesla Model 3 teardowns, as well as Tesla battery deep dives. Industry expert Sandy Munro was a bit skeptical of Tesla’s entry-level, lower-priced offering. He even went so far as to compare it to an early Kia, in terms of fit and finish. However, further analysis at a later date told a different story. While Munro still exposed issues with the Model 3, which is part of his job, he was enamored with the car’s construction in a number of ways.

      So, we’re not surprised that these German automakers came to a similar conclusion. As it turns out, German automakers that are currently underway with electric cars that will likely compete with the Model 3 may be concerned that the car’s futuristic construction and low production costs will prove difficult to match. The crazy part is we’re talking about a reasonably new American automaker with little experience versus the best in the business. Wow!

      1. I sure hope they can make good headway with it.
        We could really use a big battery breakout!

      2. It may not be just the battery technology that Tesla is interested. Supercapacitors have the potential to boost regenerative braking efficiency and can act as load smoothing for the battery pack giving longer life with less heating. There is also the potential to be used in charging stations to slowly store energy from the grid or solar that can be delivered in a fast, high power charge. That could reduce the cost of the grid connection to the station through reduced cabling and transformers. And theres more! Grid storage can also use those caps to improve response and reduce battery strain. A capacitor based supply hub with solar/wind on the one side and a battery bank on the other. Even on Powerwall there is an advantage as they could aid in power use surges such as fridge startup or power tool use. There may be more to Tesla’s purchase than meets the eye, note they bought the company not the technology.

        NAOM

        1. All true! Musk is a big fan of supercapacitors so who knows? Incorporating supercaps into their vehicles would take some amount of engineering effort but, could be worth it. For stationary applications, the high power density and better cycle life confer worthwhile advantages as well. We shall see!

      3. The crazy part is we’re talking about a reasonably new American automaker with little experience versus the best in the business. Wow!

        I think you have it backwards Islandboy. Teslas are not automobiles in any traditional sense. They are really a battery packs on wheels with electric motors, all interconnected by computer networks, running proprietary software, updatable over the air.

        The expertise that the legacy automakers have developed, even including outmoded dealership models of sales and service are no match for a visionary who was weaned on digital technology in the Silicon Valley VC world.

        Even if Elon and Tesla eventually end up folding, it is still the legacy auto makers that will need to adapt to a world that is quickly morphing into something they do not really quite understand yet with many new little furry critters running rampant among the feet of the old dinosaurs. They are the ones that are behind the curve. Of course we can’t discount the massive amounts of cash that companies like VW are pouring into their EV and battery tech. All that cash also buys a lot of technically savvy human resources.

        Telsa, IMHO, still has a leg up and I would guess more than a few cards hidden up it’s multiple sleeves.

        For example I recently read an article in an automotive magazine in which they described Tesla’s supercharger network, as an almost uncrossable moat, for the legacy competition!

        Cheers!

        1. Legacy makers are still thinking in terms of putting electric motors into cars rather than building around the electric package. Tesla’s production line hell was due to their trying to fit the new concept into existing lines – with more robots. When you see workers needing bionics to work overhead one has to ask why wasn’t that designed out. Once the whole concept of electric/car/production are properly integrated there will be an incremental jump in production.

          NAOM

        2. A minor quibble, the quoted text in your comment was also quoted text in my comment, hence the italics. In other words, that wasn’t me that thought and wrote that! 😉

          It appears to me that by the time the legacy automakers have caught up to where Tesla is now, Tesla will have already proceeded several steps beyond them, leaving them in the dust, still. It’s as if they are on a relentless quest to improve performance and reduce cost at a pace not seen in the industry that is trying to cope with the impact on their sales.

          I was going to say only Toyota has been spared since they don’t have a premium segment worthy of note and cars like the Camry, Corolla and Yaris make up the bulk of their sales but, I had left out about the Prius, the king of hybrids! Toyota was once selling somewhere in the region of 21,000 Priuses a month and are now down to five thousand (for the month of August 2017) while Tesla’s Model 3 has sold more than 14,000 and as much as 25,000 over the last six months of last year. If Tesla manages to reduce their costs enough to keep those numbers up with the lower cost variant, they might start to have serious impacts on sales of the Camry. Now. that would get Toyota’s attention!

          With the acquisition of Maxwell, Tesla is proving that they are focused on electrical storage applications, including transportation but, transportation is just the high profile part of their business.

        3. We need to be supporting our local car dealerships, OK. With the way they are positioned at the intersection of a region’s banking and advertising sectors, your local car dealerships form an important backbone to the economic growth and success of your local community and region.

          1. It’s amazing how capitalists believe in subsidies while decrying them.

            NAOM

          2. Thank goodness you showed up! Where were you when Blockbuster, Barnes & Noble, CompUSA, Circuit City and Radio Shack among others needed your help? While you’re at it, maybe you can drum up some support for Sears and maybe even revive the cinema and drive-in cinema business.

            Lots of businesses have fallen by the wayside and many more will. It just sucks when your paycheck is dependent on such a business. Ask me how I know.

          3. Heaven only knows how badly civilization needs those advertising boys. Where would be without them?

    1. OFM

      The most optimistic prediction for the number of pure electric vehicles to grow from 2.5 million today to 50 million in 2025 and 125 million in 2030.

      https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/30/electric-vehicles-will-grow-from-3-million-to-125-million-by-2030-iea.html

      There were 120 million motorbikes and scooters sold last year, how many were electric? How many electric ships are there? Air travel is set to double in the next 20 years and they will all produce more CO2.

      There needs to be a 45% decrease in emissions by 2030

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45775309

      Not a bloody hope

      1. “There needs to be a 45% decrease in emissions by 2030; not a bloody hope.”

        Don’t be so sure. Geoengineering to the rescue? What else is there?

        1. Don’t be so sure. Geoengineering to the rescue? What else is there?

          Why, Arkup, of course!
          https://arkup.com/

          This $5.9 million floating home lets you ride out sea-level rise in style
          https://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-bz-solar-powered-floating-home-20190214-story.html

          Hey, if my Miami based snow removal business doesn’t get off the ground my plan B is to get in on the ground floor of this high end floating home biz opportunity,

          Plan Z is to sell Neptune Memorial Reef Deployments… 😉
          http://www.nmreef.com/deployment.html

          The future is looking bright! If only they’d hurry up with my new CRISPR gill implants!

          Cheers!

        2. Geo-engineering does not decrease emissions and is a fool’s errand if emissions are not concurrently strongly restricted.

        3. Hi Doug,

          FF depletion, war hot or cold, and Pearl Harbor Wake UP events are in the cards, but that doesn’t mean they will show on the table or in your hand, until the entire deck is passed out.

          I often point out that while it’s seldom mentioned, the Russians have not forgotten the Siege of Stalingrad……. nor have the Germans, who are acutely aware that they are dependent on the Russians for oil and gas.

          I’m sure as hell glad Putin, as opposed to Trump, is the boss of Russia. Trump is probably dumb and reckless enough that he would just turn off the pipelines as the result of having a hissy fit, if he were in Putin’s shoes. Putin is a twenty four carat son of a a bitch, but he does seem to be mentally stable.

          When the next INEVITABLE oil crisis hits, a lot of countries that are importers will finally at last do a little something proactive to protect themselves from future oil supply problems.

          We could see laws enacted that simply outlaw large pickup trucks, unless they are loaded with construction materials or tools or farm supplies, etc, or on the way to pick up such a load.Ditto larger suv’s, etc.

          Big subsidies for heat pumps to enable cut backs on gas used for space heating, new tech to enable substantial gains in energy efficiency, are strong possibilities. We could for instance have small generator sets at our houses, running on propane or ng, with the engine driving not only the generator, as needed, but also the heat pump compressor, with the heat thrown off by the engine salvaged for water and space heating.

          Computerized controls and a standardized building and electrical code would make this sort of thing as easy as eating ice cream. With such a little genset running, as needed, in a little shed beside the house, or in the basement or crawl space or utility room, we could make WAY better use of solar systems and limited battery capacity, cutting WAY back on the need for purchased grid juice. Except for heat, once dinner is cooked, hardly anybody needs much in the way of electricity from late evening until breakfast time, so letting the little generator run, and capturing the otherwise wasted heat, would be a world class bargain, in a cold climate.

          A tax on aviation fuel….. the airline industry has been getting away with economic murder forever on this one, making air travel cheaper for those of us who are able to afford it, and want to take advantage of cheap fares……. but ho about the REST of us? I have flown maybe a dozen times in my life on commercial flights, and hardly anybody I know personally flies more than once every two or three years, a couple of relatives excepted…… those two have traveling jobs. There’s no reason in hell I should have to subsidize other people’s travel habits.

          The biggest single biggie, in countries that finally wake up from getting bashed upside the head with a broken brick oil crisis will probably be the passage of a progressive fuel tax law,possibly raising the price of it, the more you buy, with rationing, and increasing the tax a little every year.
          That would pretty much put the skids under the sale of oversized and over powered vehicles such as F250 pickups, which are mostly used for personal transportation, according to the evidence of mine own eyes, lol.

          It could come to be that you can’t even buy such a truck, unless you are the owner or operator of a business that justifies the ownership thereof. Towing the horse trailer to take the horses along on vacation wouldn’t make the cut.

          We could see a dollar a gallon slapped on pleasure boat fuel, collected at the dock, when you pay for it.

          I’m waiting for that brick, hoping it won’t hit ME, personally, lol.

          Some of us have a pretty good shot at pulling thru the coming crisis, assuming we avoid WWIII and the climate doesn’t go TOTALLY nuts.

          Speaking of climate, I’m going to put in a dozen pecans, at least. They seldom ever ripen here, the season is a month short, maybe six weeks short, on average….. but whoever is living on my place fifty years from now will probably enjoy having a ton of pecans free for picking them up!

          1. All good points. And the pecan experiment is a worthy one of you’ve got the space. They are big trees, plant them far apart.

          2. “We could see laws enacted that simply outlaw large pickup trucks, unless they are loaded with construction materials or tools or farm supplies, etc, or on the way to pick up such a load.Ditto larger suv’s, etc”

            Move the tax allowance from the vehicle to the business and make that only qualifying businesses eg builder – yes, hairdresser – no.

            NAOM

      2. “There needs to be a 45% decrease in emissions by 2030”
        Agree. Maybe by 2040.
        It sure lo0ks like a hotter climate is baked in the cake for rest of the century.

        What turned out to be hell for the Native Americans was the notion of- “Go West Young Man”,
        The new phrase will be “Go North …..”.
        Or uphill, or away from the equator.
        But there will be walls, and all sorts of barriers to migration.
        How many yurts can your backyard accommodate Doug?

        1. “But there will be walls…….”

          Yeah, we’ll have to build a wall, I guess. Presumably you guys (Yanks) will pay for it. Seems fair if Mexicans are paying for your wall. 😉

  44. More alarmist nonsense methinks. If the sea level goes up that much we can always build Arks. BTW, how did Noah manage to feed all those animals on his boat?

    MELTING ANTARCTIC ICE COULD PLUNGE TODAY’S CITIES UNDERWATER

    The scenario has been arrived at based on the comparative analysis of today’s temperatures and sea levels and those registered during the historic Eemian epoch, over 100,000 years ago. Earth’s sea levels are increasing, but not to the extent they should be. However, the ultimate job is expected to be done by the dramatic melting that Antarctica is already witnessing, with water levels shooting up 30 feet almost overnight.

    Research focused on the global temperatures about 115,000 years ago and found they were the same as now. However, at that point in time (the Eemian epoch), the ocean temperatures caused an overwhelming ice melt, rocketing sea levels up. The same phenomenon could be happening at today’s temperatures, but it isn’t — at least, not yet.

    https://sputniknews.com/science/201902141072431544-apocalypse-antarctic-ice-melts-cities-earth/

    1. The worst effects of climate change will be

      Wildfires

      https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/climate-change-california-wildfire/

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/22/portugal-forest-fires-under-control

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-33681329/spain-wildfires-firefighters-battle-huge-blaze-in-catalonia

      Heatwaves destroying crops

      https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/bushfires?page=2

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/20/crop-failure-and-bankruptcy-threaten-farmers-as-drought-grips-europe

      Floods destroying homes, buisnesses, crops and livestock

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/21/flooding-and-heavy-rains-rise-50-worldwide-in-a-decade-figures-show

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-floods-cows-drown-queensland-townsville-rain-cattle-farmers-outback-a8769541.html

      As more energy builds up in the atmosphere there will be more and more floods, severe heat waves,
      and drought stressed trees are more prone to diseases.

      https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/tree-diseases-and-pests/

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/19/tree-death-california-hawaii-sudden-oak

      Most people really do not know what is coming.

    1. Yeah, give or take! Perhaps just a tad premature. The following extrapolation may be a bit off due to the trend possibly having increased in rate. So maybe we hit 450 ppm by 2030

      The red line in the graph is the best fit to the data starting in 1958 and is specifically given by:
      CO2 level = 280*( 1+exp(0.0222(year-2052)) ). This formula gives the projected CO2 level in parts per million (ppm) for any year from 1958 on, assuming the growth rate is constant at 2.22%.

      Blue and red dashed lines added by me for clarity.
      .

      1. That seems like a fair extrapolation to me Fred. If that exponential function gets any steeper, you’d be probably looking at the RCP8.5 scenario.

        1. Don’t worry about the manmade CO2, the Arctic will have added 2.5 w/m2 on top of the CO2, much more locally which is important for Greenland. Then the natural methane rise will add even more.
          The only thing keeping temperature down now is the ice and snow. As that goes …
          Maybe we will get lucky and the AMOC will stall giving some cooling to the northern regions for a while.
          Or maybe we will get unlucky and get an abrupt surge of a few C in a decade.

          Remember the general secretary of the UN said the word “runaway”.
          Could be for effect, but maybe not.

          In the meantime we are headed to some kind of fossil fuel/forest burn maximum. Upslope still, Greta wants to see downslope numbers.

        2. …you’d be probably looking at the RCP8.5 scenario.

          LOL! Yeah, as it is, I probably already spend more time staring at the RCP8.5 scenario than most people…

          1. RCP 8.5 is history. If we work hard we might have a chance to get back down to it in the future.

            “•The AGGI in 2017 was 1.41, which means that we’ve turned up the warming influence by 41% since 1990.
            • It took ~240 years for the AGGI to go from 0 to 1, i.e., to reach 100%, and 26 years for it to increase by another 41%.
            •In terms of CO2 equivalents, the atmosphere in 2017 contained 493 ppm, of which 405 is CO2 alone. The rest comes from other gases”

            Of course that is if one does not fully account for the effects of sustained methane concentrations. But let’s not rattle the children further.

        3. Yeah, I’m guessing if we had a higher resolution plot of the most recent data we would find that the second derivative of that exponential function is probably not keeping steady at a constant growth rate of 2.22% but is instead increasing with time… So as GF said, getting to an RCP8.5 scenario is probably already history!

          I realize that at this point few would agree, but I think we are already seeing some of the consequences of feedbacks due to crossing certain tipping points at 1°C to 1.5°C above preindustrial base line temperatures. I don’t see any chance that we will stay under 2°C. We seem to be right on track for at least 4°C. At which point more tipping points will be crossed and more feedbacks will kick in.

          I think we might see 1500 ppm CO2 equivalent levels before all is said and done. At which point there may be around 100,000 humans left on the planet living somewhere along the coast of Antactica… Keep in mind that we are almost at 8 billion humans right now.

          Cheers!

    3. I was asking because according to the below chart by the IPCC, the RCP8.5 scenario seems unlikely, however the other projections seem unlikely too. Somewhere between RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 seems reasonable. But who knows.

      1. The declared AGGI index was 1.41 for 2017 which is 493 ppm CO2 equivalent. That puts it way above all the RCP’s.

        1. That puts it way above all the RCP’s.

          We is to be or we is not to be?
          .

          1. The reality will look much different. People will be cheering as the rate of heating slows down eventually, then it will increase again as natural feedbacks increase. Next there will be natural oscillations to titillate the news.

            Our time view frame on this is too short. It will play out over thousands of years, possibly affecting climate for the next few million.
            From our perspective, permanent.

            2. Indeed.
              Rather than oscillation,
              I have been thinking in terms of Gyration.
              Massive Gyration.
              Rapid and jolting, even considering the geologic timeframe.

            3. I was merely describing rapid changes in temperature, both positive and negative.

              Although I must admit your language is far more titillating than mine. 🙂

            4. Yes- temperature, precip variation, water levels, storm intensity.
              For example, perhaps the scenario where arctic melt fresh water disrupts the gulf stream to some extent, may come to be. Europe would then be a risk for very disruptive cold periods. Could be enough to result in reverse migration.

            5. The AMOC disruption is almost guaranteed. The length and severity of it is unknown but probably on the order of hundreds to thousands of years.
              Yes, global warming and it’s spawn, climate change, will be both a global and local phenomenon as the Earth system sorts itself out.
              But lack of food will drive most of the chaos at first.

        3. The declared AGGI index was 1.41 for 2017 which is 493 ppm CO2 equivalent.

          Yet how optimistic we all seemed even just a few years ago back around 2016…

          https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters

          How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters
          BY NICOLA JONES • JANUARY 26, 2017

          At the current rate of growth in CO2, levels will hit 500 ppm within 50 years, putting us on track to reach temperature boosts of perhaps more than 3 degrees C (5.4°F) — a level that climate scientists say would cause bouts of extreme weather and sea level rise that would endanger global food supplies, cause disruptive mass migrations, and even destroy the Amazon rainforest through drought and fire.

          Well, if nothing else, the powers that be have certainly been successful beyond their wildest dreams in pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public.

          Cheers!

      2. In BP 2019 annual energy report, they look at four global scenarios out yr 2040.
        For the “Evolving Transition” scenario, which may be the most likely to occur, they have CO2 emissions-
        2017 at 34 Gt, and
        2040 up to 37 Gt.
        I’m pretty sure that assumes no positive feedback loop action from permafrost methane and such.
        I think that scenario they are modeling is reasonable, and therefore extremely troubling.
        I am not quite so confident that the supplies of coal, oil and nat gas will hold out to the extent they predict, but perhaps we shall see.

        Big heatup is baked in the cake, nonetheless (or should I say- more than less).

        https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/energy-outlook/introduction/overview.html

        1. I would be suspicious of an oil company daring to predict it’s own demise. Which of course they do not, they predict the same and more. That’s business speak for don’t sell my stock.
          The turn down point might happen as early as 2025, when emissions peak. After that is a total guess due to the chaotic nature of the system.

          1. Sure I am suspicious of them, and all of us.
            One of the four scenarios they model has CO2 emissions peaking right about now, (and as a result much less global warming).

            I’m not sure if the report says which scenario they see as most likely.
            I think their Evolving Transition is most likely, with the exception that I don’t think we have quite so much fossil fuel to burn between 2030-2040, as that model assumes.
            But I have been wrong on this so far, with much more production/burning in the last 20 yrs, then I would have guessed at the start of that period.

            1. As I sit here during mid winter in what appears to be early spring now, with flocks of birds making forays back north, I wonder at how the relationship to this amazing world was so spurned by a supposedly intelligent species.
              A definition of insanity includes a detachment from reality. How does one explain a species that is so detached from reality it desperately makes it’s own simulacrum while struggling strongly against anything that tries to reattach it?

              Some interesting modern cave art:
              https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/new-york-citys-2nd-avenue-subway-wonderland-public-art

  46. ‘It will take off like a wildfire’: The unique dangers of the Washington state measles outbreak
    By Lena H. Sun and Maureen O’Hagan

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/it-will-take-off-like-a-wildfire-the-unique-dangers-of-the-washington-state-measles-outbreak/2019/02/06/cfd5088a-28fa-11e9-b011-d8500644dc98_story.html

    Amber Gorrow is afraid to leave her house with her infant son because she lives at the epicenter of Washington state’s worst measles outbreak in more than two decades. Born eight weeks ago, Leon is too young to get his first measles shot, putting him at risk for the highly contagious respiratory virus, which can be fatal in small children.

    Gorrow also lives in a community where she said being anti-vaccine is as acceptable as being vegan or going gluten free. Almost a quarter of kids in Clark County, Wash., a suburb of Portland, Ore., go to school without measles, mumps and rubella immunizations, and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) recently declared a state of emergency amid concern that things could rapidly spin out of control.

    Measles outbreaks have sprung up in nine other states this winter, but officials are particularly alarmed about the one in Clark County because of its potential to go very big, very quickly.

    The Pacific Northwest is home to some of the nation’s most vocal and organized anti-vaccination activists. That movement has helped drive down child immunizations in Washington, as well as in neighboring Oregon and Idaho, to some of the lowest rates in the country, with as many as 10.5 percent of kindergartners statewide in Idaho unvaccinated for measles. That is almost double the median rate nationally.

    Libertarian-leaning lawmakers, meanwhile, have bowed to public pressure to relax state laws to exempt virtually any child from state vaccination requirements whose parents object. Three states allow only medical exemptions; most others also permit religious exemptions. And 17, including Washington, Oregon and Idaho, allow what they call “philosophical” exemptions, meaning virtually anyone can opt out of the requirements.

    All those elements combine into a dangerous mix, spurring concern about the resurgence of a deadly disease that once sent tens of thousands of Americans to hospitals each year and killed an estimated 400 to 500 people, many of them young children.

  47. Upthread, Hightrekker says, in respect to future battery supply discussion, that
    “We are still stuck with lithium ion, first commercialized by the Japanese in the early 90’s.
    We are getting efficient with it, but it is the same tech.”

    And somebody else posted a comment to the effect that ICE’s will continue to get to be more expensive to manufacture.

    The ICE, despite it’s many shortcomings, has served us well, and I don’t see any reason why, barring something better coming along, that lithium ion batteries can’t serve us well indefinitely, so long as we can put our hands on enough lithium and other necessary materials. Lithium batteries may never be good enough for aircraft, other than ones that are too small to carry big loads, or go very far, etc, but we will be able to get by with them, if we must.

    And the tech that makes modern auto engines what they are is fast coming off patent, and will soon be generic, and the machinery and industrial processes used in manufacturing them is still slowly improving, and will continue to improve. They don’t necessarily HAVE to be further refined, and if and when the market for them starts shrinking, the number of manufacturers, and the number of different models and sizes of engines can and will shrink, and they will then be cheaper to build, potentially more durable, and easier to work on. A company with a factory or factories dedicated to the manufacture of such engines, and a work force trained in the job, may be able to hang on a LOT longer than an ev advocate might guess, barring ICE engines being outlawed ….. which is happening already……… but there’s no guarantee they will be outlawed globally, or even in entire nations such as China or India.

    As a farmer, I need powerful engines on a regular basis, annually, but from day to day, I can go for MONTHS without even looking at the machines they’re in. If you need a powerful tractor for only a couple of weeks a couple of times a year, and then a day once in a while the rest of the year……. will it ever be possible to economically manufacture batteries cheap enough to use them this way?

    Will the grid out into deep farm country be upgraded to several times it’s current capacity, so farmers can charge their machinery for a week or two, a couple of times a year,each of them pulling five or six or ten times the normal kilowatt load, all of them on the same DAY?

    The demise of the ICE is not necessarily within sight, but I’m willing to bet that within twenty years, nearly all new cars will be electrics, and lots of light and medium duty trucks will be as well, plus a substantial percentage of heavy duty trucks.

    Powering a drag line, or mining machine with a giant extension cord is practical, but powering a dozer climbing around on a giant pile of rocks, or thru the woods, is not. Powering a combine this way out in a hundred acre, or five hundred acre field, is not.

    1. I agree – liquid fuels are far more convenient for applications like seasonal combines. Right now synthetic fuel (from electrolytic H2 and carbon from seawater) would cost around $8-10 per gallon, while the market price for diesel is in the neighborhood of $2.50. But, synthetic fuel will get cheaper, while the market price will eventually rise to include the real costs of pollution, security, etc. At some point those price trends will cross, and diesel will go away.

        1. Ammonia could work. It has some advantages, but it’s not quite as convenient.

          Ammonia has two big advantages: it’s much easier to store than H2 (it liquefies at much higher temperatures, and it’s much larger molecules are easier to corral), and it doesn’t need carbon like synthetic hydrocarbon liquid fuels: atmospheric nitrogen is easy and cheap to use.

          But…it’s still a gas at room temperature, and it’s relatively toxic to handle. And, it would require a whole new infrastructure and substantial engine modifications. It might work well for a fleet application, like trucking or container ships, but there would be substantial barriers to scaling it up which would raise business costs.

          So I suspect that it won’t take off.

          Hydrogen is another big competitor. It has some large disadvantages, but the Japanese are determined to make it work, so who knows: we may get a hydrogen economy eventually, at least in niches where batteries don’t work as well.

  48. Global economic collapse, here we come?!

    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/venezuelas-collapse-is-a-window-into-how-the-oil-age-will-unravel-f80aadff7786

    Venezuela’s collapse is a window into how the Oil Age will unravel

    “When you look at oil companies’ presentations, there’s something that doesn’t make sense because they show their investors these beautiful investor decks with gorgeous slides indicating that they will produce an 80% or 60% internal rate of return. And then you go to the corporate level and you see that the company isn’t making money, and you wonder what happened between point A and point B.”

    In short, cheap debt-money has permitted the industry to grow — but how long that can continue is an open question. “Part of the point in writing my book was just to make people aware that as we trump at American energy independence, let’s think about some of the foundation of this [industry] and how insecure it actually is, so that we’re also planning for the future in different ways”, adds McLean.

    “planning for the future in different ways”?!

    Riiight!

    1. “planning for the future in different ways”

      IMO that would be Ed Markey and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution for a Green New Deal. When oil production goes into decline, it would be less devastating if there are alternative technologies to enable the continuation of economic activity in some form. Fortunately much of the stuff envisaged in the GND will stimulate economic activity while contributing to substantial reductions in CO2 emissions going forward.

    2. Fred,

      As far as I can tell, Venezuela is catastrophically dependent on oil exports. They’re the worst case of “dutch disease” in the world (and KSA and some others are pretty bad).

      Farming in Venezuela collapsed long ago. So did manufacturing (oil is 98% of their exports!!). The country is dependent on imports, and when their oil exports don’t bring in enough money, the country as a whole collapses.

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

      Oil companies, and oil exporting countries, will be harmed by a transition away from oil, at least in the short run. Oil consumers and oil importers will be much, much better off.

  49. If I was a youngster, I would seriously consider relocating to an an area that may be more resilient to some of the problems we see coming down the pike.
    There are thing you can’t foresee, such how a specific culture will react, but certain problems are more likely than others.
    Moving away from flood zones, and zones likely to suffer from severe heat effects is a winner.
    Moving to areas with vibrant local food production capabilities is a winner. [good soil!]
    Places with local energy production capability like hydroelectric , wind, solar, nat gas. is a winner.
    Places with a strong culture of democracy, education, rule of law and respectful people is a winner.
    Places with a climate that allows a decent quality of life even without fossil fuel is a winner.

    Of course, it depends on each person constraints such as country, family, job.
    But if possible, I’d look for a sustainable place to live.

    If there are young or mobile people interested in this topic, I’m sure some of the older folks here who have been around the block may have some good ideas on this.

    1. Why wouldn’t anyplace meeting your criterion be swamped with immigrants (refugees) as soon as things go bad? Probably the best place in the world I could recommend, New Zealand, is already having this experience. Why build a bomb shelter just so your neighbor can shoot you and have a place to hide from flying nukes.

      1. If I were still young enough I might cash in my chips of being a Brazilian national and buy a sailboat and head for the Azores. Though I’m sure what is happening in New Zealand would eventually happen there as well!

        1. E FredM,

          I (ahem) have a contact in the Azores, and I find the prospect of a sailing journey a tempting one.

          (Ahem)

          I might add that it ain’t easy to gain residence in Portugal or, I fear, its possessions.

          Time for Port

          1. They may not notice—–
            Just saying, from personal experience—
            Just be light on your feet.

          2. I might add that it ain’t easy to gain residence in Portugal or, I fear, its possessions.

            E. Synapsid,
            Ah, but as a Brazilian citizen, which I am, it is a bit less difficult and it doesn’t hurt that I speak fluent Portuguese… 😉

            https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/brasileiros-terao-mais-facilidade-para-obter-visto-de-residencia-em-portugal-23078776

            Brasileiros terão mais facilidade para obter visto de residência em Portugal.

            I could also technically live in Portugal as a member of the EU since I’m entitled to Hungarian citizenship due to my ancestry and the fact that Hungary is also a member of the EU.

            However, truth be told, I’m not a huge fan of Nation States, borders or walls! And I still can’t quite wrap my head around the complete idiocy that is BREXIT! or MAGA and a wall on the southern border. Maybe the TED talk linked below will put things in context.

            https://www.ted.com/talks/taiye_selasi_don_t_ask_where_i_m_from_ask_where_i_m_a_local?language=en

            Taiye Selasi
            |TEDGlobal 2014
            Don’t ask where I’m from, ask where I’m a local

            Cheers!
            P.S. I’m also a tax paying citizen of ‘The Good Country’
            https://goodcountry.org/

    2. Of course, it depends on each person constraints such as country, family, job.
      But if possible, I’d look for a sustainable place to live.

      For the vast majority of the almost 8 billion people currently living on this little blue ball, that may be a rather tall order! The magnitude of the ecological, economic, political and social crises coming down the pipeline will make finding any sustainable place to live almost impossible.

      ‘I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic.’
      Greta Thunberg

      Cheers!

  50. Here is a climate rant that is chock full of info that should seed further research for anyone interested and not locked into an authority framework. They say the devil is in the details, so here are some.

    How Abrupt Climate Change is Redrawing the Map
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34aqoJIQa8w

      1. Also for your consideration, possible fast release of a portion of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane.

        “Since the area of geological disjunctives (fault zones, tectonically and seismically active areas) within the Siberian Arctic shelf composes not less than 1-2% of the total area and area of open taliks (area of melt through permafrost), acting as a pathway for methane escape within the Siberian Arctic shelf reaches up to 5-10% of the total area, we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause ∼12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.”

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/05/7-facts-need-to-know-arctic-methane-time-bomb

        For anyone who has done their homework, 12 times the atmospheric burden of methane makes human induced climate change pale in comparison even over a century. Of course the resulting fast temperature rise would further stimulate all the feedbacks.
        The devil is in the details. I go with the Arctic experts.

          1. “The current atmospheric venting flux, which is composed of a diffusive component and a gradual ebullition component, is on par with previous estimates of methane venting from the entire World Ocean. ”

            And then the pimple pops…

  51. Does anybody here have any recent figures that they believe are reliable on the average cost of installing homeower pv systems now, as compared to say five or ten years ago?

    I read sometime back that in Germany, a typical turnkey homeowner system cost only half as much as it does in the USA, because the Germans have better streamlined, consistent building codes, their inspectors and contractors are thoroughly familiar with the rules, there’s more competition for the work , etc.
    So the question is, are we Yankees catching up, or not, in terms of turnkey installation costs for pv?

    I’m thinking that the actual panels in and of themselves are now cheap enough that even if the price of them falls by half again, it’s not going to have a really big impact on the price of an installed system. The savings from here on out, if any, are going to consist on savings on the racks, wiring, permits, etc, and above all, the labor.

    I’m planning on doing a system of my own, and installing it myself, with maybe a little help on wiring inverters, etc, but with panel and inverter prices still falling, I’m better off delaying my own system, from one year to the next. Our local utility is one of the most reliable in the country, and I have backup power, my own generators. I don’t average using them for backup more than one day every three or four years, maybe not even that much, so backup is no problem at all for me, even if the generator IS a gasoline hog.

  52. Scientist have estimated that it would cost $2.4 trillion per year to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45775309

    Unfortunately at the moment global investment in renewable energy is only a fraction of that amount, at around $220 billion per year.

    It is hardly surprising people do not care about the world when they don’t care about themselves, or spend their money on idiocy instead of saving the planet for their children and grand children.

    https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2018/global-military-spending-remains-high-17-trillion

    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-global-alcoholic-beverages-market-is-accounted-for-1324-1-billion-in-2017-and-is-expected-to-reach-1864-2-billion-by-2026-growing-at-a-cagr-of-3-9-during-the-forecast-period-300683131.html

    http://www.worldometers.info/drugs/

    The Global sports industry is worth around $500- $600 billion each year.

    The health related costs of alcohol is $250 billion for the US alone.

    https://www.cdc.gov/features/costsofdrinking/index.html

    How did we ever get to be the top of the tree

    1. And, by 2025, world population will be over 8 billion people. Around 2040 it could hit 9 billion. Which is good; we need more people to drive all those EVs to the mall and keep our economy growing.

    2. “How did we ever get to be the top of the tree”-

      Many answers here.
      1. We didn’t. We cut the tree down.
      2. By way of an impulsive and cruel nature that exceeded all other creatures.
      3. Because girls are so damn sexy (and our memories are short).

    3. “It is hardly surprising people do not care about the world when they don’t care about themselves”

      Oh, they care about themselves alright! I was shocked to hear the flamboyant CEO of a local model agency at an event I was working at, bragging during a speech that the fashion industry is one of the largest in the world, specifically claiming that it was larger than several industries which one would have thought were bigger, the auto industry in particular. He mentioned that the fashion industry includes textiles, apparel, footwear, jewelry and cosmetics. McKinsey & Company in a report on the Fashion Industry for 2017 stated that the size of the industry was $2.4 trillion, that puts it above energy and right up there with food.

      So we spend more on “looking good” than we do on energy or transport or health or education. Sounds about right! Who gives a rats ass about the planet as long as we look good while we trash it!

      1. Yep, people spend as much on clothing as food and even more on entertainment. Yet many Americans can not cover an extra $500 expense. Go figure.
        Meanwhile, they have the biggest military, are planning moonbases, and seem to have enough money to build unnecessary walls while the bridges and roads crumble.
        Must be the mercury.

      2. So according to Hugo’s post:

        Scientist have estimated that it would cost $2.4 trillion per year to avoid catastrophic climate change.

        And in Islandboy’s we find out, that, that is the equivalent of one year’s spending on fashion.

        McKinsey & Company in a report on the Fashion Industry for 2017 stated that the size of the industry was $2.4 trillion, that puts it above energy and right up there with food.

        We obviously can’t afford to spend $2.4 trillion per year to save ourselves…
        Let alone our children!

        1. Fred –

          That’s the most perceptive & penetrating (and best illustrated) comment to appear on this Blog in the past year, if not longer.

          I salute you.

          Cheers,

        2. Fred, you know, I was so absorbed with trying to find a figure that supported the model agency CEO’s boastful claim that the fashion industry is one of the biggest in the world, that it completely escaped my attention that the figure given by McKinsey and the scientist’s estimate of what it would cost per year to avoid catastrophic climate change, were exactly the same! Good catch!

          It’s depressing. Earlier today I watched the following video, which Youtube brought up after a video featuring a drag race between the new generation (150 mile) Nissan Leaf and a Ford Fiesta ST:

          Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt runs in fear from a debate, a clip from the television program Stossel, on Fox Business, hosted by libertarian John Frank Stossel.

          It was chock full of Koch brothers funded anti renewable, global warming denier talking points, exactly the same tired, warn out, half truths and outright falsehoods that the majority of Republicans spout whenever renewable energy or climate change is brought up. If any readers find my characterization of Republicans objectionable, I’m sorry but your party hierarchy and Fox News has sold out to Charles Koch, Bob Murray. and their ilk. These folks keep on saying that climate alarmists are promoting the idea of global warming in order to keep funding coming in while they conveniently ignore the elephant in the room. FF interests have had a very good ride and have generated a huge amount of wealth from the burning of FF. It is the FF interests that have hired the same people who misinformed the world about the dangers of cigarette smoking to cast doubt on the science of global warming.

          It is pretty obvious to me when one applies the principle of “Cui bono?” ( “to whom is it a benefit?”). I have always been skeptical of people offering me advice when they stand to personally benefit from said advice so, I see through all this bullshit. I just find amazing how many people cannot see that they are being played by some very, very wealthy folks, at the expense of the future of many of the species that call this planet home, possibly with the inclusion of Homo Sapiens!

          As a side note. Here in the tropics, when I was younger you would never see lights without flocks of moths and other flying insects around them. There is a lizard (or two) that has hung out in my apartment for as long as I can remember, waiting to catch insects that are attracted by the lights. He (they) must be getting very hungry because I don’t see moths anymore. Up to not so long ago, an occasional large moth (2-3 inch wingspan) would find it’s way inside my apartment and try to fly back out through the small glass windows above the louvers. I just realized that I haven’t seen one for a while! I wonder if it has anything to do with the vector (mosquito) control program, carried out by the Ministry of Health in a effort to reduce the spread of mosquito borne diseases that, involves aerial spraying (fogging) of entire communities?

          I also notice that I haven’t heard the characteristic calls of owls as the fly around the area of the city where I live. I’m wondering if it’s a seasonal thing, despite the fact that we don’t experience winter, or whether they are gone for good? I wonder if any of my fellow countrymen are noticing these things?

          1. Have had the same problem with absence of insects, frogs, snakes, owls and diminishment of birds here for years. In an area well known for it’s insect and bird populations.
            I think that mosquito control is part of it. Agricultural toxins also.
            The ecology is heavily disrupted in many places.

          2. Some years ago there was a big outbreak of Dengue, down here. A contract was given out for aerial spraying. It turned out that the sprayer was a relative of the official that awarded the contract and used a cheaper insecticide that was not effective on mosquitoes. They had a public holiday in government camp.

            The normal practice, here, is to spray at times when mosquitoes are active but other species are not. Normally the trucks come around early evening as it is getting dark.

            NAOM

        3. I don’t know about that. Moaning about the less than dollar a day it takes to keep us clothed, shod, teeth brushed, hair done and making women pretty enough to look at is looking the wrong way.
          Sure the clothing and cosmetics companies charge huge markups on everything, but where else you going to get clothing?

          However, the ones that should be paying are the big corporations. Amazon made huge profits and paid no taxes, same with Netflix. Corporate income tax only amounts ot 8 percent of federal taxes. I would say a large portion comes from small to medium businesses.
          There are so many gimmicks and loopholes that corporations can use while regular citizens cannot that it is about time they started pulling their weight.
          If they move out to another country, tax their imports or ban their products.

          Let’s hit the big boys with a renewable tax that is not avoidable and that goes directly to putting in solar and wind energy along with energy storage systems.

          Later on you can grab that less than a dollar a day and add on those carbon taxes (which will go who knows where).

    1. Not the ideal vehicle for trips to the backcountry in winter. Without any place to plug in the car the battery will lose too much energy in the cold trying to keep itself heated.

      1. Yeah, when I think about many of the trips I have made, EV’s would have turned into expensive decorations needing to be towed away. Never would have even gotten there on some of them.

        1. I’d say business opportunity for mobile charging. Couple of Tesla grid grade battery units plus a charging station on the back of a flatbed.

          NAOM

        2. Not the perfect solution, especially in very cold weather, in warmer weather it is not much of a problem. At some point there will be more widely available chargers.

  55. Amazon To Invest In Electric Pickups, SUVs

    Electric truck and SUV startup Rivian just announced that its $700 million funding round is being led by Amazon. The tech giant said that it’s inspired by the electric pickup and SUV the company revealed in November at the Los Angeles Auto Show, but there seems to be more in it for the company.

    Amazon, like many global corporation, expects that electrified transportation will eventually become sizable with government emissions mandates increasing. But there’s another important angle for the company. Led by founder Jeff Bezos, Amazon has been quietly and steadily increasing its presence in the automotive sector — and clearly sees its role expanding as a leader in logistic and delivery.

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Amazon-To-Invest-In-Electric-Pickups-SUVs.html

  56. https://electrek.co/2019/02/19/tesla-powerwall-mindshare-home-battery-report/

    Solar installations are running wild down under, the explanation being that one , utility juice is expensive, and two, the sun is super reliable, very few cloudy days, and home owners can make great use of their solar juice running air conditioning etc, so they come out smelling like a rose financially even without much in the way of storage capacity for night time needs.

    I wonder how long it will be before people in places like the American southwest find it in their best interests, in dollars and cents, to get on the solar band wagon like the Aussies.

    Things sure do look good for battery companies, at least for the next few years.

    It might take five or ten years for manufacturing capacity to catch up with potential demand, enabling manufacturers to score high markups on their production……. which will then enable them to partially finance the expansion of their own manufacturing plants.

    1. “I wonder how long it will be before people in places like the American southwest find it in their best interests, in dollars and cents, to get on the solar band wagon like the Aussies. ”

      Somewhere around half (or more now?) of Australians live right around Sydney and Melbourne, with Annual Solar DNI of 4.7 and 4.2 Kwh/m2 respectively.
      For comparison, the area of Roanoke -Lynchburg-Danville VA gets about 4.5!
      Georgia averages about 4.7
      Florida (and Dallas Tx) 5.0
      Calif majority ranges 5 to 8
      as examples.
      Much of America has very good solar resource.

      1. Grid juice is cheaper here in the states, as far as I know. That has play a big role in our lagging behind.

        True enough about us Yankees having a good solar resource, on average, but having a GREAT solar resource such as in the better parts of California means production can be from fifty to upwards of a hundred percent higher than just GOOD , and THAT makes all the difference in the world when looking at the bang you buy with your solar dollar.

        You could afford to pay as much as twice for a system in California as you could in my neighborhood, and get the same return on your money, considering that utility rates are higher in California than here, production would be up from fifty to maybe even ninety percent, and the costs of a turn key installation are so far as I have seen, comparable.
        Wages are higher there, but the permitting process is easier, with contractors and inspectors being familiar with the regulations, and there’s more competition for the work.

        I don’t consider tax breaks in my discussion of this cost comparison because not everybody can get them, and anyway they are always eventually phased out. A tax break does not truly mean you get something for less money, it just shifts the cost of it to other people…… who are doing all they can to get tax breaks of their own, so as to shift THEIR costs to YOU. Talking about tax breaks just muddies the water.

        And then a large part of our lagging behind may be that a cultural or economic trend has to achieve a certain critical mass before it takes off, and lots of people get on the wagon simply because they see their neighbors doing the same thing. This observation seems to hold true about a number of things such as hot tubs, swimming pools, suv’s as opposed to sedans, etc. It may hold true for solar as well, not too many years down the road.

        This does not mean I oppose solar subsidies, however. I can’t get any, but I do understand that because other people can, solar will eventually be cheaper for everybody, me included.

        1. True enough.
          Yet at some point the SE and SW usa are going to be plastered in PV.

        2. Solar subsidies are more meaningful than that.

          The fact that solar doesn’t pollute, reduces transmission costs, and is domestic has a real value. Pollution in particular should be “internalized” in the cost of products. The change in cost and prices would create different incentives for consumers, and allocate purchasing dollars better. Ideally fossil fuels would be taxed to level the playing field, but solar subsidies are 2nd best.

          That means that fossil fuels should be taxed forever, or solar/wind should be subsidized forever, not just to get the industry off the ground.

  57. 1473 — Astronomer Nicholas Copernicus lives. Blasphemer who foolishly postulated the theory that Man is not the center of the universe.

  58. Meteorological Spring in the Northern Hemisphere is supposed to start on March 1. But not this year, it seems.

    1. An alternate model covering more area shows mostly the same thing.

      1. Bob sure does see blue easily, but he can’t see red! I’m going to ask my eye doc about that, cause maybe it’s catching. I’ve noticed that lots of people can see red selectively, when they want to, but not at other times.

        1. Well, I’m in the red zone, South Florida, and it feels like mid July! I went for a walk down the street the other day and was struck by noticeable hum of thousands of air conditioners… in the middle of February! The weather sure has been strange lately…
          Cheers!

        2. Apparently Blue Blob Bob also can’t see all the deep red above the 60th parallel. Strange that!

      2. Winters have been getting longer in the midwest as spring starts later under the new emerging climate pattern. My fear is, in 20 or so years, crops grown there today will need to shift south because there won’t be a long enough period in spring that’s warm and dry enough to get all the cropland planted.

        1. I’m not sure how to sweet about this-
          Just Wrong on this Cameron.

          The Length of Growing Season is getting longer all throughout the Midwest.
          In fact, in the period of 1895-2015 only Georgia and Alabama have experienced a shortening of growing season, out of the lower 48.
          All of the lengthening in the growing season has occurred since 1980.
          “The average length of the growing season in the contiguous 48 states has increased by nearly two weeks since the beginning of the 20th century. A particularly large and steady increase occurred over the last 30 years (see Figure 1).”

          This is very easy reading, with nice big charts. Should be easy to comprehend,
          even though it is science.

          https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-length-growing-season

          “During the growing season, temperatures are projected to climb more in the Midwest than in any other region of the U.S., the report says.”,
          this from the -Federal Climate Change Report
          https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-climate-change-report-midwest-20181123-story.html

          or perhaps you’d like a third source regarding Midwest agriculture in particular-
          https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/midwest

          I particularly recommend the last source for valuable info on the Midwest agricultural climate ramifications.

          1. Here is a situation where anecdotal evidence is better. What the data shows is that due to the warm west/cold east dipole blocking setup during the winter that’s become more common this decade (the phenomenon is well known at many WX enthusiasts forums, which often don’t allow the discussion of politics such as climate change, by the way) the month of April is getting wetter, snowier and colder. All of these conditions cause fields to not dry out and warm up to desirable planting conditions until later than they used to.

            1. Here is a situation where anecdotal evidence is better.

              Either provide a link to peer reviewed science or take a hike!

            2. Cameron- ” is a situation where anecdotal evidence is better. What the data shows”
              Take a pick, you can’t have it both ways.
              If you want to go with anecdotes or belief systems, just say so.
              If you want to go with data- then open up your f_cking eyes and quit pretending that you just don’t see.

              btw- it is entirely possible that with global warming will come wetter springs in the midwest, with muddy fields and cool soils. And then just when corn is in the vulnerable tassel (pollen shedding) phase, it will get too hot for good pollination with poor seed set. Not good. Thats the kind of scenario you be worrying about.

  59. Patent Suggests Tesla Is On Cusp Of Battery Chemistry Breakthrough

    TESLA’S BATTERY TECH MAY SOON IMPROVE — HERE’S WHY

    The Tesla battery research group, led by renowned battery boffin Jeff Dahn, has applied for a patent on a new battery cell chemistry that the company says could deliver faster charging, longer life and lower cost.

    I will be very surprised if Tesla does not announce significant performance improvements and price reductions in batteries it manufactures by the end of this year!

    1. “I will be very surprised if Tesla does not announce significant performance improvements and price reductions in batteries it manufactures by the end of this year!”

      You sound like a Tesla salesman. Are you suggesting we should wait until the end of the year to buy a Tesla? BTW, all major auto makers have been making similar announcements. For example: “As automakers commit to building more electric cars, the search for better batteries is ongoing. Honda claims to have made a major breakthrough in that area. Working with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the Japanese automaker claims to have developed a new battery chemistry called fluoride-ion that could outperform current lithium-ion batteries, with a less-severe environmental impact.”

      http://www.thedrive.com/tech/25354/honda-claims-breakthrough-in-new-battery-tech-that-offers-longer-range-greener-operation

      TESLA WORKERS SAY THEY PAY THE PRICE FOR ELON MUSK’S BIG PROMISES

      “The CEO is known for outsized claims and ambitious goals. But numerous factory workers say he doesn’t follow through – and that his leadership sets a troubling tone.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-workers-pay-price-elon-musk-failed-promises

      2. “You sound like a Tesla salesman”

        Sorry about that. 🙁 To think, I was concerned that I should steer clear of anything that might be construed as investment advice! Oh how I wish I had invested in Tesla at IPO time! I knew all about them but, just didn’t think of asking my cousin, a retired Wall St. tax accountant, to help me sort it out. I would have been sitting pretty now. 🙁

        On a serious note, it’s just that I follow Tesla closely and see their operations and leadership as far more aggressive on the technology front than anybody else. I have also gotten a bit confused in thinking this was news when, on further investigation, this was reported two weeks ago:

        New Battery Cell Patented By Tesla: Faster Charging, Lower Cost

        There is far more detail in the earlier story, complete with a summary of the patent application. With the news of the Maxwell acquisition coming out about the same time as the earlier story but, an analysis coming out just four days ago, followed by this re-hashing of the original battery patent story, I am going to have to be more careful in the future about relaying news from insideevs.com. I do not understand why they are dredging up two week old news. Maybe they were anticipating a slow news day?

  60. The saga continues—-

    The UN, the Red Cross and Caritas already have aid distribution projects within Venezuela. They reject the U.S. aid delivery as a political stunt. The International Committee of the Red Cross recently doubled its budget for Venezuela to $18 million and is ready to provide more. Last week 933 tonnes of medicines from Cuba and China arrived. Another 300 tons from Russia is supposed to arrive today.

    The Venezuelan government has had enough time to game out how best to respond to the breach attempt of the border. It needs to block the roads AND it needs to prevent provocations. Trump likes walls on the border. Venezuela should give them to him.

      2. Roger Waters @rogerwaters – 22:57 utc – 18 Feb 2019
        The Red Cross and the UN, unequivocally agree, don’t politicize aid. Leave the Venezuelan people alone to exercise their legal right to self determination.

    1. I suspect that going over the top with charges did not help, trying to set them up as terrorists was a bad idea. Maybe they would have succeeded with lesser charges.

      NAOM

      1. Possibly–
        But nasty corporations are in it for the kill.
        Unfortunately for them, they got killed.

        1. More like shooting oneself with Elephant gun to both feet.

          NAOM

          Edited for clarity i.e. I forgot something – oops!

  64. If one wanders and searches, one may think of finding treasures. The treasures can be beautiful sunsets, a pileated woodpecker family visiting at dawn, the sounds of crickets and frogs, or an alpine meadow of spring flowers.
    This find may not be treasure chest but it is at least a bag full of gems.
    On YouTube as Day’s Edge Productions
    I recommend End of Snow, The Passage, any of the Anomaly films and Snows of the Nile.
    Haven’t found a bad one yet.
    Enjoy.

  65. West coast offshore wind could develop into a huge industry.
    Its deep water, but the wind resource is world class- better than anything onshore in the USA.
    Here is an article giving the short story, and the full report which lays out the industry prospects, including a very large job creation component-

    https://nawindpower.com/report-california-offshore-could-spur-a-new-wave-of-innovation-in-the-state

    http://americanjobsproject.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-California-Offshore-Wind-Project.pdf

  66. One of the most powerful snowstorms (in living memory) is about to impact North & Central Arizona thru the next 3 days. Flagstaff west to Williams looks likely to see 2 ft+; Seligman area a foot and a half+; Winslow maybe up to a foot. The forecast calls for almost unprecedented snowfall in many locations. I somehow doubt I-40 is going to remain open the whole time, because driving is going to be very difficult & dangerous. Damned global warming. 😉 😀

    1. Even Minnesota is seeing a record snow which when we get snowstorms like this where I live I hear people at my work joke about having to shovel up a big helping of global warming off their driveways.

      Record For Snowiest February Broken, More Snow Expected This Weekend

      https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2019/02/20/record-for-snowiest-february-broken-twin-cities-more-snow-expected-this-weekend/

      It’s official. This is the snowiest February ever recorded in the Twin Cities.

      By noontime Wednesday, the snowstorm swirling over Minnesota had dumped 7.8 inches on the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, where the metro’s official snow totals are measured.

      The Wednesday morning snow put the Twin Cities over 26.5 inches of snow, all-time the February snow record set back in 1962. The metro is now at 30.4 inches of snow, and counting. (By the way, the last time Minnesota saw over 30 inches of snow in a single month, the Metrodome roof collapsed.)

      According to meteorologist Matt Brickman, this February is already one of the top 10 snowiest months the Twin Cities has ever seen. Additionally, if about seven more inches of snow falls in the next eight days, this month will be the snowiest the metro has experienced in more than 30 years.

    3. Yep, just the sort of weather produce by climate change caused by global warming, good example of its effects.

      NAOM

  67. I don’t have any well thought out ideas as to how it could be done, but perhaps we ought to find ways to heavily promote wind and solar power in places with the very best resources, as a matter of national policy, as being in the best interests of the country as a whole.

    Consider for example that a solar farm, optimally located, in California, will produce very close to twice as much juice, everything else equal, as one in my neck of the woods.

    So if we can get twice the bang for the solar buck in California, as opposed to Virginia, maybe we should selectively subsidize California solar, and leave their federal taxes as is, while very slightly lowering federal taxes in other states. This would mean in essence they pay for the subsidy, over time, since they get the juice, while the entire country benefits from using a little less coal, natural gas, and oil, thereby reducing pollution, and postponing the day prices will go up due to depletion.

    This sort of scheme would in essence be the flip side of the scheme whereby various industries and companies can buy and sell pollution permits, thus allowing industry as a whole to reduce pollution more efficiently as measured in dollar costs.

    If anybody has links to articles about such ideas, please post them, and thanks in advance.

    1. ” maybe we should selectively subsidize California solar, and leave their federal taxes as is, while very slightly lowering federal taxes in other states. This would mean in essence they pay for the subsidy, over time, since they get the juice, while the entire country benefits from using a little less coal, natural gas, and oil, thereby reducing pollution, and postponing the day prices will go up due to depletion.”

      So you want all the benefits of solar, fossil fuel reduction and costs savings while someone else pays for it. Your not stupid, just selfish.

      1. My little helper is back, lol.

        He’s incapable of getting it.

        But I think maybe the rest of us will get it, that the people of California would be getting the juice, at a low price, because the REST of the country subsidized the California solar industry, in exchange for a slightly lower tax rate.

        The solar industry would grow faster, thereby eventually making solar cheaper everywhere.

        Win for everybody, excepting anybody with skin in fossil fuels. Old HB has bragged about making a killing in the ff biz.

        We have a NATIONAL stake in reducing ff use, and the best way to reduce it, other than conservation, is to spend our money on renewable energy at the places we get the biggest return for each dollar invested.

        Whoever gets the investment, locally, gets the local tax revenue, local jobs, and the extra supply of electricity, helping keep local rates down.

        The rest of us, for subsidizing this investment for them, get a tax break offsetting the subsidy, which is denied to the locals who get the immediate benefits of local tax revenue, local jobs, cheaper electricity.

        EVERYBODY benefits from lower total pollution and cheaper gas and oil, to the extent that solar power displaces oil and gas. That doesn’t amount to very much right now, but renewable electricity will eventually allow us to use a lot LESS scarce, expensive, polluting and depleting oil, gas, and coal.

        Note that I have not claimed that I know just how to go about implementing this idea. I posted it asking for links about any similar ideas. It’s not original, I’ve encountered it before, but I can’t remember where.

        1. “Old HB has bragged about making a killing in the ff biz”

          Albemarle Corp NYSE: ALB

          Albemarle Corporation is a global developer, manufacturer and marketer of highly-engineered specialty chemicals. The Company operates through three segments: Lithium and Advanced Materials, Bromine Specialties and Refining Solutions. Lithium and Advanced Materials segment consist of two product categories: Lithium and Performance Catalyst Solutions.
          Price $88.44
          Day’s Change 5.63 (6.80%)

          🙂 Making lots of money today. Eat your heart out want-a-be coal burner. BTW how is your Tesla stock doing ? Oh I forgot, you don’t have any.

    2. OFM.
      I have often thought the same thing.
      To a large extent the market does result in wind being built where it is windiest, and big solar installations where it is sunniest, because the energy developers look for those financial sweet spots.

      What isn’t an appropriate allocation of subsidy money, in my opinion, is at the residential level.
      In effect its public money and it should go to buy the most energy.
      A PV installation on a cloudy roof gets a subsidy just as easily as on a sunny roof.
      Its determined more on the financial wherewithal of the homeowner- can they afford the debt or cash it takes to finance a project, rather than how good the solar output would be.

      1. Agreed,

        We don’t know how to do it right, in terms of economic and social policy, but we certainly know how to do it wrong!

        1. Actually, we do know how to do it right. Just tax fossil fuels to reflect their real costs of pollution, supply insecurity, etc.

          Those are big costs, and if we actually imposed taxes that reflected those costs we’d give wind, solar, EVs, insulation, efficiency, etc., etc., the boost they need.

          It’s a market approach: just price things properly, and people will invest in the right things. If an area has bad sunlight, it won’t get as much investment, and so on.

          It’s simple and effective, which is why FF interests are desperately determined to kill it. It’s no accident that a primary Republican mantra is “no new taxes”!!

          And that’s why we do subsidies: they’re not nearly as targeted or as efficient, but they’re much better than nothing.

          1. Talking about FF interests being desperate to kill any action on climate change mitigation, specifically as it relates to a transition to renewable energy, take a look at what the FF supporting media is reporting down under!

            Murdoch media attacks rooftop solar, gets its numbers hopelessly wrong

            The Murdoch media has launched another major attack against rooftop solar, with a front page lead in The Australian newspaper using hopelessly misleading numbers to inflate the cost of the federal government rebate.

            The article says the cost of the federal small scale renewable energy scheme (SRES) is “added to all electricity bills” and is likely to increase from $134 a year to $185 a year for each and every household. (And the article was replicated across the Murdoch empire and other media).

            Just to be clear, the Australian Energy Market Commission, no great fan of the SRES scheme, estimates the cost of the SRES to be $32 a year per household in 2018/19, soaring, and we mean soaring, to (gulp) $34 in 2019/20 and $36 in 2020/21. (See table and graph below).

      2. Hickory I’m disappointed in you for falling for this Trump style con that subsidizes more polluting fossil fuel. Globe warming is not a regional problem. Maybe that’s why it’s not called “regional warming”. Everyone has to transform away from burning fossil fuel. Not just half the human race. Read Nick’s post above on the subject, he has it right.

        “postponing the day prices will go up due to depletion.”

        “while very slightly lowering federal taxes in other states”

        Stopping fossil fuel depletion is the only resolve to globe warming. OFM’s idea doesn’t stop burning fossil fuel. It just subsidizes those who burn because of lower prices and taxes. It also doesn’t subsidize those who switch away from burning because they are charged higher base taxes offsetting the solar installation subsidy.

        1. Hey Huntington. Good job ALB, I’ve watching that.
          I don’t see where OFM called for more fossil.
          Overall, I do agree with him that we could be doing the
          carrot and stick thing better (subsidies and taxes).
          By better I mean getting the most renewable energy for the buck.
          I like the idea of a carbon tax, with all the revenue going to clean energy, whether it is insulation, better appliances, PV, EV, etc.
          But the payouts shouldn’t be skewed toward the wealthy.

          1. Fairness is important, no question.

            But…effectiveness and speed may be more important, when it comes to getting rid of fossil fuels. If you’re going to give subsidies to help reduce FF consumption some of them will have to go to the affluent, because they consume a lot of energy.

            Of course, if you just tax carbon and fuels you don’t have a big problem, for the same reason: the affluent consume a lot of energy, so they’ll pay a disproportionate share of the tax.

            And carbon/fuel taxes help reduce consumption, which is a much faster, cheaper and better way to reduce FF pollution.

            The simple way to make fairness part of the transition is to send some of the carbon tax revenue to low income folks, maybe by reducing social security taxes.

    3. West biased solar in Cali, east biased in Florida, southern in Texas/Arizona, you could get a good level playing field of solar for an extra 3 hrs nationwide with a good supergrid structure. None of HB’s crap, just good business making it where it’s best and selling it where it’s needed. Just needs the national co-ordination.

      NAOM

      1. “just good business making it where it’s best and selling it where it’s needed”

        Holy Crap, California, Florida, Texas and Arizona are decades away from excess solar power. Storage will be more economical.

        HB

        1. That’s why it needs the nation to give it a good boot start.

          NAOM

      2. PV Belongs behind the Meter. You have been warned. The Electrical Grid is not as corrupt as government yet, but you can smell the money.

        1. The Electrical Grid is not as corrupt as government yet, but you can smell the money.

          Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely! Which is why we need decentralised power production, aka smart microgrids, distributed wind and solar and EV and home batteries being part of the energy storage solution. We also need more people to understand that the current fossil fuel based infinite growth based economic system is a big part of the problem.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylU24COa0sc
          Historian Rutger Bregman Exposes Tucker Carlson’s Fraud

          Cheers!

  69. The Bizarre Planets That Could Be Humanity’s New Homes
    Charlie Jane Anders

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/space-colonies-on-tidally-locked-planets/582661/

    Imagine going to live on a planet where the sun never moves in the sky. No sunrise, no sunset.

    Several years ago, I became obsessed with tidally locked planets. The notion of a world permanently caught between two extremes—with one half always illuminated, the other always in the dark—took hold of my imagination. I realized that planets like these were the surest bet in the search for Earth-like places that our descendants could settle on. Worlds of eternal darkness and never-ending sunlight could be the future of the human race—if we’re serious about living in other solar systems.

    Astronomers believe that most of the planets in our galaxy that have Earth-like temperatures are likely to be tidally locked. Because their orbital period is the same as their period of rotation, these planets will always present the same face to their sun—just as we always see the same side of the moon, as it orbits Earth.

    And the reason for this glut of tidally locked worlds is pretty simple. Up to three-quarters of suns in our galaxy are red dwarfs, or “M-dwarfs,” smaller and cooler than our sun. Any planet orbiting one of these M-dwarfs would need to be much closer to its star to support human life—as close as Mercury is to our sun. And at that distance, the star’s gravity would pull it into a tidally locked orbit.

    For now, talking about these planets means indulging in speculation—which is the perfect situation for a science-fiction writer. But we are learning enough about the dynamics of tidally locked worlds to start to understand how they would work, and what kind of civilization we could build there.

    1. The wind power potential on a tidally locked planet would blow you away, pun intended!

      And if there were high mountains, above most clouds, so would the solar power potential!

      1. Solar would be way down due to the spectrum being moved to the red, silicon likes the blue end of the spectrum. There’s a reason they are called ‘Red’ Dwarfs 😉

        NAOM

    2. Sounds pretty farfetched and dumb to me. If we somehow figure out how to travel between stars, we should be able to choose better planets.

      1. If we somehow figure out how to travel between stars, we should be able to choose better planets.

        Totally agree. But the wind would surely blow hard and steady in some places at or near the transition zone from light to dark, and the sun would be out 24 7 for solar power, lol.

        1. “If we somehow figure out how to travel between stars–”
          Well, there is a thing called “the speed of light”, dismissed by all “space travelers”.
          Obviously easily dismissed–

        2. You mean methane/nitrogen winds, right? Water vapor would freeze out on the cold side, CO2 would solidify, oxygen would liquefy.
          High reactive mineral activity on the hot side would remove atmosphere or at certain conditions cause the atmosphere to oscillate in components.

          At best there would be a permanent glacier on the dark side and any oxygen formed would be consumed by the hot spot on the sun side. Certainly there would not be enough life capable area to produce enough oxygen in any case.

          Not sure why anyone would want to live in such a place, even the narrow twilight zone. A slight wobble could be devastating to permanent positions.

          1. Hi GF,

            I’m sure you know a lot more about such things than I do, so the odds are very high you are right.

            I should have put smiley faces on my original comments, as they were intended as humor more than as serious observations.

            Orbital mechanics in particular and astronomy in general are barely mentioned in passing in ag classes, lol.

            Back in the dark ages, were expected to know just about enough astronomy to understand annual seasonal changes, and a little about long term changes that involve the brightness of the sun and Milankovich cycles and such, a little about long term climate change, and that was about all.

            But if I were an undergrad again, I could take most of my junior and senior courses in physics and biochemistry and become a specialist in engineering artificial leaves, lol.

    3. I realized that planets like these were the surest bet in the search for Earth-like places that our descendants could settle on. Worlds of eternal darkness and never-ending sunlight could be the future of the human race—if we’re serious about living in other solar systems.

      Forgive me for lacking imagination but, I’ve thought about this briefly and the challenge of interstellar travel seems like a really difficult nut to crack. I looked up the figures for the spacecraft that mankind has launched that are traveling at the highest speed. If we use the speed of the New Horizons Probe it would take 78.6 thousand years to get to the nearest star and if we use the projected maximum speed of the Parker Solar Probe it would still take 6,580 years.

      When one considers that interstellar travel on a human timescale will require speeds at least a thousand times faster than anything mankind has ever built, that will have to be accelerated to that speed and decelerated as the destination is approached, one can begin to grasp the scope of the challenge. This is just travel to the closest stars that I’ve considered!

      I think we stand a better chance of learning how to communicate with dolphins and getting their take on how we can save this pale blue dot, spaceship Earth!

  70. The choice has been made by many to continue the use of natural gas as a primary energy source. Yes, it might be less polluting than coal but not as far as global warming goes. The CO2 combined with direct methane leakage is putting civilization and most of the species on the planet at high risk. Choosing to allow undersea frozen sludge and permafrost (more than 20 percent of all land surface) be the determinant of future climate is a stupid idea. But that is the choice an we will probably be using it 40 to 80 years from now.
    Only the instantaneous global warming potential is consistent with
    honest and responsible greenhouse gas accounting
    Abstract.
    This paper presents a simple model to describe the impact on global warming of methane (natural gas) when used for energy production. The model is used to estimate the near-term effect of energy policies based on natural gas as a bridge fuel. The results make it clear that the commonly employed global warming potential of methane with a 100-year time horizon has the following problems:
    1: it produces misleading results;
    2: is inconsistent with meaningful tracking of greenhouse gas emissions; and
    3: is incompatible with the precautionary principle.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325021153_Only_the_instantaneous_global_warming_potential_is_consistent_with_honest_and_responsible_greenhouse_gas_accounting/fulltext/5af1e081a6fdcc24364b8349/325021153_Only_the_instantaneous_global_warming_potential_is_consistent_with_honest_and_responsible_greenhouse_gas_accounting.pdf?origin=publication_detail

    1. BAU until we hit the wall. That is what we humans are going to do.

  71. SOIL CARBON MAY NOT BE AS STABLE AS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT

    “Increased plant growth caused by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide is associated with higher rates of carbon dioxide release from soil. If rising carbon dioxide enhances soil carbon storage at all, the effect will be small. Soil carbon may not be as stable as previously thought, and soil microbes exert more direct control on carbon buildup than global climate models represent.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-04-soil-carbon-stable-previously-thought.html#jCp

    1. Another day, another feedback. With known unknowns and unknown unknowns this is just spiraling out of control. We must question if Earth has taken over and the future is now out of our hands.

      NAOM

  72. With temperatures rising rapidly toward 50F under a clear blue sky today, I can’t wait for that Chilly Blob prediction to bring down the temps to more seasonal range. Used to have cold in the winter season here.
    Here comes the sun.
    BTW, spring is not determined by temperature but by the plane of the equator passing through the center of the sun. About 12 hours day 12 hours night, called the equinox.

    1. With temperatures rising rapidly toward 50F under a clear blue sky today, I can’t wait for that Chilly Blob prediction to bring down the temps to more seasonal range.

      High Temps here in south Florida hovering around 83 °F today, which is about 5 °F above normal average high temperatures for this time of year. Problem is that it isn’t cooling down much overnight so all the snowbirds who don’t know how to open a window, are running their ACs non stop.

      Can’t wait for summer!

  73. I think they should study the issue for a few more decades rather than doing anything rash. Meanwhile, pedophile priests can always say a few Hail Marys and be issued “simple condemnations”.

    POPE FRANCIS: CONCRETE ACTION NEEDED AGAINST CHILD ABUSE AT CHURCH

    Pope Francis has said the world expects “concrete measures” to tackle child sexual abuse by priests and not only “simple and obvious condemnations”.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47316294

      1. Rome survived Caligula and Nero, and the harm now being done to American institutions and even to civic decency and democratic norms may ultimately be rectifiable. But not all potential damage will necessarily pass. Sadly, the wreckage of which President Trump is capable has far greater geographic reach and long-lasting effects than anything within the ambit of the most pernicious Roman despot.

        Trump is far more destructive than Nero or Caligula.

  74. Another burg on the way:

    COUNTDOWN TO CALVING AT BRUNT ICE SHELF

    “Cracks growing across Antarctica’s Brunt Ice Shelf are poised to release an iceberg with an area about twice the size of New York City. It is not yet clear how the remaining ice shelf will respond following the break, posing an uncertain future for scientific infrastructure and a human presence on the shelf that was first established in 1955.”

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/144563/countdown-to-calving-at-brunt-ice-shelf

  76. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/21/tech/consumer-reports-tesla-model-3/index.html

    It seems likely most of the problems new owners are having will be corrected under warranty, and that once the factory crew is settled in and things get down to a regular routine, there won’t be any more problems than there are with other new cars in the same price class.

    Fit and finish and trim problems show up fast. Mechanical problems usually show up after years and tens of thousands of miles. My guess is that as the Tesla Three ages, it will require fewer repairs than the competition with conventional engines and transmissions.

    1. The bathtub curve. High fail rate to start, dropping off rapidly. Long, low plateau then a final. slow ramp up.

      NAOM

  78. Snow comes to L.A., with powder in Malibu, Pasadena, West Hollywood
    By Hannah Fry and Alejandra Reyes-Velarde

    https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-california-snow-20190221-story.html

    Xavier Bias walked out of the Whole Foods Market in Pasadena and saw another woman looking to the ground puzzled at the white stuff covering the sidewalk.

    The woman wasn’t sure exactly what she was looking at. But Bias, who is originally from the East Coast, quickly set her straight.

    It was snow.

    “People didn’t know what it was,” Bias said. “I was like, no, this is snow.”

    It was that kind of day in some parts of Southern California, where snow dropped at extremely low elevation levels, creating a winter wonderland for a short while. Snow fell in Malibu, Pasadena, West Hollywood, Northridge, San Bernardino, Thousand Oaks and other unexpected places.

    Snow level hit the 1,000-foot mark, bringing tiny bits of the white stuff into neighborhoods that had not seen snow in decades. But the show was fleeting, lasting in most cases a few minutes before the sun melted anything that had hit the ground.

    “This is probably the coldest storm system I’ve seen in my time in California,” said David Sweet, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Oxnard. “We’ve had cold mornings and freeze conditions, but I don’t remember seeing anything quite this cold.”

    “We’re seeing a little bit of everything out there,” said Eric Boldt, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service.

    After seeing the confusion on social media and as residents began calling in to the weather service, Boldt took it upon himself to clear things up.

    “Correct, that is snow! Lots of confusion today,” he posted on the National Weather Service’s Twitter account.

    He explained that if the precipitation bounces off the ground, then it contains ice, which would make it hail or sleet. If it floats, it’s snow. In many areas, residents reported seeing small slushy balls, which Boldt said is graupel, snowflakes slightly melted and bunched together.

      1. Big red blob over Greenland – just what we need …. not!

        NAOM

    1. Audi – part of VW can only get 30% of cells required. They never had a contract. Damlier is investing 10 Billion in Battery Production. 1+ Billion in Alabama. An order of magnitude too small. Auto Industry not committed yet. VW’s R+D Budget for EV’s is only 30% of Total. They may regret this. Palladium costs limits ICE cars going forward? opps ….. Russia controls Global Auto Production? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCCpljYVkzw

  80. Here’s the text of an email I sent to a hard core liberal friend, one who does make an effort to GET IT, and who is helping me figure out my message, the sanded and polished message I plan on eventually taking public in a larger way, with my own website, than just posting comments here and there on the net.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/22/beto-orourke-campaign-strategy-2020-225193

    Who ever gets the D nomination, I’m planning on doing some phone time, and driving a few for sure D voters to the polls.

    In more general terms, I’m working on figuring out, in detail, in a highly nuanced way, how to get people who ought to know enough about their own best interests, who are not voting, to register and vote D. I’ve succeeded in a couple or three cases in getting poor people to the polls just talking to them about their own health problems, etc, people who would either never have voted, or voted R, due to not truly understanding the political landscape.

    This can be really tricky, because the first not so obvious truth ( to a typical person who pays attention to politics, the environment, almost anything other than sports and television ,etc ) is that most people don’t do any serious thinking at all, except maybe about their own personal lives, at the personal level, family,friends, sex, job, etc.

    As far as I can see, we basically see ourselves as members of a tribe, which can be sharply or fuzzily defined, in terms of who is IN, and who is OUT, and therefore the ENEMY, or a minimum the stranger, and strangers are not to be trusted, that’s human nature.

    People seem to decide who is US and who is THEM on the most simplistic and cursory examination, at the first glance, so to speak, and once that first impression is made , it seems to set like concrete.

    It never ceases to totally piss me off, and amaze me, when some holier than thou liberal castigates conservatives, working class people, etc, for being xenophobes, racists, etc……… when damned near all of that sort, if they are well to do , live in gated communities, or if less well off, live in very nice places where there are no bums and working class people, who they see only when slumming, or when they come to clean or cut the grass, etc. and if still less well off….. then they work in professions where in they are virtually totally insulated from competition with STRANGERS, because they have a college degree, and a license to teach, or practice accounting, etc…..

    The very people they need as voters are the very ones that take one second to hear this sort of talk, and get mad, and say fuck them dam libtards, them hipercrit sumbitches, to put it in the simplest possible terms.

    One thing D’s are going to have to learn is to avoid insulting and talking down to the voters they must win over to get rid of the Trump types. The failure to do this is one of their biggest failings.

    Here’s to talking this sort of thing over at leisure, sometime in the not too distant future, over bourbon and steaks.

    Sometime back, I ranted here quite often about the shooting your own toes off effects of liberals badmouthing conservatives, and maybe it helped, because there are only a few such comments here now, compared to previously.

    I know half a dozen conservatives well who are quite interested in the future, in respect to population, natural resources and their exhaustion, emerging technologies, etc, but I have not succeeded in getting any of them to follow this blog, BECAUSE of comments about their culture, their lifestyles, their intelligence, etc, that piss them off.

    There’s two ways to win, from the pov of an individual, in such discussions. The short sighted individual gloats about flaunting his moral and intellectual superiority, his philosophical sophistication, etc, and telling off them there stupid, ignorant, racist, superstitious conservatives.

    The liberal individual who is smarter, and in the habit of thinking things thru, keeps such thoughts to himself, if he has them, which is ok, and speaks in more conciliatory tones in public, or not at all, if he can’t think of anything to say nice or at least neutral about conservatives…… because he understands that in a country such as ours, victory is won or lost at the ballot box.

    An individual may not believe in sport hunting or fishing, but that does not prevent him, if he wants to move the needle of an individual conservative, who does enjoy these sports, a little to the left by remarking that we need to preserve as much land in a natural state as we can, and keep our rivers and lakes and seas as clean as we can…… because these actions help him enjoy his sport or hobby.

    Methinks most of the regulars here, with the exception of maybe one or two, GET IT.

    1. I have one constructive comment OFM- hone the message to a shortened crystalized form. Not a sound bite, but half way there.

    2. “I ain’t, ner don’t p’tend to be,
      Much posted on philosofy;
      But thare is times when, all alone,
      I work out idees of my own.
      And one of these same thare is a few
      I’d like to jest refer to you–
      Providin’ that you don’t object
      To listen clos’t and recollect.”

      Riley

    3. “Methinks most of the regulars here, with the exception of maybe one or two, GET IT.”

      Are you speaking about yourself ?

      This is the season that if you have an opinion or dislike for one of the “D’s” to express it. Not after the nominee has been chosen as you did in 2016. Once the Dem’s have their choice. You need to either get on board or shut your trap and not divide the party the way Bernie supporters did in 2016. Enough said.

      For me, Bernie is at the bottom of the list as a favorable candidate. His inability to get on the HRC train in 2016 when he had no chance of winning and run back to being an Independent after the election makes him a no go. Plus he is to far left and unrealistic for me. At first I thought Biden was to old. Even after being a strong supporter of him for almost 30 years. But after watching Pelosi manage Trump. I have turned that thinking around almost 180 degrees. Maybe that’s exactly what the Dem’s need. He knows how the system works and foreign affairs. Which is going to be needed. He is probably the best person to help repair the damage of Trump. I have also liked Harris a lot, coming from California she has been in my radar for some time and has always been impressive. Beto really seems to have the ability to energize a crowd and say the right things for me. I’m just not convinced yet if he is ready.

      A good Democrat as you claim to be, would not speak of a candidate as to harm them in the general.

      Could you tell us your opinion of the current horse race without writing a book?

      1. It is about winning, not repairing after. If you don’t win you cannot repair, repairers can be appointed. The best candidate to win needs to be picked and fully backed. Once they are in then a repair crew can be assembled.

        NAOM

  82. I have noticed a negative myth developing, that aircraft need to be eliminated because they are so inefficient. This needs correction, large aircraft are very efficient and getting more efficient by the year. Something like an Airbus 380 can get 95 PMPG or Boeing 747 gets 109 pmpg . Also consider that large commercial airliners carry about 1/2 the weight of passengers in freight for that fuel burn. When one considers that no highways are involved (20 to 40 percent increase in fossil fuel for highway maintenance) they are about as efficient as an EV and much faster.

    Compare that with cruse ships at 13 to 14 pmpg.

    Since NASA thinks we can make aircraft use about half the fuel now used, why the drivel against aircraft?
    Right now jet fuel is 12 percent of transport fuel use, and is 4% of global energy use. Not the biggest target on the block is it?

    1. I am going to offer an opposing viewpoint on this GF.

      Lets say that the efficiency numbers are correct in that optimized air travel is about as efficient as an EV’s per passenger mile.
      What I suggest is that the much of the travel in the air is particularly unnecessary, much more so than even much of the land travel.
      Lets focus on the air travel- most business trips can be done remotely, most leisure trips are entirely optional, most bombing runs are just wrong, most cargo flights can take a slow route (ship). What is the energy cost to ship a ton of freight from Rotterdam to Houston by water vs air?

      With 7.7 B people, we need to learn how to stay put and enjoy life in the slow lane- eat and play and socialize and work more local, and at a pace that doesn’t trample nature so badly.

      Could we get by with only 1/2 as miles traveled per person per life?
      I think we need to learn to.
      If you had 6000 miles of travel for the year, would you spend it on one cross country airplane flight, or 115 miles of local travel/week?

      Secondly, take a tour (by google earth for example) of the big airports of the world, including all the surrounding concrete for associated business. Most are on land that is extremely valuable ecologically. They are each a massive nightmare.

      Third, using plant energy in the form of biofuel for aviation purposes is a severe misuse of the natural world . You can burn up the annual photosynthetic output of 150 acres of lush bottomlands in 3 hrs of plane flight, without blinking an eye. That could be a place for wildlife, an undisturbed watershed, carbon sink, an oxygen source, or a source of food.

      1. “Most are on land that is extremely valuable ecologically. They are each a massive nightmare.”

        I agree. Vancouver Intl Airport, one example, has consumed God only knows how much land that used to be prime habitat for migratory birds. Now roughly 25,000,000 people use this facility every year. Everything, as far as the eye can see, is now covered with asphalt or concrete or buildings – no birds anymore.

        Meanwhile,

        VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT EMBARKS ON $9.1-BILLION EXPANSION

        Forecasts show there is every indication YVR will reach 31 million passengers per year by 2022. It is already well ahead of schedule in its target of reaching 25 million passengers by 2020; last year, it reached 24.16 million passengers – up from 22.3 million in 2016. And now, construction has begun on major projects that will help accommodate that growth as part of a 20-year-long, $9.1-billion plan to expand the terminal building and improve the infrastructure that supports airport operations both airside and landside.

    2. Apply what Fred said here-

      “We need to dismantle the entire system that promotes economic growth and build something completely new from scratch and put it in place in about a decade or nature will simply do it for us, according to her laws!
      How exactly are we going to change the tire and apply the brakes, while barreling down the road toward the cliff, at high speed?! ”

      to air travel.

    3. While you guys aim at the small potatoes, I think that the giant low hanging watermelons are much easier and better targets. We have ways to replace all the ICE vehicles. Just think, all those oil fields that would not be drilled, all that land that land opened up and all that pollution avoided. It effects all the fossil fuels. For every gallon of gasoline or diesel there is another 0.7 gallon equivalent across coal and natural gas used. For that real environmental nightmare, the Canadian tar sands, double that.
      All that avoided and shut down.

      We have wind and solar energy and insulation that could reduce natural gas and coal to almost nothing.
      No coal, hardly any natural gas, and very little oil. Now that sounds like a better world.

      So why this penchant to attack an area for which we don’t have the answers for and is the small one with the least effect of transport? We don’t have a good answer for ocean ships yet either, so why not attack them too?

      Somehow I think if we convert much of the system to no carbon, that the rest will fall in place or just go away. I prefer the easier fast route.

      1. Yeah, about 85% of oil can be replaced with batteries.

        The other 15% is less convenient, through reasonably straightforward with current tech: use synthetic fuel, ammonia or H2.

      2. Yeh, I thought you’d have some rationale, or some diversion.
        Do (did) you work in that industry?

        1. rationale: a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action
          parochial: your comment
          It’s called thinking, I know it’s rare, but unlike most I do it and need no coercion from industry to influence me.

  83. Dr. Rupert Read on Climate Catastrophe. Extinction Rebellion and Transformative Adaptation
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzhc1BlvvI&t=2107s

    Starts out good but seems to get vague as to what to actually do about the situation. I guess it is early on but the idea of just powering down without using carbon burn at all while still avoiding the “holocausts” just doesn’t make much sense to me.
    Will they be viewed as nutters or geniuses?

    1. Will they be viewed as nutters or geniuses?

      Perhaps only as a catalyst for change. Powering down without using carbon burn at all … Is just the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg.

      We need to dismantle the entire system that promotes economic growth and build something completely new from scratch and put it in place in about a decade or nature will simply do it for us, according to her laws!

      How exactly are we going to change the tire and apply the brakes, while barreling down the road toward the cliff, at high speed?!

      How is anything supposed to make sense within that context?!

      Cheers!

      1. “We need to dismantle the entire system that promotes economic growth and build something completely new from scratch and put it in place in about a decade or nature will simply do it for us, according to her laws!

        How exactly are we going to change the tire and apply the brakes, while barreling down the road toward the cliff, at high speed?!
        ”

        Such energetic language (demolish, build) with exclamation points and the dreaded exclamatory question mark.
        Well, if we are going to demolish without carbon that takes a lot of energy. If we are going to build without carbon a new system that takes energy. I don’t think the few percent of renewables is up to that yet, so if we demolish in ten years it sounds like a fast way to freezing, starving and general depopulation. That would solve the problem.
        Or set up such a backlash that the attempt to decarbonize is abandoned completely.
        Don’t get me wrong, I am looking for answers here since I can’t figure out how all that could be done.

        Our futures are probably written in frozen mud and sludge now anyway. I am not afraid of nature though many will be afraid.

        BTW that slide at 12:04 in the Rupert Read video is an iconic representation of the world.

        1. I don’t think the few percent of renewables is up to that yet, so if we demolish in ten years it sounds like a fast way to freezing, starving and general depopulation. That would solve the problem.

          What if that demolition happens anyway despite our best efforts to keep things going. To be clear, I’m not advocating for that. I’m just repeating what the most conservative scientists have warned us we need to do. BTW, I’m not pretending to have any answers either.

          As it stands no one seems to have any intention of changing course from our present path. How do you suppose that will work out?

          1. “What if that demolition happens anyway despite our best efforts to keep things going. ”
            Well, the 450 nuclear reactors and their waste piles will be popping off all over the place if we can’t keep our act together.
            I just don’t think we can move that fast, especially when we have no idea where we are headed or how to get there and we have barely started.
            If we can’t do a stepwise decarbonization and then deindustrialization, which will take decades each at the fastest, then let the process go where it will.
            A wreck is never pretty.

            If we do nothing or very little to change course, then the results of the experiment will be recorded in the sediments.
            Even if we do change a lot, there are no guarantees that the earth system will stabilize. However, the road might be smoother and the bridge might still be there when we arrive. It all depends upon some frozen muck and bottom slushies now…

            Enjoy and keep a watch on the system.
            Check your streetlights for moths.
            Power to the pill bugs (not bugs).

            1. Power to the pill bugs (not bugs).

              I know, they are closer to ancient marine arthropods, are edible and taste like shrimp. With a good marinara sauce and some angel hair pasta, YUM!

  84. RonP said on the other side ” have no idea what those numbers you posted are. But what Freddy says is exactly correct. The Permian has a legacy decline rate of over 6% per month. And the total shale area of the USA has a legacy decline rate of about 6.5% per month.”
    That is less than half in one year.
    Looks like we won’t have to do much at all to de-energize this society. Much like Sisyphus the boulder will end up down at the bottom again no matter how hard they try.

    But not to worry, the legacy put into the atmosphere will linger on for a very long time.

Comments are closed.