Week in review – energy and policy edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

“Japan Heads for Nuclear Unknown With Reactor Restart – Bloomberg Business”  [link]

The next president could dismantle Obama’s climate policies — or greatly expand them. Here’s how they’d do it: [link]  …

EPA’s Clean Power Plan shows  need to revise administrative law [link]

While the final version of the Clean Power Plan is more equitable, it’s also a lot harsher for carbon-heavy states: [link]

The case for keeping California’s last nuclear plant open: [link]

The UK plans to build the world’s first negative emissions power plant: [link] Backstory here: [link]

Why is Apple lying about powering its data centers with renewable energy? [link]

Before Approving Iran Deal, Think Of The Climate -Nuclear Iran is only a temporary threat, global warming is forever! [link]  …

Obama’s climate policy is ‘practically worthless,’ says Dr. James Hansen [link]

Obama spurns natural gas in climate rule [link] …

Three lines of attack against Obama’s climate change rule [link]

“Warmist Naomi Klein on Obama’s EPA regs: ‘The measures that have been unveiled are simply inadequate’”  [link]

Methane Leaks May Greatly Exceed Estimates, Report Says [link]  key factor in #natgas climate value [link]

Elon Musk’s most impressive company isn’t Tesla or SpaceX. It’s SolarCity: [link] …

Economist: Washing away coal, blowing away carbon—Obama’s clean energy plan:  [link]

China invests $115m in Pakistan wind power- part of ‘one road one belt’ /Pakistan Economic corridor  [link]

Using #biofuels as a way to cut #GHG emissions could put US water resources under increasing pressure | [link]

Politico: “Democrats insist that embracing Obama’s climate agenda is a winning message for 2016”  [link]

States could increase CO2 emissions due anti-nuclear bias in EPA rule. [link]

How We Can Use Less Water to Grow More Crops [link]

Where power comes from in America: maps [link]

Kenya announces 1-Gigawatt solar energy deal, will cost a record $2.2 billion [link] …

Rooftop solar is booming.  But it may be more vulnerable than you think [link]

Zimbabwe’s #Climate Change Ambitions May be Too Tall [link] – good perspective on #Africa #adaptation challenges

Renewable energy is a crawl, not a revolution.Asia is building 100s of coal power plants. Coal use is growing to 9B tonnes by 2020. [link]

The inter-relationship among economic activities, environmental degradation, material consumption and population health in low-income countries: [link]

What caused Electric Vehicle sales to go off a cliff in July? [link]

Weekly Digest:  World Nuclear Association [link]

In Georgia “The Energy Future is Now” [link]

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) quadruples its income and reduces workforce to 1934 levels [link]

 

295 responses to “Week in review – energy and policy edition

  1. From the link to WNA weekly newsletter, another example of the irrational impediments blocking nuclear power. This one is from Belgium.

    The company has been crippled by a 2009 nuclear tax which added about 25% to production costs and wiped out Electrabel’s profits, so it sought relief from this.

  2. “You’d never know it listening to critics more keen on promise than performance, but Australia has a strong record on emissions reduction. We exceeded our Kyoto target and are on track to meet and beat our 2020 target. By 2020, Australia’s emissions will be at least 13 per cent below 2005 levels. On a per capita basis, this will be a better reduction than Canada, the US, Japan and the EU. Despite this, we will take a strong 2030 emissions reduction target to the upcoming climate change conference in Paris — while protecting our economy. We will continue the practical approach which has seen Australia enter its 25th year of growth while decreasing the emissions intensity of production more rapidly than the US, Europe or Japan.”

    http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-84/#comment-10807

  3. “Since Abbott’s conservative coalition came into power in 2013, it has been accused of launching an unprecedented attack on the renewable energy industry. One of its first acts in government was to remove the price on carbon – becoming the first country in the world to repeal a market mechanism aimed at tackling climate change. It has since reduced the renewable energy target, sacked the independent advisory body on climate change and appointed a “wind commissioner” to investigate complaints about turbines. Most recently, the government directed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – Australia’s “green bank” – to stop investing in wind, as well as in small-scale solar power. The renewable energy industry says the moves have frightened off potential investors, resulting in a freeze on new projects over the past 18 months. Some in the renewable sector fear the government’s measures could kill off the industry in Australia altogether.”
    http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-84/

    • Okay, so how did they do it? Was it with renewable energy that the Abbott government is about to dismantle or from some other source?

      • First, Australia’s Kyoto targets were 108% of whatever the baseline year was. Virtually all other countries targets were lowere than the baseline year.

        Second, Australia negotiated to allow land use change and forestry to be included. By stopping farmers from clearing scrub and trees to grow wheat, Australia got a large credit.

        Third, our energy consumption has reduced considerably because we’ve made manufacturing and minerals processing less competitive for many reasons -mostly regressive industrial relations policies. The left wing Labor government did massive damage to Australia’s international competitiveness in our high energy intensive industries. That’s probably the most important reason.

      • Ordvic,

        The chart is wrong. Since the emissions projections under current policy and under the carbon price are wrong by a huge margin, I’d dismiss this site as just more of the CAGW alarmist nonsense.

  4. Given the polluted stream now wending its way into New Mexico, does anyone really trust the EPA setting energy policy? Or even anything it says?

    • Steven Mosher

      anyone? yes.
      anything? yes.

      arguing with questions doesnt work.

      you need to make the case that no one should trust them .
      much harder than merely asking questions.
      doable, but harder.

      • It’s not a matter of trust, so much. It’s a question of how much power the EPA should have. Congress should be able to veto any EPA rule with a simple majority, IMO.

      • Congress are bought by industry, so we can see how that will go.

      • “you need to make the case that no one should trust them .”

        They are part of a government bureaucracy. You don’t “trust” governments or their bureaucracies. They require constant oversight and systems of checks and balances. Pen, Phone, wiretap, court rinse and repeat.

      • Congress is no more bought by industry than it is bought by labor unions, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, The Sierra Club, or AARP.

        Maybe during a period of deep divisions in society, the right thing to do is nothing.

      • The EPA is needed just as much as the FAA, OSHA, USDA, FDA, etc. It is there to protect the public from industries who want to take shortcuts that may be hazardous. These, thankfully, can make their safety regulations unimpeded by industry.

      • Strawman.

        The issue is not the existence of the EPA. The issue is what can the executive do without the consent of the people.

      • The issue is that regulations are based on expertise, not public opinion polling.

      • The issue is that regulations are based on politics, not science.

      • jim2, that’s only what happens when Congress gets involved, which is where this started. Leave it to the experts.

      • Oh, you must mean the Greenpeace experts Obama put into the EPA. I get it … yeah, that’s it, the experts!

      • “The issue is that regulations are based on expertise, not public opinion polling.”

        So no authority from the representatives of the people is necessary?

      • Turning science into a public opinion poll is always a mistake. Witness what goes on here. Some people are trying to debate that particulate matter is OK to pump into the atmosphere. That kind of thing recalls the smoking is harmless and lead is OK industrial lobbies that try to influence the public and Congress.

      • Your outlook is too limited JimD. The question should be does burning coal or diesel engines, or whatever energy source, provide a net benefit or not. The particulates are only one part of the issue.

      • EPA considers health as a bottom line, and weighs things from that perspective, as they should. They don’t care if an industry is more profitable if it spews pollutants than if it doesn’t, and they shouldn’t.

      • JimD says: “Congress are bought by industry, so we can see how that will go.”
        ———-
        #1 giver in the 2014 election: Service Employees International Union ($222M, 99% to democrats/liberals)
        #2 ActBlue ($160M, 100% to democrats/liberals)
        #3 American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees ($94M, 99% to democrats/liberals)
        #4 National Eduction Association ($93M, 97% to democrats/liberals)
        #5 Fahr LLC ($75M, 100% to democrats/liberals)
        #6 American Federation of Teachers ($70M, 100% to democrats/liberals)
        #7 Las Vegas Sand ($69M, 100% to republicans)
        #8 National Association of Realtors ($69M, 48% to democrats/liberals, 52% to republicans/conservatives)
        #9 Carpenters and Joiners Union ($68M, 97% to democrats/liberals)
        #10 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ($64M, 99% to democrats)

        OpenSecrets.org is your friend.

        Could be just me, but you lose all credibility when you make statements that are clearly partisan and incorrect.

      • Ken D, so are you in favor or against a bought Congress? If I haven’t made it clear enough, I am against it, and against Citizens United too for that matter. It is better if they represent their people instead of their highest bidders, don’t you agree.

      • “EPA considers health as a bottom line, and weighs things from that perspective, as they should. They don’t care if an industry is more profitable if it spews pollutants than if it doesn’t, and they shouldn’t.”

        Ideologically driven nonsense that can inform no decisions. You cannot reasonably separate economic considerations from human health. Economics 101, resources are finite.

      • JimD

        “Congress are bought by industry, so we can see how that will go.”

        “All politics is local”, said former Speaker of the House and democrat Tip O’Neil.

        All local politicians are bought and paid for by public employees unions.

        Batter up!

      • Better to take money out of politics, right? I see people agreeing with me on this judging by their statements, but they haven’t said it explicitly yet. Reverse Citizens United, anyone? The groundswell may be from both sides, only opposed by the people holding the purse strings.

      • Jim D wrote:

        EPA considers health as a bottom line, and weighs things from that perspective, as they should. They don’t care if an industry is more profitable if it spews pollutants than if it doesn’t, and they shouldn’t.

        Can you direct me to an EPA publication, r.g., brochure of factsheet where the approach is laid out?

      • The EPA rulings often center on published medical research around pollutants. This is their priority – environmental protection, like it says.

      • Jim D,

        Can you direct me to an EPA publication, e.g., brochure of factsheet where the approach is laid out?

      • mwgrant, What is “significant” risk?

        “EPA’s purpose is to ensure that:
        all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;”

        “Similarly” can be a bit trick also.

        “environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;”

      • Take the money out of politics? How would that work?

        I do not share the belief of many that people are too stupid to weigh the choices given the right of both sides to present their case. Like I said at the beginning, we are politically polarized now, given the way our system should work very little fundamental change should be occurring. The ability to make changes against a majority opinion of the people is not a recipe for social stability.

      • I think I hit the wrong ‘reply’ link. See

        mwgrant | August 9, 2015 at 8:25 pm |

        below.

      • Taking the money out of politics is taking the money out of election campaigns. This leaves the politicians basically looking for ways to get more votes without figuring out how to maximize their TV ad money. And of course that TV money comes with strings. Nowadays ridiculous amounts are spent on elections and common non-wealthy people have no voice with their representatives. Even their choice at election time is already vetted by the local parties according to who paid them most which in some cases comes from national interest groups that enforce a certain set of principles. The Republicans, especially, across the nation are very uniform in all their stances due to this homogenization effect. The US is an extreme example of this.

      • captdallas +/- unc

        mwgrant, What is “significant” risk? Using the term ‘significant’ can be confusing.

        IMO a slippery term. Here is what I mean–off the cuff and having been retired a while. It is clear that in the context of a program or mission statement the term ‘significant’ risk may be used in the same general fuzzy way that we use it everyday. If one wants to to view risk from the perspective of a value that is used to trigger a remedial action one is probably concerned with the “acceptable risk level”, nominally set to 1 excess cancer morbidity or mortality (specify) in a population cohort of 100,000. However, it one is setting say a drinking water standard (or a more informal cutoff concentration) then calculations typically start with a 1 in 1,000,000 risk level and the standard backed out from that. Note that the values may be influenced may dependent on specific site geology, hydrology, and meteorology or default values dependent on the particular circumstances. In any case the EPA methodology is laid out with a lot of documentation and technical guidance and part of learning that is getting familiarity and facility with the terms. It is sometimes extremely difficult to write clear text for public consumption. (For most of us tech-editors are key)

        BTW here is a link to one of the EpA ‘public’ docs. Some discussion on risk starts around p. 11.

        http://oehha.ca.gov/pdf/HRSguide2001.pdf

        Now about significant. As I noted is a potential source of confusion because it has a very specific meaning in statistics and EPA has a ‘significant’ (heh-heh) statical component. Soubd familiar?

        HTH and regards,

        mw

        (Letting fly unproofed–sorry.)

      • No matter how deep the hole JimD, you can always find a bigger shovel, eh?

      • JimD, Here are the current EPA “themes”. They differ from the mission statement a touch.

        1. Image.

        2. Climate Change

        3. Immediate health risks

        http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epas-themes-meeting-challenge-ahead

      • captd, yes, I see where you are coming from. Republicans en bloc don’t like the EPA or anything it stands for. Forget that healthy environment stuff, right? It just gets in the way of them doing what they want to it. Be more like China who have been more laissez faire on the air quality of their large cities until recently.

      • That is some very crude foolishness, yimmy. You been watching that huffpo propaganda demonizing Republicans:

      • The link:

      • Don M, I have been watching the Republicans (seems like all of them) demonizing the EPA. They really don’t like the people who regulate against pollution. Whose side are they on?

      • You get that from your controllers at huffpo, yimmy. It’s pathetic that you believe it.

      • More like CSPAN.

      • You must be getting close to moderation, yimmy. Try to slow down. We don’t want to lose our principal foil. Fo’ shizzle.

      • JimD, “captd, yes, I see where you are coming from. Republicans en bloc don’t like the EPA or anything it stands for. Forget that healthy environment stuff, right?”

        I can’t speak for Republicans. I don’t care for any agency that over steps their bounds and starts shooting up the neighborhood.

        http://keysnews.com/node/11078

        Makes me start looking at them a bit closer.

      • Jim D | August 9, 2015 at 7:25 pm |
        Ken D, so are you in favor or against a bought Congress? If I haven’t made it clear enough, I am against it, and against Citizens United too for that matter. It is better if they represent their people instead of their highest bidders, don’t you agree.
        ———-
        Wow, both a deflection and putting words in my mouth (so to speak) in one post, well done.

        My point was and is you have no credibility when you make comments that are so off the mark.

        For the record I am in favor of free speech. The problem with reversing Citizens United is that would favor some people’s (i.e. unions’) speech as free and others (corporations’) as not. Which is why Citizens United won.

        I am for term limits which I believe is a better way to accomplish a goal of getting rid of “bought” politicians.

      • Jim D,

        You maybe be correct, though some facts would be nice in supprt.

        Meanwhile it is a fact that the EPA’s Clean Power Plan was drafted by the Natural Resources Defense Fund. How’s that for bias and undue influence. You don’t need to buy Congressmen when the Administrators are in bed with you.

    • The EPA waiting for almost 24 hours before reporting the release to the state is incredible. Sack the Region 8 Director and Gina.

      • It looks likes they had to immediately report the spill to the NRC.

        http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/release/rq/

        I am sure that they will have of the paperwork filled out in a timely manner.

      • Hey, thanks for that link. I still trying to catch up!

      • captndallas+/-unc

        It is not all whole of fun looking for useful info on this incident. One thing I noticed in passing is that the NM Land reclamation folks are part of the effort. The nature of that relationship and whether they, EPA, and/or NM environmental (it of course is an agreement state) has people on site or monitoring activities on a daily basis is not clear to me at this time. I don’t have patience to sort thru all of the versions of the same meager online news report with the obligatory yellow river photos. :O) Harumphhh!

    • Don’t dis the EPA – they know how to party with the environmental “non-profits”. Can anyone find this news on HuffPo?

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/09/newly-released-emails-show-close-connection-between-epa-and-influential/

      • Bureaucracies tend to be self-perpetuating. I think people are forgetting Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy. As formulated in Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy: In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely. In other words, in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.

        In this case, it seems rather clear that the Clean Power Plan was developed in response to pressures from above in the Executive Branch. Evidence: keeping much of the data used secret; for the first time ever using global impacts rather than domestic impacts (appears that the plan couldn’t be justified on a domestic basis); the over long time period; the mess associated with nuclear power; and others. And don’t forget that the health impacts touted in the President’s statement have nothing to do with CO2 abatement. In other words, this plan was cooked up by those working to advance the EPA and not in response to some environmental crisis. Frankly, EPA’s mucking about in electric utility regulation in this way infringes on FERC’s mission and may well lead to contradictory guidance to generators.

    • Jim D
      Working almost a decade for a firm that was the technical assistance contractor for 3 or 4 of the EPA regions over that period the approach you describe sounds foreign to me. Have you spent time getting yourself with how the EPA views its mission and approach? For credibility in an assertion such as yours have to provide more basis than the portal link to the EPA.

      • OK, be specific. Do you not think that the EPA has health as a priority? They are tasked with enforcing the Clean Air Act for one, and that involves the science on what is clean and what is polluted. Same happens with water.

      • What I think is immaterial. You are the one who made the assertion.

        But I am happy to answer you Jim. And I like that you put the topic on the table.

        Yes, human health is an EPA priority and so is ecological health. However, even a casual look at the methodology shows that their appoach incorporates the concept of acceptable risk levels and that implies tradeoffs. That is we accept ‘certain’ levels of risk in our lives and environment. IMO (and this really is opinion!) the risk numbers are more often than not very imprecise but the setup does provide a structure from address environmental issues.

        It is interest stuff…seriously take a look at the site some and if you do you will be well ahead of most people.

        Best regards,
        mw

      • Well, OK, so now we agree that health is the bottom line. You want to express it as risks to health, fine. Seems like a quibble.

      • JimD

        Well, OK, so now we agree that health is the bottom line.

        You need to develop a more sophisticated view than that. As explained to you it is more complicated. Health is a priority. Try not to be so dogmatic in a world full of compromise.

      • Jim D 10.47, mwgrant 11.08: there are always trade-offs. Health is one factor; all over the world, health outcomes have been improved greatly through the agency of fossil fuel and the associated wealth generation. We make daily trade-offs, e.g. we could eliminate road deaths by mandating cars which have huge rubber & foam cushions all round and are limited to 10 mph. A US agency used to (and perhaps still does) assess regulatory proposals on the basis of dollars spent per life saved. Many years ago, there were lots of road improvement projects (not of the nature mentioned above but, e.g., reworking a junction) around $250kpls. Many environmental regs were in the many billions per life saved range; i.e., no one was going to die if they weren’t implemented. But the latter tended to be implemented while the former weren’t. Clearly, there were non-health factors in play, mainly activist scare-mongering campaigns; sound familiar?

        Faustino

      • Do you not think that the EPA has health as a priority?

        No, I don’t. They’re a bureaucracy, individual bureaucrats have only their own positions as priorities. As an agency, they have some priority on appearing to care about health and the environment, but whether their actions really have that benefit is immaterial to them. Only how well they can fool those with any power to impact the agency.

        This is true of all bureaucracies, whether governmental or within large corporations. All they are is collections of power-hungry manipulators.

  5. “States could increase CO2 emissions due anti-nuclear bias in EPA rule.”

    It was kind of funny that “pan” avoided nuclear so completely, at least from the parts I was able to not fall asleep while reading. In addition to statistical consultants I believe Climate Change Science needs a few technical writers.

  6. From the article:

    Most voters like Clinton’s ambitious plan to combat global warming but admit the issue isn’t of high importance to their voting decisions.

    President Obama earlier this week announced an even more ambitious plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, but voters see more costs than rewards. Republicans view the plan as an economy-killer.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/weekly_updates/what_they_told_us_reviewing_last_week_s_key_polls2

  7. Solar power is no longer zero percent rounded to the nearest whole number.

    For all the hype it gets, solar power still plays only a small role in the US energy system — providing around 0.6 percent of electricity in the first half of 2015.

    From the “Where power comes from in America” link.

    • It scares me that at this level we are already hearing reports that solar requires a bigger workforce than coal.

      • Why does this bother you?

      • Because in the real world labor is a cost. Producing a fraction of the power with twice the labor is not good for the economy.

      • Rapidly growing industries tend to need large labor forces. Lots of simultaneous installing going on, and it needs growth to meet demand.

      • What scares me most is that this “virtue” seems to be repeated mindlessly as if on the surface it is an unqualified good thing. Solar is just making up .6% of energy use now. It’s not gearing up to be near the scale of even declining coal, yet more manpower. Having high percentages of human labor associate with energy should raise concerns that either energy will be costly or workers will eventually not make living wages. Cheap energy allows human labor to have better value. Labor intensive energy reverses that.

      • I’m pretty sure this is based on roof-top residential installations, and probably without the automation tricks that will be worked out as volumes increase.

        I’d expect utility-scale solar to be much more amenable to automation. And that’s where most of the wattage will be. Rooftop may help convince voters it’s a good thing, but mass utility is where the energy is/will be.

        Another point to consider is that the left-wing “coalition” that’s supporting the whole “renewable energy” thing is also worried about declining jobs. As well they should be. But I suspect the numbers and conclusions have been “optimized” for their consumption.

      • The Solar City article is interesting. There are ways of installing solar now with a nothing-down lease and immediate savings on the electricity bills.

      • JimD, “There are ways of installing solar now with a nothing-down lease and immediate savings on the electricity bills.”

        Those nothing down guaranteed return plans are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

      • Following the logic of more labor and less power is good, perhaps everyone should get a job scything wheat to improve the economy. Where is Mao when you need him? Go Corn Huskers!

      • TfT: ”With coal almost any feat is possible or easy;
        without it we are thrown back in the laborious poverty
        of earlier times.’ – Stanley Jevons.

        When unacquainted with history yr likely doomed ter
        repeat its mistakes – back ter the golden age of slaves.

        Matt Ridley, ‘ Rational Optimist’ has a chapter tellingly
        entitled,’The release of slaves; energy after 1700,.’
        where he traces the freedom of people in the West
        from pre – industrial slavery to its parliamentary
        abolition by William Wilberforce’s Act of 1807.

        Back in the Roman Empire there were sailing ships
        and horses but the Empire was built largely by human
        muscle power in the shape of slaves, Sparticus and
        friends. In Europe the period that followed saw the
        wide – spread replacement of human muscle power
        by animals, first oxen, and with the invention of the
        horse collar, by horse power, which doubled human
        productivity.

        In the Middle Ages came inanimate power with the
        water mill. The less efficient windmill appeared next
        in the low countries because water power wasn’t an
        option.But it was PEAT that gave the Dutch the energy
        to become the world’s workshop in the 1600’s and it
        was COAL that enabled Britain’s industrial revolution
        not to run out of steam. ‘ Once fossil fuels joined in,
        economic growth took off, and became almost infinitely
        capable of raising living standards.’

        Ironically renewables were less sustainable, water
        finite, forests take time ter regrow. So what’s it ter in
        the fuchure, coal or nuclear or watt?

      • A serf in moderation, sigh.

      • Stephen Seagrest – I’d be interested in your take here. Do you think the greater job from solar is is obviously a good thing?

        I think it’s a complicated issue and I don’t quite know what to make of it. Solar is less than 0.6% of generation but has twice the jobs as coal? On the other hand labor is a very small part of an electric bill. Hearing that solar now employs twice as many people as coal makes me “think” but I don’t quite no what it means or how it can be an instantaneous put down of solar or a celebratory moment for progress.

        But I see people posting that factoid on Facebook with no context as some sort of solar victory. I see people announcing it to applause on the media. It scares me that the gut reaction to any news no matter how squishy that “might” be interpreted as supporting renewables is so quickly, reflexively and enthusiastically embraced.

      • AK,

        RE your comment” ” based on roof-top residential installations, and probably without the automation tricks that will be worked out as volumes increase.”

        What makes you think this will happen? I had my roof replaced a couple of years ago. Almost entirely manual labor. A homeowner from 50 years ago would have seen the exact same thing. Installing panels on roofs is likely to always be manpower intensive.

      • Capt,

        “Those nothing down guaranteed return plans are the greatest thing since sliced bread.”

        Only if you add in the part about “A slice from a cut loave is never missed.”

      • A homeowner from 50 years ago would have seen the exact same thing. Installing panels on roofs is likely to always be manpower intensive.

        Unlikely. The assemblies can be designed using satellite photos, pre-fabricated, with only a few minutes of assembly and bolting in place. Nothing like what would have had to happen 50 years ago.

      • Curious George

        A construction of a power plant needs a different workforce than its operation and maintenance.

  8. I love the contradiction here. It’s as if the writer wanted to lift Clinton, but had to admit her ideas on energy suck.

    From the article:
    The title: Clinton plan to power U.S. homes with renewable energy in 10 years is doable

    The bottom line: In the end, Clinton would be challenged to reinstate the ITC, spur new renewable incentives and affect change at the state and local level in order to make her renewable dreams a reality.

    “Anything is possible, but is it realistic? At this point, it looks more like a typical campaign goal to energize the donors and the base,” Prabhu said.

    http://www.computerworld.com/article/2955351/sustainable-it/clinton-plan-to-power-us-homes-with-renewable-energy-in-10-years-is-doable.html

    • If you want Tom Steyer’s campaign donations then you have to be on the Climate Change/Renewable’s bandwagon.

      Just ask the Governor’s of Oregon and Washington.

    • Looks like more hot air from Clinton. Too bad it can’t be converted to energy.

  9. Not long ago, there was a story about a CEO who decided to pay every employee at least $70,000 annual. I applauded this. After all, it is a private initiative, not a government imposed program. But to my amazement, it’s not working out. Companies are a social organization and humans naturally arrange themselves into hierarchies. By not abiding to this (or these) unwritten rules of social organization, this CEO got a lot of employees upset. From the article:

    In April 2015, Dan Price, the CEO of online payments company Gravity Payments based in Seattle, announced that all employees would have their salary bumped up to a minimum $70,000. Slashdot covered this news. Since that time, however, things have not gone well. Some employees quit because they felt it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises. Furthermore, after reducing his own salary from $1M to $70K, Mr. Price is now renting a house ‘to make ends meet’. On an unrelated note, Mr. Price’s brother, who is a co-founder of the company, is suing him.

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/08/07/2119244/company-testing-standardized-salaries-is-struggling

  10. I renounce skepticism, as I had no idea how bad things have gotten:

    “The Guardian briefly had to pause its live blog of the heat wave because its computer servers overheated. ”

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805

    • Wow! Finally, an impact from climate change!! :)

    • Well a lot of that I have no expertise in but we are friends with an oyster specialist and he’s been screaming about a ton of things other than global warming, like cutting down forests and polluting rivers that feed estuaries were oysters live for decades. There’s also the old fashioned over fishing thing applied to posters as well. I’ve never heard him mention global warming. So maybe, just maybe, some of that other stuff might have other reasons too.

      • fulltime

        To add to your comment while referring to the salmon article in Judith’s previous blog post….

        The article discussed impacts to salmon. Where I live in central Ca the salmon has been extirpated from almost all watersheds due to: road building, removal of large woody debris from streams to protect poorly sited streamside homes( a NOAA quote!), high water temps due to riparian vegetation removal, channeling the river – 100 +-years ago – and destroying a lagoon in order to provide flood control for the city, the ongoing construction of non-permiable surfaces around structures in the riparian zone, and the drawdown of water levels, via both municipal and individual well systems, for domestic water use.

        Note that I didn’t even include dams, of which there are many. The salmon are extirpated with no need for CAWG nor ocean current changes. All of these problems can be addressed, but they are not. We do, however, have climate change coordinators or some such employed in both the city and county governments.

      • And this is the problem. Dealing with climate change has overshadowed dealing with any real issue.

      • “And this is the problem. Dealing with climate change has overshadowed dealing with any real issue.”

        You nailed it. This is why I became interested in the topic.

  11. RE: The inter-relationship among economic activities, environmental degradation, material consumption and population health in low-income countries: [link]
    ********************
    Why the focus on infant and under-5 mortality rates? That’s cherry picking IMO. It might have even been chosen for emotional impact.

    The focus should be on overall mortality rates. I suspect the overall mortality rate would be down for just about any sort of economic activity. Although the summary isn’t very specific whether quantity or quality of economic activity was studied.

    • jim2

      “Why the focus on infant and under-5 mortality rates? That’s cherry picking IMO. It might have even been chosen for emotional impact.”

      From the complete article in the British Medical Journal (open access):

      “The health outcome variables, namely IMRs and U5MRs, were measured as the probability of a child dying at less than 1 and 5 years of age (expressed as a rate per 1000 live births), respectively. These two variables, retrieved from the World Development Indicators (WDI), were selected as the outcome variables because of their wide acceptance and use as population health indicators. Studies have reported that these indicators are sensitive to structural changes and to rising epidemics that affect the wider population.”

      True there is an emotional issue when addressing infants & children dying, there is nonetheless, a direct relationship with improving economic activity and ecological footprint.

      What is remarkable, different regions of the world of low-income countries: Latin America, Northern Africa, Middle East, Southeast Asia with economic growth, improve their ecological impact. Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand negatively impacts its ecological footprint with greater economic activity.

      The fear warmist’s have that increasing economic activity in the developing world; i.e., improving the lot of the <$2/day 2 billion or so people, will lead to greater GHG and send out planet into a tailspin. "Ain't necessarily so…."

      This longitudinal study suggests the economic/ecological impact story is a mixed bag. Wth most low income countries, and vary populous countries at that, these countries will not only make their lives better with improved economic activity, but it will benefit the earth's ecology to boot!

      We need to encourage and support those economic structural factors that promote growth and reduce ecological impact and try to figure out how to address those economic structural factors that lead to a degradation of the country's ecological footprint.

      Children's health is the "Canary in the coal mine". A harbinger of things to come.

  12. The Great Debate
    The reality of global warming: We’re all frogs in a pot of slowly boiling water

    But that’s not at all how scientists meant it, Professor Camille Parmesan, an expert in biodiversity at the University of Plymouth in the United Kingdom said. Climate risks don’t begin at 2C, she said; it’s more like where they go from high to intolerably high.
    http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/07/before-the-century-ends-it-may-be-too-hot-for-people-to-work-outside/

  13. The Georgia energy future article illustrates what a conflicting mishmash energy policy is. New EPA rules give no credit for the only two new nucs under construction in the US. State mandated PV. EV sales drop 90% when $5k state credit is eliminated. Distortions everywhere.

  14. It is very important to remember (in light of the clean power plan) that the science based regimes (Ill go ahead and not use communist) are indifferent to the suffering influcted in the pursuit of their ideological goals. If it destroys our economy, that is just another blow against capitalism, a benefit.
    http://www.distributedrepublic.net/archives/2005/05/01/communist-cannibalism/

  15. Why is Apple lying about powering its data centers with renewable energy? [link]

    “Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D. is a research fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society in Graz, Austria. A sociologist with expertise in global capitalism and consumerism, she is currently writing a book about the popularity and hidden costs of Apple products”

    Left devouring itself. Just a demonstration how they will never be satisfied.

  16. John Carpenter

    MSNBC article ‘Obama’s climate policy is practically worthless says expert’ poll question at the end is funny…

    Do you support President Obama’s clean power plan?

    Yes, its long overdue
    No, the plan falls short on climate needs.

    Consider what could have been other ‘No’ choices….

    No, the plan falls short on completely destroying our power generation abilities for the future

    No, the plan falls short on ridding my western climate guilt anxieties

    No, the plan falls short on increasing the cost of living for those most vulnerable

    No, the plan falls short on the reach the EPA should have on national power planning policies

    No, the plan falls short on achieving faux environmental justice for the down trodden

    No, the plan falls short on….

  17. David L. Hagen

    Obama promised: Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket
    Ideas have consequences. We see Obama implementing his promise to skyrocket our electricity plans – with catastrophic reduction in 3rd world development, major hindrance to agricultural productivity growth but negligible environmental benefit!
    These are detailed by Euan Mearns in:
    What Is The Real Price Of Obama’s CO2 Plans?

    Euan cites:
    Electricity Cost vs Renewable Energy

  18. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Upton Sinclair.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/08/climate-change-the-hoax-that-costs-us-4-billion-a-day/

  19. “Approving Iran Deal” is why I really hate the AGW global warming movement in general. Just when I thought “putting aside beach habitat for sea turtle nesting is pointless until we tackle global warming” was the stupidest thing I had ever heard along come this. This is satire right? Who cases about Mullahs having nukes when global warming is the real issue??? God must love fools because he sure makes enough of them.

  20. I am a loyal follower of Climate Etc., and I have also been following “The Hockey Schtick” blog for a while now. Some very interesting articles have appeared in that blog that go right at the heart of the Anthropogenic Global Warming issue. Does anyone know if the blog is presenting good science or just biased information?

    Referenced below is one of the articles presented that seems to dispute Roy Spenser’s discussion about cooler bodies being able to warm hotter bodies.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/plancks-quantum-theory-explains-why-low.html

    • Bill,

      You got two 6″ diameter steel balls suspended in a vacuum, 12″ apart. One is 100C the other 99C. If you put your hand in the middle of the3 space between them, is you hand warmed by the radiated heat from both? I will give you the answer to that one: yes. Remove your hand. Does the 100C radiate heat that effects the 99C ball, but the heat radiated by 99C ball has no effect on the 100C ball?

      • Hilarious, the usual suspects once again deny basic physics:

        Don Montfort says a 99C ball will make a 100C ball warmer than 100C

        Good luck with your perpetual motion machine

        AK, who was completely unable to answer any of my easy basic physics questions on prior threads, claims the Principles of Modern Chemistry excerpt is just more “Skydragon stuff,” once again clueless of the implications of Planck’s quantum theory & apparently unable to understand the textbook excerpt I posted that explains why a cold blackbody cannot warm a hot blackbody.

        Ragnar apparently doesn’t understand the difference between slowing of cooling & warming, ie warming means increasing the frequency/temperature/energy of a blackbody, and claims cold can heat hot once again in defiance of the 2nd law

        Ristvan has no clue that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to electrons in molecular & atomic orbitals, described in the 20 or so pages of the textbook I linked to, and creates ridiculous straw man arguments that have no relevance & prove nothing.

        You folks are a joke, good luck with your continued denial of the second law of thermodynamics explained both on a macro basis and quantum entropy basis in the textbook excerpts I posted.

        When will you ever learn that transfer of heat from cold to hot requires an impossible continuous decrease of entropy forbidden by the second law?? If you wish to believe cold heats hot by 33C from -18C up to +15C, there really isn’t any amount of rationality or textbook references that will help with your delusions.

      • “Don Montfort says a 99C ball will make a 100C ball warmer than 100C”

        I didn’t say that, hockeypuck. I was trying to keep it simple for Bill. I shouldn’t have bothered. You have got him bamboozled with your senseless BS.

        Captd said:”Now imagine you have a constant power supply plugged into one ball so it is maintaining 79 Wm-2. It isn’t cooling it is in a steady state. If you place another ball at 79 Wm-2 next to it, the one with the constant power source will get warmer by some small amount depending on the energy shared between the two.”

        Explain why that is wrong and you will get a Nobel Prize. But don’t quit your day job, clown.

      • AK, who was completely unable to answer any of my easy basic physics questions on prior threads, […]

        Actually, I did answer them, and all you could come up with was arm-waving. Just like your current effort.

    • “affects the 99C ball”

      • Are you familiar with “The Hockey Schtick” blog? I am looking for input about it.

        About your balls. Roy Spenser’s answer (if I understand him right) is that the 99C ball does affect the temperature of the 100C ball. There is a lot of discussion on his web site about it. Roy is my hero, and I do not have the courage to doubt him, but the Hockey Schtick article presents the science differently and would support your position that the 99C ball can’t transfer energy effectively enough to raise the temperature of the 100C ball.

      • You are lost, Bill. Good luck.

      • Would a “one way mirror” help? How about the air temp on either side of such a “membrane”? How about different energy spectra for different “bodies”? Reverse osmosis works – given the right “adjustments” to the system. Lots of desalination plants!

      • Bill, If you have a ball in space at a temperature of -80C it is radiating energy in all directions at a rate of about 79 W/m-2. It isn’t smart energy it is just radiant energy. If you add a second ball at the same temperature it will also radiate 79 Wm-2 in all directions. A small percentage of the energy from each ball will happen to hit the other ball. Each ball will cool a little bit slower because it is receiving some energy form the other which it would not be receiving otherwise. Neither ball is warming, they are both just cooling a bit slower.

        If you make one ball a lot warmer than the other and flow of energy from the hotter to colder is enough that it actually increases the average temperature of the smaller above it’s initial temperature, then the warmer ball is heating the cooler, other wise they are both still cooling slower.

        Now imagine you have a constant power supply plugged into one ball so it is maintaining 79 Wm-2. It isn’t cooling it is in a steady state. If you place another ball at 79 Wm-2 next to it, the one with the constant power source will get warmer by some small amount depending on the energy shared between the two. You can say the un-powered ball is warming the powered one or just partially insulating it, but the powered ball will be retaining more energy. It doesn’t matter if you invoke quantum mechanics or classical, the powered ball will retain more energy. However, your choice of insulating, warming, unprecedented warming, anthropogenic balls in space warming or whatever is an option not physics. The simple model is also extremely limited and adding fancy terms to a simple model is normally BS.

    • I believe the linked post is wrong. Try reading Clive Best’s blog.

      • The link posted works for me. I don’t know what else to do. I did go to Clive Best’s blog, and it looks good for what I am trying to resolve in my own mind.
        Thanks

      • If it’s any help, I have repeatedly found “Hockey Schtick” to be completely ignorant of science, except for a patina of memorized phrases and formulas, usually misunderstood.

        I briefly looked at the linked post, and AFAIK it’s just more sky-dragon stuff.

    • Generally, cooler bodies can’t warm warmer bodies. Two such bodies in a container with perfectly reflective walls, they both exchange radiation. But the cooler body will absorb higher energy radiation from the warmer body. Eventually, both bodies will come to an equilibrium.

      But that isn’t what you have with CO2. Imagine the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere has no CO2. The surface is in equilibrium with the atmosphere and space. Now add CO2 to the atmosphere. The CO2 will absorb some IR moving upwards from the surface. The excited CO2 molecules will then collide with other air molecules. Thus, the air gets hotter. A new equilibrium will then be reached, but the air will still be hotter.

      • You make no mention of water and water vapor.
        CO2 is a small fry in the IR world.

      • That’s just the first step, and I didn’t want to complicate the description of what CO2 does. Of course, it’s the knock-on effects that are in question.

      • How about thinking about a “dim” light bulb and a “bright” light bulb; both hot when they are turned off. The “dim” light bulb will receive the rays [that energy (which some would say is “black body radiation to simplify the matter) stuff] that the “bright” light bulb casts upon it. At the same time, the “bright” light bulb will receives the rays that the “dim” one casts on it. Both cool as most of each’s heat is not released towards the other bulb, but elsewhere. Since there will be more radiation energy going from “bright” to “dim” than in the other direction, the “net” flow of energy will be positive from “bright-to-dim”. If both are the same then rays flow to each from the other, but are equal and, thus, the “net” is zero.

        The problem I see in some of the bloggings that are being posted is that the most verbiage heat often does not seem come from the “brightest” bulbs.

      • @JoelW “…the most verbiage heat often does not seem come from the “brightest” bulbs.”

        Curt and Don appears to be more irritated than HS so what is really being said is that Curt and Don are not the “brightest bulbs”? If so I must respectfully disagree. IMO it is usually the really smart denizens who get irritated when someone fails to agree with their POV.

        However, it does beg the question as to whether a commenter’s intelligence level is relevant in polite discourse?

    • Cooler body warming a warmer body:

      Temperature probes along a rope type thing.
      Upper left: Snow
      Middle: Sea ice
      Lower right: Ocean water
      We could disagree semantically if the sea ice is actually warming the ocean water? It is preventing some of it to form ice. And ice formation to me is heat being lost. Consider a Minnesota lake. In Winter this same type of thing happens. Most or all of the lake’s fish depend on lake ice to keep it warmer than it otherwise would be. Formation of lake ice prevents the lake from being a solid block of ice that would probably kill most fish. Though we can get negative 20 F. air temperatures, the bottoms of the lakes might be a balmy 36 F. The lake ice profile would be similar to the sea ice temperature profile.

    • BN, seriously suspect arguments there. I am being polite. The HS pseudo ‘quantum science’ arguments are just wrong. For example HS asserts the Pauli exlusion principle applied to photons, their energy states, and black body radiation/absorption. Go research the following very simple questions. To what class(s) of quantum particles does the oft cited Pauli exclusion principle apply?
      1. Fermions
      2. Bosons
      3. Both
      4. Neither.
      Bonus question:
      A photon is a:
      A. Fermion
      B. Boson
      C. Both
      D. Neither
      Answer the question and the bonus question and you will understand very simply why Hockeyschtick’s theory is junk science at its worst. I recommend Feynman’s introductory Caltech Lectures on Physics (1961-63), although a much harder slog through much more than the two trivial disproof questions posed above. Newly available on line free. My well thumbed print copy cost $250 at the Stanford book store a decade and a half ago. Don’t need to follow all the math, although that is essential for calculating that the theories are In agreement with experiment. It’s about the physics ideas.

      An additional trivia question. There is a high voltage 60 Hz AC transmission line between Chicago and NYC, distance 1500 hundred miles. (Perhaps designed by aplanningwngineer, who gradiated from Caltech.) So, an electron of electricity sent along it for one second (ignoring resistance, presuming near speed of light) travels a distance of:
      A. ~180000 miles
      B. ~90000 miles
      C. ~45000 miles
      D. ~ 0 miles
      The correct answer is D. Physics explains why. Seriously, high regards. Learning is a never ending journey.

      • I did not graduate nor have I ever enrolled at Cal Tech. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

      • If I remember correctly, the electrons move slowly at the electron drift velocity while changes in the field propagate at near the speed on light.
        Will this be on thr final?

      • Ristvan again lies about what I said to fabricate another straw man argument. The Pauli exclusion principle applies to ELECTRONS in both atomic and molecular orbitals, NOT PHOTONS!! Are you really that dense?

        And guess what, blackbodies are comprised of atomic & molecular orbitals and the allowed, discrete quantum energy levels apply to blackbodies, bonds/molecular orbitals, atomic orbitals, PHOTONS/bosons, and in fact ALL matter and energy.

        As to Feynman, you on WUWT were incapable of understanding how Feynman described the tropospheric gravito-thermal greenhouse effect in a pure N2/O2 atmosphere without any GHGs, PROVING the 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Feynman/US STD ATM gravito-thermal GHE IS true irrespective of trace CO2 concentrations and without one single radiative transfer calculation!

        The burden of proof is now upon YOU Ristvan to explain using quantum and statistical mechanics (as I have shown via these greats and links to multiple textbooks) that trace CO2 with fixed 15um LWIR can warm the warmer Earth blackbody surface at either 255K or 288K/10um

    • Don Montfort doesn’t understand that slowing of cooling is not warming. GHGs only delay transit of IR from surface to space by a few milliseconds, and any such “trapping of heat” is lost each night for no net diurnal warming.

      And no, two balls at 79 degrees next to each other WILL NOT make other any warmer than 79 degrees. How many patents do you have on perpetual motion machines?

      AK, here’s one of the questions you refused to answer:

      I point a parabolic mirror at the clear sky to concentrate some portion of the diffuse 333W/m2 backradiation at a wide focal point. Does the temperature of the focal point:

      A) increase
      B) decrease
      C) no change

      What’s the answer?

      • Thanks for telling me that slowing of cooling is not warming, hockeypuck. You are really smart and your Nobel Prize is in the mail. That’s all the time I have for your foolishness.

      • B) decrease. As long as the mirror is obscuring ground that’s warmer than the sky.

      • AK says decrease as long as mirror is not obscuring ground that’s warmer than the sky.

        Let’s say the focal point is simply the ambient air temperature at 3m above the ground before its pointed at clear sky and the mirror DOES block ALL radiation from the ground to concentrate only a portion of the 333W/m2 backradiation from the sky only. Does your answer change or stay the same?

      • @hockeyschtick…

        I don’t have time for skydragon nonsense.

      • AK says “I don’t have time for skydragon nonsense.” once again lying as he did above “Actually, I did answer them”

        1. I am not a “skydragon” and have shown that Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Feynman, US and Intl Standard Atmospheres all mathematically prove the 33c gravito-thermal GHE, not the failed Arrhenius radiative GHE theory.

        2. Anyone can clearly see you don’t know the answer to the simple physics question, and if you did, you would understand why the radiative GHE theory is false, so you resort instead to a false, pathetic ad hom.

      • Trick question: you can’t focus diffuse radiation.

      • AK says “I don’t have time for skydragon nonsense.” once again lying as he did above “Actually, I did answer them”

        Nope. Any and every question you might have regarding Parabolic mirror(s) and “333W/m2 backradiation” was answered here. Until you understand some optics, your nonsense isn’t worth wasting time on.

        1. I am not a “skydragon” […]

        Yeah, you are.

      • “Jim D | August 10, 2015 at 4:02 pm |
        Trick question: you can’t focus diffuse radiation.”

        You can indeed focus at least some portion of it, and I have an observational paper proving that you can indeed focus a portion of diffuse clear sky radiation both day and night. This is another irrelevant strawman by you and AK to evade answering my super simple basic physics question. I already explained all of this to both of you on the previous thread, and thus will rephrase the Q once again to nullify your all of your strawmen.

        I point a parabolic mirror at the clear sky to concentrate at least some tiny portion of the diffuse 333W/m2 backradiation by any factor greater than zero, diffusely focused at a wide focal point. Does the temperature of the wide focal point over ambient (and blocking all radiation from any source other than the clear sky backradiation):

        A) increase
        B) decrease
        C) no change

        Let’s see how you weasel out and non-answer this time.

      • HS, no the 2nd law says you can’t undiffuse diffuse radiation. Read up.

      • “Jim D | August 10, 2015 at 6:34 pm |
        HS, no the 2nd law says you can’t undiffuse diffuse radiation. Read up.”

        Jim D you are only useful for comic relief. Second law doesn’t say anything about optics, but it does in fact say that entropy must always stay the same or decrease. If you simply understood that fact alone you could have had the answer to my super easy basic physics problem many threads ago!

        Plus, I have a paper with extensive observational data which backs up the fact that a portion of the diffuse backradiation can indeed be concentrated. Any ray-tracing program will prove the same and prove an estimate as to what portion of a diffuse source can be concentrated.

        Nonetheless, it’s completely irrelevant to this thought experiment, which you clearly will say anything to evade guessing at the answer.

      • Typo in bold below:

        “Jim D | August 10, 2015 at 6:34 pm |
        HS, no the 2nd law says you can’t undiffuse diffuse radiation. Read up.”

        Jim D you are only useful for comic relief. Second law doesn’t say anything about optics, but it does in fact say that entropy must always stay the same or increase. If you simply understood that fact alone you could have had the answer to my super easy basic physics problem many threads ago!

        Plus, I have a paper with extensive observational data which backs up the fact that a portion of the diffuse backradiation can indeed be concentrated. Any ray-tracing program will prove the same and prove an estimate as to what portion of a diffuse source can be concentrated.

        Nonetheless, it’s completely irrelevant to this thought experiment, which you clearly will say anything to evade guessing at the answer.

      • Diffuse radiation has a higher entropy than direct radiation. It is because the photons are going in completely random directions. Undiffusing radiation is like unmixing gases. 2nd law.

      • “Don Montfort doesn’t .
        understand that slowing of cooling is not warming. GHGs only delay transit of IR from surface to space by a few milliseconds, and any such “trapping of heat” is lost each night for no net diurnal warming.”

        One again.

        The silver lining on my thermos does not warm the coffee.
        It keeps the coffee WARMER THAN IT WOULD BE OTHERWISE.
        It slows the cooling.

        slowing the rate of cooling is warming the planet.
        So instead of cooling down rapidly when the sun sets ( say like on a planet with no atmosphere) GHGs slow the rate of cooling which keep the planet warmer than it would be otherwise.

      • “Jim D you are only useful for comic relief.”

        And yet, he has kicked your hind-end up between your ears. You need to get back to Skydragon HQ for a little rest, repair and re-indoctrination.

      • JimD, “Diffuse radiation has a higher entropy than direct radiation. It is because the photons are going in completely random directions. Undiffusing radiation is like unmixing gases. 2nd law.”

        This is what I love about the debate that doesn’t exist. If you have a situation where only photons exist to transfer energy, the photons will radiate in all directions likely diffusing, unless the source is some neat parabolic surface. One side of the surface would focus radiation to some extent while the other increases diffusion.

        To estimate the energy transfer you typically will integrate an ideal flat disc, assume away separation of the discs and ignore other means energy transfer which gives you a number. You know the number is wrong because your model has assumptions as all complex models must have.

        Any yahoo can pick any of those assumptions and combat them with other assumptions, creating their own “ideal” model complete with as many or more degrees of wrongness. When that gets messy what you should do is look at your own assumptions a tad more critically.

        The Trenberth et al Earth Energy Budgets should be credited with the creation of the Sky Dragons. That budget shows a DWLR in the ballpark of 333 Wm-2 and SWAGs a 40Wm-2 window. Since it doesn’t mention or show the Effective Radiant Layer (ERL) and attempts to incorporate latent and convective energy flux in what is a radiant energy only idealization, it can be interpreted hundreds of way, including gravity focusing the radiation. The Stephens et al Earth Energy Budget is much less wrong because it shows their best estimate of the uncertainty involved which is large at the surface.

        You and every other believer are arguing over outdated and poorly communicated crapola. To make matters worse, your arguments basically do violate the 2nd law because there is no 100% efficient GHE.

        The Sky Dragon nonsense isn’t really any worse than the perfect Green House Effect nonsense. If you want to start slaying Sky Dragons, can the out date budgets and start at the elusive ERL and make sure everyone knows why.

      • captd, the full theory, where you deal with each wavelength separately, doesn’t need the ERL as part of the argument. Trenberth and Stephens are well beyond that level of simplification, and both are clearly beyond you too.

      • JimD, “captd, the full theory, where you deal with each wavelength separately, doesn’t need the ERL as part of the argument. ”

        If that were true, the paper “discovering” Antarctic anti-phase response to CO2 forcing would have been publishable. Cowtan Way and Mosher would understand why kriging the polar corners is an exercise in futility, people would have take better note of Annan and Hargreaves Maximum 4 C sensitivity and we would be discussing alternate transportation fuels to save the lives of kids.

      • New additions to the I know nothing about basic thermodynamics grade school club:

        1. Don Montford, who thinks two balls at 79C will cause each other to warm to >79 C

        2. Jim D and AK, who both don’t understand that any portion whatsoever infinitesimally above zero can be sent with concentrating mirrors from the diffuse sky backradiation to the same wide focal point. And who both have no clue that the 2nd LoT from a macro or micro-quantum entropy perspecive forbids any heat energy transfer whatsoever from -18C atmosphere or -80C CO2 “BB” emitting temperature to the 15C Earth surface.
        3. SM, who as usual is all over the place, but today claims slowing of cooling = warming. Ah nooo, warming = INCREASED temperature/frequency/quantum energy of a blackbody, NOT COOLING which means decreased temperature /frequency/quantum energy of a blackbody. GHGs merely delay IR photons transit to space by a few milliseconds, EASILY made up at NIGHT when solar input ceases.

        Anyone else care to join the Motley Crüe basic physics denier club?

      • Correction, “wouldn’t have been publishable”, it should have been common knowledge.

      • [… Y]ou can’t undiffuse diffuse radiation.

        Yeah you can: just get far enough away from it.

        The Sun’s radiation is diffuse 10,000 Km over its surface. It occupies half the sky. By the time you get to the Earth’s distance, it occupies less than 1/10,000 of a square radian.

        Same for the Earth’s radiation: at TOA it occupies half the sky, but get, say, as far away as Jupiter, and it’s close to a point source. You could concentrate it with a parabolic mirror then.

      • captd, I am saying if they don’t mention ERL, it is only because they are using a more detailed version of radiative transfer, and that is not an argument against them. You want to simplify things, fine, but don’t complain when they don’t.

      • AK, how well does your magnifying glass do under cloud cover? This is the kind of diffuse radiation in this context. It is emitted from all directions.

      • JimD, “captd, I am saying if they don’t mention ERL, it is only because they are using a more detailed version of radiative transfer, and that is not an argument against them.”

        The 40Wm-2 SWAG used by Trenberth and company is an order of magnitude greater than the estimated impact of a doubling of CO2. There is some “ideal” point in the atmosphere where the window happens to be 40Wm-2, but it ain’t the surface. At that point the effective DWLR happens to be about 216 Wm-2. As some would say, there budget was not even wrong.

      • HS, still saying photons emitted by the sky have to turn right around before hitting the ground, because they can’t go in that straight line, because his very own version of fisicks forbids those particular photon paths. Amazing stuff.

      • JimD, and Trenberth implies an unlimited path length, Amazing stuff.

        They are both wrong. However, you will defend your team’s wrongness to no end.

      • [… H]ow well does your magnifying glass do under cloud cover?

        No better than it does under clear sky (with no sun). No better than it would do at “concentrating” the Sun’s radiation if you were using it 10000KM above the Sun’s surface.

        But take that same “magnifying glass” out to the orbit of Jupiter, and it could concentrate a cloudy spot on Earth to give the same radiation you’d get from that cloudy spot if you were right over it on Earth.

        That’s why optics are often a better model for what can be done with diffuse radiation than basic 2nd law calculations.Though either will end up with the same result. Like waves and particles.

      • AK, OK, did you even read the original question? It was about focusing diffuse infrared radiation at the earth’s surface. You can do that? Yes or no?

      • captd, complete obfuscation. Stephens is a radiative transfer expert, so their methods are more believable than your offerings. Are you going to agree with HS on parabolic mirrors and diffuse radiation next, or did you forget the point?

      • AK, OK, did you even read the original question?

        Yeah. Did you ever read my original answer?

      • JimD, ” Stephens is a radiative transfer expert, so their methods are more believable than your offerings.” My offerings are based on Stephens et al who trashed Trenberth et al.

        The focusing of the diffused ir (333 Wm-2 from Trenberth et al.) is a red herring since the estimated 333 Wm-2 is not only ir. However, if there was no atmosphere per se and only concentric radiant “shells”, inside of the shells the ir would be more focused and outside more diffuse. Realclimate even attempted a rough calculation using that concentric shell analogy to show why the stratosphere cools while the troposphere warms once upon a time. It didn’t go all that well.

      • AK, then we agree.

      • captd, you are not trashing someone when your error bars overlap with theirs. As for downward IR not being diffuse, huh?

      • JimD, “captd, you are not trashing someone when your error bars overlap with theirs.”

        Possibly, but when you just barely include them with the maximum error range, you would be showing them the minimum of respect. Kinda like saying there IS a snowball’s chance in hell they may be right.

      • “If you want to start slaying Sky Dragons, can the out date budgets and start at the elusive ERL and make sure everyone knows why.”

        Well said capt.

        More damage has been done by the lame analogies with greenhouses
        and lame explanations of DWLR.

      • HS

        ‘3. SM, who as usual is all over the place, but today claims slowing of cooling = warming. Ah nooo, warming = INCREASED temperature/frequency/quantum energy of a blackbody,”

        more semantics.

        I put coffee in my thermos this morning. it was 200F when it went in
        Because I own a Zojirushi seven hours later it was 142 F

        It stays warmer than it would be otherwise because heat loss via radiation is minimized.

        The coffee is WARMER THAN it would be otherwise.

        That is all that is meant by global warming. WARMER THAN it would be otherwise.

        The planet isnt warmed by GHGs or DWLR… It is warmed by the sun
        and kept warmer than it would be otherwise by GHGs.

        So, you’ve fallen for semantics rather than physics.

        If you want to be warmer put on a hat
        this blanket keeps me warm
        you’ll be warmer if you put socks and gloves on.

        These things keep you warm, but they dont warm you.

      • “1. Don Montford, who thinks two balls at 79C will cause each other to warm to >79 C”

        I never said that, hockeypuck. However, if two 79C balls are hanging in the foot apart space as I mentioned, they would be radiating energy to each other. Surely, you can get that far. The result would be that they would be warmer than they would have been without the presence of the other ball.

        Hook both of the balls up to a continuous power source that keeps them at 79C in the absence of the other ball, then add the other ball to the space and they would both get warmer than 79C.

        Experiment: Go to Home Depot and buy two of those radiant space heaters. Pull two chairs together and put a heater on each chair. Sit on the floor and arrange the chairs so that the heaters are six inches from either side of your little pointy head. Turn both heaters on full blast and observe for a few hours. (I think he’s silly enough to do it.)

      • SM once again has the physics bassackwards

        The planet is NOT “warmer than it would otherwise be.” If the atmosphere was pure N2 without any GHGs, the Earth temperature seen from space would be exactly the same 255K equilibrium temperature with the Sun that it is with our present atmosphere.

        This is proven by calculating a Boltzmann distribution for pure N2:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-greenhouse-gases-dont-affect.html

        which Feynman does for a pure N2/O2 atmosphere

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/feynman-explains-how-gravitational.html

        and which the US Standard atmosphere does

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-atmospheric-temperature-is-linear.html

        as did Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, etc etc

        The Fizzikx majors here have it backwards, GHGs help to cool the planet 3 ways by increasing Cp, transferring kinetic heat energy to N2/O2 to ACCELERATE convection, and increasing radiative surface area to space.

        SM YOU are the one playing with semantics

        WARMING = INCREASE OF TEMPERATURE/FREQUENCY/ENERGY CONTENT OF A BLACKBODY

        COOLING = DECREASE OF TEMPERATURE/FREQUENCY/ENERGY CONTENT OF A BLACKBODY

        The false Arrhenius theory claims 15um IR from CO2, which if it was a true blackbody (it’s NOT), would have a corresponding temperature of 193K, is capable of INCREASING THE TEMPERATURE/FREQUENCY/ENERGY CONTENT OF A MUCH WARMER BLACKBODY FROM 255K to 288K.

        This is pure lala land fizzikx!

        The real mathematical and physical proof of the real 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, first proposed by Maxwell, and subsequently Carnot, Clausius, Feynman, the US and International Standard Atmospheres, etc. etc. is described by the HS greenhouse equation:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html

      • Thank you Steven Mosher for the link on the solar cooker REFRIGERATOR which answers my simple basic physics question at the top of this thread, which the Fizzikx majors here have been unable to answer and have weaseled out of addressing every which way possible. The correct answer, as your link shows, is B – the temperature at the focal point DECREASES by concentrating the 333W/m2 backradiation from the sky. That proves my point that the ambient temperature focal point INCREASES its HEAT LOSS to -18C cold atmosphere to create a REFRIGERATOR. Thats because heat ONLY flows ONE WAY from the warmer near surface temperature ~15C focal point to the cold atmosphere at ~-18C.

        By golly, Clausius was right when he stated the 2nd law says that HEAT NEVER SPONTANEOUSLY FLOWS from COLD to HOT. There no such thing as “net” heat flow. Heat flow is one way only from hot to cold, despite bidirectional radiation between the two bodies.

        Are the fizzikx majors here stupid or do they just not care?

      • “Heat flow is one way only from hot to cold, despite bidirectional radiation between the two bodies.”

        Well, the little fella understands the part about there being bidirectional radiation between two bodies. But he can’t do the math. Let’s say the hot thing (A) radiates four little energy balls to the cold thing (B) each millisecond, or whatever. While the cold B thing radiates 2 little energy balls to the A thing. The four little A energy balls warm the B thing, but the two energy balls from B do nothing to the A thing. Doesn’t seem fair.

      • Don, your remarks are just too stupid to waste the time of reply. Please learn why Planck had to “invent” quantum mechanics because classical Newtonian mechanics like your silly balls experiment cannot explain what was observed on the molecular and atomic level or on a macro level from a blackbody:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/plancks-quantum-theory-explains-why-low.html

      • I don’t think anybody here finds your clown physics interesting, hockeypuck. You had Bill going for a second, but he seems to have left the building. Probably went over to Roy’s blog.

      • Yeah I know Don all of those clown physicists like Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Feynman, Boltzmann, Planck, Einstein are really super boring and uninteresting to you.

        Do me a favor, anytime you see a comment from me, don’t read it and just skip to the next one by someone else, and I will do so likewise for you.

      • You are appealing to authorities who would be very amused by your clownish misinterpretations of their science, hockeypuck.

        Now, I will gladly comply with your wish that I join the legion of others who skip your worthless comments. You no longer amuse me. Go find Bill.

      • Please DON’T read this comment Don, please continue to wallow in your ignorance and denial of what some of the greatest physicists in history have written.
        ————————-

        Here’s Maxwell explaining the gravito-thermal GHE without one single radiative calculation whatsoever, due entirely to atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/maxwell-established-that-gravity.html

        Here’s Feynman doing the same thing for a pure N2/O2 atmosphere w/o GHGs, and extensively quoting Maxwell on the gravito-thermal GHE as well:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/feynman-explains-how-gravitational.html

      • JimD, “As for downward IR not being diffuse, huh?”

        A simple up/down radiant model assumes away all of the diffuseness. You have a simple model of a simple model of an ideal model with the results communicated via cartoon. Let’s call it sensitivity of chaining simplifications.

      • HS, you can go to Chapter 1 of any meteorological text book and it will explain lapse rates to you using the principles that you call the gravito-thermal effect. However, explaining a lapse rate does not give you an absolute value for which you also need radiation, otherwise you are not in the real world due to insufficient physics. See Arrhenius (1896).

      • captd, when you go to measure IR, you are not measuring up/down, but diffuse totals, which is what Stephens’ number represents. You can’t criticize that aspect of his work from your own wrong assumptions.

      • JimD, “You can’t criticize that aspect of his (Stephens) work from your own wrong assumptions.”

        I am not criticizing Stephens work or making any, nada, zip, wrong assumptions. Hockey and Sky Dragons are not using Stephens work.

        Stephens et al. was criticizing that cartoon which is the source of Hockey’s pseudo science. YOU, can’t criticize the work that should be criticized and euthanize.

      • Jim D: “However, explaining a lapse rate does not give you an absolute value for which you also need radiation, otherwise you are not in the real world due to insufficient physics. See Arrhenius (1896).”

        Arrhenius does not ever discuss the lapse rate or radiative-convective equilibrium in his 1896 paper whatsoever and that is why his theory failed. The lapse rate is dependent only upon g/Cp, not radiative forcing!

        dT/dh=-g/Cp

        The gravito-thermal HS greenhouse equation perfectly replicates the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere using radiative forcing from the only source of energy – the Sun, and zero radiative forcing from GHGs, and the lapse rate g/C is right there in the middle of the equation!

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=greenhouse+equation

        So please don’t patronize me with your

        Captd: if you think this is false physics, then prove where I made an error in the derivation of the above equation, and also explain how it could perfectly replicate the millions of observations obtained for the 1976 US Std Atm. model verification.

      • Hockey, “Captd: if you think this is false physics, then prove where I made an error in the derivation of the above equation, and also explain how it could perfectly replicate the millions of observations obtained for the 1976 US Std Atm. model verification.”

        That is a simplified atmospheric temperature profile. The top of the atmospheric is roughly 100km. The 1976 US Atm. model “fits” roughly 2km to 12 km. “Fitting” the first 2 km which contains about 80% of the mass of the atmosphere is a byatch. The upper 88km with about 10% of the mass isn’t exactly a cake walk. Your “physics” adds nothing to the debate.

      • HS, that uses the effective radiative level of P/2 (just specified, not derived, by the way). Guess what, an effective radiative level implies a gas that emits IR, which is a greenhouse gas. Your point was…?

      • Capt: the US Std Atmosphere models the ENTIRE atmosphere from 0-100km not just the first 12km you falsely claimed. Furthermore, they proved that atmospheric temperature is a LINEAR function of kinematic viscosity 0-90km:

        and which has absolutely NOTHING to do with GHG radiative forcing!

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=1976+kinematic+viscosity

        And they did not do one single radiative transfer calculation in the 50 page physical/chemical derivation of their model, and completely left CO2 out of their model.

        So, Captd, explain how it is possible to derive a model of atmospheric temperature from the surface to the edge of space, the ONLY model verified with millions of observations, and leave out CO2 COMPLETELY?

        Do you, like Don, think the 100’s of atmospheric scientists, physicists, physical chemists, meteorologists who worked on that massive project were dimwits because they knew all of the temperature gradients/lapse rates 0-100km are controlled by gravity/mass/pressure/density/heat capacity, and have NOTHING whatsoever to do with radiative forcing!

      • Hockey, “And they did not do one single radiative transfer calculation in the 50 page physical/chemical derivation of their model, and completely left CO2 out of their model.”

        Didn’t need to, it is a “fit”. The error in the “fit” is much larger than the estimated impact of CO2 increased forcing. You just have a different version of a simplified model.

      • HS says: ” Clausius was right when he stated the 2nd law says that HEAT NEVER SPONTANEOUSLY FLOWS from COLD to HOT. There no such thing as “net” heat flow. Heat flow is one way only from hot to cold, despite bidirectional radiation between the two bodies.”

        Let’s see what Clausius actually said, shall we?

        ***************************

        “The principle may more briefly expressed thus: Heat cannot by itself pass from a colder to a warmer body; the words ‘by itself’ (von selbst) however, here require explanation…

        In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it….

        On considering the results of such processes more closely, we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to a warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body without any other permanent change occurring. In this case, we have not a simple transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body, or an ascending transmission of heat, as it may be called, bu two connected transmissions of opposite characters, one ascending and the other descending, which compensate each other.”

        Clausius, R., “The Mechanical Theory of Heat”, p. 117, 1867

        ***************************

        That’s about as clear a statement of heat exchange and “net” heat flow as you are going to get…

      • Jim D: “HS, that uses the effective radiative level of P/2 (just specified, not derived, by the way). Guess what, an effective radiative level implies a gas that emits IR, which is a greenhouse gas. Your point was…?”

        Of course CO2 is an IR active gas! Please read at least one of my posts on why the Arrhenius GHE confuses the cause (gravito-thermal GHE) with the effect (IR radiation from GHGs)

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-man-made-global-warming-theory.html

        In the HS GH eqn P = 1 atmosphere at the surface of Earth, by DEFINITION for Earth. P/2 is the pressure at center of mass/ERL of the atmosphere where P=0.5 atm, T=255K=equilibrium temperature with the Sun, located at 5.5km geopotential altitude.

        Quick & dirty explanation of the HS GH eqn:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/quick-and-dirty-explanation-of.html

      • Hockey, “And they did not do one single radiative transfer calculation in the 50 page physical/chemical derivation of their model, and completely left CO2 out of their model.”

        Captd: Didn’t need to, it is a “fit”. The error in the “fit” is much larger than the estimated impact of CO2 increased forcing. You just have a different version of a simplified model.

        Wrong again, you are just making up crap now. You obviously haven’t read the 50 page physical derivation. The physical/mathematical model was derived FIRST and then millions of observations obtained to VERIFY the model. There is no “fit” as you claim.

        The Arrhenius GHE claims 20% of the GHE is from CO2 alone. 20% of 33K is 6.6K which you falsely claim is insignificant. If you’d actually read the US Std Atm document you would know that the reason why they left out CO2 is because it contributes insignificantly to atmospheric molecular MASS.

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=1976+us+standard+atmosphere

      • HS, with you having admitted that there are IR active gases in the atmosphere, and that it would be colder without them because that puts the effective 255 K radiating level at the surface, now you only have to realize that means it is also warmer with more GHGs. What is this argument actually about?

      • Curt: from pg 601 of this text:

        https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B74u5vgGLaWoMjk2ZjFBTV9fXzA

        “All our experience shows we cannot make a device that
        transfers heat from a cold body to a hot body without doing work. In fact, exactly the opposite is seen: Heat flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies. Our experience is summarized and generalized in the following statement:

        “It is impossible to construct a device that will transfer heat from a cold reservoir to a hot reservoir in a continuous cycle with no net expenditure of work.”

        This is one form of the second law of thermodynamics, as stated by Rudolf
        Clausius.”

        Exactly, and that is why the cold -18C atmospheric “blackbody” or “reservoir” cannot transfer heat to a hot 15C surface blackbody/reservoir.

      • “HS, with you having admitted that there are IR active gases in the atmosphere, and that it would be colder without them because that puts the effective 255 K radiating level at the surface, now you only have to realize that means it is also warmer with more GHGs. What is this argument actually about?”

        “Admitted” LOL I have always said CO2 and H2O are IR active gases from the very beginning of my blog in 2009, never ever said otherwise.

        I’ve already proven with a Boltzmann distribution that a pure N2 atmosphere would contain slightly more total kinetic heat energy than our current atm due to the steeper lapse rate. There is less total kinetic heat energy in our atmosphere thanks to GHGs accelerating convection and increasing radiative surface area to enhance heat transfer to space. The 83K troposphere temperature gradient in our atmosphere has a negative -35K anti-greenhouse effect from the 255K ERL to the 220K tropopause, and a smaller +33K greenhouse effect from the 255K ERL to surface. There is no added kinetic heat energy from GHGs and the total atmosphere is slightly cooler than a pure N2/O2 atmosphere would be.

      • HS: You are exhibiting the exact confusion that Clausius went to great lengths to try to prevent. The textbook you link to is talking about NET heat flow.

        When people talk about “radiative exchange” or “back radiation” or other similar constructs, they are talking about GROSS flows that are parts of the resulting NET heat flow — and as Clausius makes clear, the resulting heat flow is NET. This has been well understood in science and engineering for over 150 years now.

        Don’t ever take a job as a cashier. Using your logic, you would never give change to a customer, as you would believe that giving a customer any money when he is buying something from the store is completely wrong!

      • How does it feel not being the foil for a while, yimmy? This clown makes you look like a genius.

      • Actually Curt, the little confused fella had a career as a cashier. Four minutes.

      • HS, you missed the point. It is 33 K warmer if you have GHGs than if you don’t. What if you double your GHGs? How about ten times as much? Warmer at the surface in both those cases, right?

      • No Curt please read the page again it clearly when they say it is impossible to construct a device that can transfer ANY heat from cold to hot!

        “By this [faulty] reasoning we have devised an apparatus that can transfer heat from a low temperature to a high-temperature reservoir with no net expenditure of work.
        But that is impossible. All our experience shows we cannot make a device that
        transfers heat from a cold body to a hot body without doing work. In fact, exactly the opposite is seen: Heat flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies. Our experience is summarized and generalized in the following statement:
        It is impossible to construct a device that will transfer heat from a cold reservoir to a hot reservoir in a continuous cycle with no net expenditure of work.
        This is one form of the second law of thermodynamics, as stated by Rudolf
        Clausius.”

        So Curt, tell me exactly how much HEAT/kinetic energy is transferred from the -18C atmosphere blackbody to the 15C Earth blackbody. Please show all your work.

      • Jim D: “HS, you missed the point. It is 33 K warmer if you have GHGs than if you don’t. What if you double your GHGs? How about ten times as much? Warmer at the surface in both those cases, right?”

        No, you are conveniently forgetting about the even larger negative minus 35K anti-greenhouse effect from the 255K ERL to 220K tropopause. 33K – 35K = “net” minus 2K greenhouse effect thanks to GHGs vs. a pure N2/O2 Boltzmann distribution. More GHGs accelerate convection and increase radiative surface area to space, cooling the surface.

      • HS, that makes absolutely no sense at all. How much colder does your theory make a pure CO2/H2O atmosphere? If you raise the radiative level by adding GHGs, the surface gets warmer by your own so-called gravito-thermal effect. Now you have gone against that because it doesn’t give the answer you want. Your answer had nothing about how to do the calculation with a changed GHG amount because it actually lacks the part of the physics that quantifies the effect. All your physics is in P/2 which appears independent of how much or even whether you have GHGs. That term is actually a function of GHG amounts.

      • HS: Let’s see — your question is very much like some of my engineering heat transfer problems from the 1970s.

        For the sake of simplicity, we’ll use two closely spaced parallel plates each one square meter, in a vacuum.

        The 1st plate at -18C (255K) transfers a radiative energy flux towards the warmer plate of

        Q12 = 5.67 x10^-8 * 255^4 * 1.0 = 240 watts

        This is what Clausius explicitly refers to as the “ascending heat flow” (and which you claim does not exist).

        The second plate at +15C (288K) transfers a radiative energy flux toward the colder plate of

        Q21 = 5.67 x 10^-8 * 288^4 * 1.0 = 390 watts

        This is what Clausius call the “descending heat flow”. And, as Clausius states, this is greater than the “ascending heat flow”.

        So the resulting (net) heat transfer is:

        Q = Q21 – Q12 = 390 – 240 = 150 watts

        This NET transfer is from warmer to colder, as Clausius stated it must be, because the descending transfer is greater than the (non-zero!!!) ascending transfer.

        To repeat, the textbook you cite is talking about this NET transfer. You seem completely unable to grasp the distinction between GROSS and NET, no matter how many times it is pointed out to you.

      • Jim D: I already calculated it for you 33K – 35K = -2K. You are once again ignoring the negative anti-greenhouse effect of -35K from the ERL to tropopause, and which none of your fellow warmists ever care to discuss for obvious reasons. All the gravito-thermal GHE does is redistribute the heat from the Sun, takes heat from the ERL to tropopause and re-distributes it more towards the lower atmosphere ERL to surface. There is no added heat by GHGs, just redistributed heat along the tropospheric lapse rate.

        The purpose of the P/2 is to determine the geopotential height of the center of mass of the atmosphere (after density correction). Has NOTHING to do with trace GHG amounts as you falsely claim.

        Look, you can try to argue all you want that this equation, simply derived from the 1st law of thermodynamics, Newton’s 2nd law, the ideal gas law and Poisson relation, is wrong, but you’ve got a tremendous uphill battle to explain how this simple equation replicates the overlapping P/T curve portions for Earth, Triton, and Venus, and perfectly reproduces the US Std Atm without any radiative forcing from GHGs whatsoever. Good luck.

        Curt, you are confusing HEAT/kinetic energy with radiation, confusing radiative transfer (bidirectional) with heat transfer (one way only hot to cold).

        Curt, can a blackbody radiating at 217K cause another blackbody at 255K to warm by 33K up to 288K? Yes or no please.

      • He doesn’t want to find out that he is wrong, Curt. He has been at this for years.

      • Same question to you Don, can a blackbody radiating at 217K cause another blackbody at 255K to warm by 33K up to 288K? Yes or no please.

        And Curt, any transfer of heat from cold to hot (without work input) requires an impossible continuing decrease of total system entropy, forbidden by the 2nd law on a macro basis, and by quantum-entropy considerations on a micro basis (also explained in the text I linked).

      • So HS, you think Clausius was an idiot for stating very explicitly that there is heat transfer from colder to warmer (while always less than warmer to colder)?

        Do you believe Clausius was wrong to state this???

      • HS: You ask: “Curt, can a blackbody radiating at 217K cause another blackbody at 255K to warm by 33K up to 288K? Yes or no please.”

        Can it? Yes. But only if certain conditions are met.

        First, the “other blackbody” originally at 255K must have a separate power source (like the sun). Second, the “reference” condition from which it would warm up must be proximity to a body at less than 217K (like deep space at 3K).

        You display a complete inability to analyze thermodynamic systems with more than two components. You need to be able to consider at least four:

        1. Power source (e.g. sun)
        2. Body 1 (earth’s surface)
        3. Body 2 (earth’s atmosphere)
        4. Ambient (deep space)

        If you took an introductory undergraduate thermodynamics or heat transfer course, you would get problems of this complexity two or three weeks in. You seem completely incapable of handling them.

      • HS: You say, “Curt, you are confusing HEAT/kinetic energy with radiation, confusing radiative transfer (bidirectional) with heat transfer (one way only hot to cold).”

        So all you are left with is a semantic argument. Clausius called the individual transfers “heat flows”. Today, many people consider the individual transfers “energy” rather than “heat”, but THE RESULT IS THE SAME!!!!

      • I can’t believe you’re still arguing over what really amounts to semantics

      • I said he was a skydragon. Arguing with skydragons is a waste of time. They live in their own reality, with their own fantasy fisicks, and cherry-pick and re-interpret all the “authorities” to support their own delusions.

        Hm… Sort of reminds me of CAGW alarmists. Of course, they’ve got their own fantasy economics to go with it. But then, the “science” of economics is like the “science” of astrology. Except that politicians can get away with listening to economists. If they listen to astrologers, they don’t can’t afford to admit it.

      • hockey, “Captd: Didn’t need to, it is a “fit”. The error in the “fit” is much larger than the estimated impact of CO2 increased forcing. You just have a different version of a simplified model.

        Wrong again, you are just making up crap now. You obviously haven’t read the 50 page physical derivation.”

        I don’t feel the need either, since it is the “1976 version” us standard atmosphere. The first version was 1958 then there was 1962, 1966 and then the 1976. The versions exist to explain observations of the atmosphere, i.e. “fit” the limited reality of a clean, clear, dry, ideal atmosphere. Observations improved so the versions were revised.

        Interestingly, the CAGW proponents tends to ignore that as observations improve their reality might change as well.

      • “I can’t believe you’re still arguing over what really amounts to semantics”

        It’s not semantics. Hockeypuck doesn’t get the basics of radiative physics. I think dyslexia affects his reading and his logic. Or some other screw is loose.

      • No Curt, it is impossible for a 217K blackbody to increase the frequency/temperature/energy content of a 255K blackbody by 33K up to 288K. This would require a spontaneous, continuing decrease of entropy forbidden by the 2nd LoT on a macro basis, and by quantum-entropy on a micro basis (explained in Chapter 13 of my linked text)

        Please provide me with a published reference stating that a cold blackbody can warm a warmer blackbody by > 0K degrees.

        Capt’d hasn’t read the US Std Atm 50 page physical chemistry derivation and thus has no clue that it IS NOT an empirical model, it is entirely derived from basic physics, chemistry, meteorology to a set of equations, which were then VERIFIED with millions of observations.

        Unlike you and the other Fizzikxs majors here, these 100’s of atmospheric scientists knew, just like Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, Chilingar, etc. etc. that the gravito-thermal GHE is physically correct and explains the IR backradiation as an effect not the cause of the GHE.

      • PLEASE stop now.

      • No, I’m not going to stop defending the ridiculous false claims being made about the US Std Atm physical derivation, and the works of the great physicists Maxwell, Carnot, Clausius, Boltzmann, Feynman, etc., ALL of whom proved the gravito-thermal GHE is correct.

        I’m also not going to stop refuting the ridiculous claims being made that a cold blackbody at 217K can cause a warm blackbody at 255K to increase its temperature/energy/frequency by one iota, much less by 33K!

        The NET radiation between those two blackbodies is

        5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 217^4) = 114 W/m2 from HOT to COLD

        Carl et al ridiculously claim that NET radiation of 114W/m2 from HOT to COLD can INCREASE the temperature/frequency/energy of the HOT body from 255K to 288K!! How can energy LOSS of 114W/m2 from the HOT body cause an energy GAIN in the HOT body?

      • HS: You really must learn to handle problems with more than two bodies!

        You ask, “How can energy LOSS of 114W/m2 from the HOT body cause an energy GAIN in the HOT body?”

        It’ simple! Let’s consider the case of a blackbody with a separate 240 W/m2 power input.

        In Case A, this blackbody is in a vacuum in deep space, which has an effective blackbody radiating temperature of 3K. For it to be in steady-state condition, its NET radiation loss to deep space must be this same 240 W/m2. To obtain its surface temperature, we use:

        Qnet = 240 = 5.67E-8 * (T^4 – 3^4)

        Solving for T, we get: T = 255K

        In Case B, this blackbody is still in a vacuum, but surrounded by another blackbody held at 217K. For it to be in steady-state condition, its NET radiation loss to this other body must be this same 240 W/m2. To obtain the surface temperature of the first blackbody in this case, we use:

        Qnet = 240 = 5.67E-8 * (T^4 – 217^4)

        Solving for T, we get: T = 283K

        If the second blackbody at 217K was introduced when the first blackbody was at 255K, the NET radiative flow from the warmer to the colder body would be:

        Qnet = 5.67E-8 * (255^4 – 217^4) = 114 W/m2

        This is less than the 240 W/m2 input to the first body, so the internal energy and therefore the temperature of the first body would increase, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS AN “ENERGY LOSS” FROM THE FIRST TO THE SECOND BODY!!! The temperature would increase until the NET output from the first to the second body matches the separate input.

        This is the kind of problem you would get by about the third week of an introductory undergraduate course. Students would be expected to solve it in a couple of minutes.

      • Very well done and definitive, Curt. The clown should go away now, but he’s got some phantom quantum BS up his sleeve that he will come back with.

      • The fig below is my understanding of the discussion. Isothermal black sphere (why?) and constant energy input to red sphere or red sphere is isothermal. If constant heat to red and constant flow to its outside from the black sphere, the extra heat flowing to the black sphere must be remove and NOT returned to the red sphere for isothermal status. If the heat is NOT removed from the black sphere so that it remains isothermal, the whole system heats up with continued, constant energy input to the red. The black sphere then begins to radiate more heat to its exterior.

      • Oh please, all you have done is repeated my heat transfer calculation

        “The NET radiation between those two blackbodies is

        5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 217^4) = 114 W/m2 from HOT to COLD”

        and then guess what, all of that additional 114W/m2 is then radiated away by the colder body to 4K space for no net heat gain whatsoever!

        You have simply copied Willis Eschenbach’s steel greenhouse falsehoods, thoroughly debunked here:

        https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-3/

        and elsewhere.

        For HEAT to be transferred from cold to hot requires a continuous decrease in entropy, forbidden by the 2nd LoT on both a macro and micro-quantum basis. You cannot get around that simple freshman thermodynamics principle. Show me your entropy calculations for the steel greenhouse to prove you are not violating the 2nd law.

        And, as previously requested, please provide a published reference stating that a colder blackbody can ever decrease entropy by increasing the frequency, energy, temperature of a warmer blackbody.

        Good luck.

      • The proper heat transfer calculations are always based upon the hot^4 – cold^4 temperature differential, ie only hot to cold, and to assume otherwise requires an impossible decrease of entropy:

        1. Initially 5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 217^4) = 114 W/m2 from HOT to COLD &
        5.6704e-8*(217^4 – 4^4) = 126 W/m2 From COLD to COLDER space

        2. After the outer shell BB equilibrates with the inner BB, the maximum temperature of both remains 255K

        Thus 5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 255^4) = 0 W/m2 net transfer between them when both BB reach the same T=255K

        and then outer shell BB at 255K radiates to 4K space:

        5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 4^4) = 240 W/m2

        The inner and outer BBs are at 255K maximum, there is no gain of heat/temperature/energy/frequency by the inner BB whatsoever. Steel greenhouse falsified.

      • HS says “The purpose of the P/2 is to determine the geopotential height of the center of mass of the atmosphere (after density correction). Has NOTHING to do with trace GHG amounts as you falsely claim.”
        So, the first time I mentioned that the effective radiative level of P/2 means you are assuming emission from GHGs, you agreed it is IR active. Now you are saying that the fact the atmosphere is emitting from its middle has nothing to do with the amount of GHGs in it. You are just self-contradictory. It’s pointless.

      • Jim D: The purpose of P/2 is to determine the center of MASS of the atmosphere (used in calculating the gravito-thermal temperature gradient). In an atmosphere with GHGs, the ERL is at the same height as the center of mass where T=Te=255K.

        If it was a pure N2 atmosphere, the center of MASS would be almost the same geopotential height, but as I already explained above, the ERL in that situation is located at the surface where the temperature is also T=Te=255K.

      • HS, so with no GHGs it is at P, and with even a trace of GHGs it jumps to P/2. How much of a trace does there have to be? For sure at Venus, P/2 is far too hot to be a radiative level, so what happened there? In reality, of course, the effective radiative level rises gradually with the amount of GHGs, which your formula doesn’t allow for at all. That is where it departs from actual physics.

      • HS: apparently you do not appreciate simple pictures. So, I will not bother reading your many continuing postings. Not worth my time reading what you have when you are so caustic with my effort to make things visual.

      • Joel Williams: I was not responding to you, I was responding to Curt, who given his multiple undeserved & caustic comments to me upthread is getting his karma back in return. I had not even seen your comment or your diagram when I wrote that reply to Curt. No offense whatsoever to you intended, and I should have made clear who I was responding to.

        Jim D: the overlapping portions of the Venus/Earth T/P curve are very close with only a 1.17 tweking factor, and which in turn overlaps with the US Std Atm & the HS GH eqn. Same is true for Triton.

        Jim D says: “In reality, of course, the effective radiative level rises gradually with the amount of GHGs, which your formula doesn’t allow for at all. That is where it departs from actual physics.”

        No, it does not depart from physics whatsoever. Nine physical reasons why that is a myth:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-global-warming-is-not-explained-by.html

      • “We shall forever remain willfully ignorant and unshod.”—Skydragon Creed

        They are opening the books for new members. For ten bucks you get a tinfoil hat and a plastic sheriff’s badge. Online access to a short video presenting easy to follow secret handshake instructions will cost you another buck fitty cent. Visit hockeypuck’s very lonely blog for mailing address and payment instructions. Fo’ shizzle.

      • None of my questions were answered. How much of a trace of GHGs does it take to radiate from P/2 instead of P? Why is Venus clearly not radiating from its P/2 when it is mostly GHGs? What happens to the radiating level when you double or multiply by ten the GHG concentration? No answer mainly because the formula proffered won’t give it. It just is lacking in the required physics.

      • “How much of a trace of GHGs does it take to radiate from P/2 instead of P?”

        Only a few parts per million

        “Why is Venus clearly not radiating from its P/2 when it is mostly GHGs?”

        Venus is a unique case with an opaque TOA, but nonetheless, as I said, the overlapping parts of the Venus/Earth T/P curve are within a tiny tweaking factor of 1.17. The closest Earth analog by far in the solar system is Triton, and the ERL is also located at exactly P/2 (after density correction) and the HS GH eqn perfectly replicates the atmosphere of Triton as well.

        “What happens to the radiating level when you double or multiply by ten the GHG concentration? ”

        GHGs increase Cp (C in the HS GH eqn), which is inversely related to temperature change. More GHGs therefore decrease the lapse rate and increase cooling.

        “No answer mainly because the formula proffered won’t give it. It just is lacking in the required physics.”

        LOL disproven above

      • OK, Venus is an exception that disobeys your rule because you have to allow exceptions in rules that aren’t rules, and a few parts per million is not derived from any principle, but may be yet another gut feeling aspect of your physics like P/2 was. I see.

      • HS: You say, “please provide a published reference stating that a colder blackbody can ever decrease entropy by increasing the frequency, energy, temperature of a warmer blackbody.”

        I entered this thread by quoting directly from THE ULTIMATE published reference on the subject, your hero Clausius’ “The Mechanical Theory of Heat”. It explicitly talks about heat flow from colder to warmer bodies. Can you not read? I rephrase my question: Do you think Clausius is is espousing incorrect “fizzicks” here???

        The concept of the two-way radiative exchange of heat is explained in every textbook on the subject I have ever seen, both in the fields of physics and engineering (totally unrelated to climate science). Generations of scientists and engineers have been taught this way.

        Problems like the “steel greenhouse” are simply given as homework and exam problems. Nothing controversial about them at all.

        Let’s do the entropy calculations for both the “one-way” and “two-way” methods of analysis. The 2nd Law requires that the entropy of the overall system increases. We’ll do the analysis for 1 square meter of area with blackbody 1 at 255K and blackbody 2 at 217K

        One-way (net) analysis with 114 watts:

        dS1/dt = -114 W / 255K = -0.447 (J/K)/sec {that’s an entropy decrease!}

        dS2/dt = +114W / 217K = +0.525 (J/K)/sec {an entropy increase}

        The rate of change of entropy of the whole system is:

        dS/dt = dS2/dt + dS1/dt = 0.525 – 0.447 = 0.078 (J/K) / sec

        which is positive. So far so good.

        Now let’s do two-way (gross flow) analysis with 240 watts from 1 to 2 and 126 watts from 2 to 1:

        dS1/dt = -240W/255K + 126W/255K = -0.447 (J/K)/sec

        dS2/dt = +240W/217K – 126W/217K = +0.525 (J/K)/sec

        The rate of change of entropy of the whole system is:

        dS/dt = dS2/dt + dS1/dt = 0.525 – 0.447 = 0.078 (J/K) / sec

        which is positive. No 2nd Law violations from using gross flows!!!

        Let’s look at your “solution” to the steel greenhouse problem. Let’s use the shell as our control mass for energy balance calculations. (If you don’t know what a “control mass” is, you aren’t ready to participate in these discussions at all.)

        You say that in steady state conditions, the shell is the same temperature as the sphere, so it is receiving no net transfer from the sphere. But you also say that the shell is radiating (240*Area) watts to space. There are no other transfers.

        For the shell to be in steady state, its internal energy U must be constant. The 1st LoT in differential form states:

        dU/dt = Sum(Power_In) – Sum(Power_Out)

        In the steady state for any control mass, dU/dt = 0. So your solution has:

        dU/dt = 0 = 0 – 240

        which of course is totally wrong! This is as simple and basic as you can make a thermodynamics problem, and you completely screw it up!

      • dU/dt = 0 = 0 – 240

        That is what hockeypuck was taught at the University of Venus. Fisicks is a little different there. He is still adjusting. Doesn’t know which way is up, on this planet.

      • Curt, it is really very simple:

        255K BB equilibrates with the outer BB to 255K and the outer BB radiates at the same 255K to 4K space. All you have done is increase the heat capacity/mass of the total steel greenhouse, while keeping the power input the same. Once the total mass of the inner and outer steel greenhouse has equilibrated to the 255K power source there is an increase in internal energy dU due to the increased heat capacity of the total mass.

        If your steel greenhouse was true, one could create a Carnot engine between the reservoirs 283K inner BB and 4K space to generate 364 W/m2 = [5.6704e-8*(283^4 – 4^4)]

        instead of the 240 W/m2 = [5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 4^4)] provided by the ONLY energy source to the system!

        Thus, you have created a perpetual motion machine that amplifies the ONLY power source by a factor of 1.5X!!

        Congratulations, call the USPTO immediately!!

        But please please read this first:

        https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-3/

      • No Jim D, for the fourth time, the overlapping portions of the Venus/Earth T/P curve are almost identical, no rule is “disobeyed.” In fact, the gravito-thermal GHE replicates the T/P on every planet with a thick atmosphere:

        http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image_thumb25.png?w=644&h=460

        No, the parts per million is based upon the mean time between particle collisions (which are far more likely to transfer heat from CO2 to N2/O2 than a photon emission) which is derived in the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document that warmists such as yourself deny due to its inconvenience to your cause.

        P/2 is NOT a gut feeling and is based upon standard physics of using the center of mass in Newton’s 2nd law (which is part of the HS GH eqn) for a system of particles:

        http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1110/phys1110_sp01/Notes/Chap10.htm

        “When in a hole, stop digging”

      • Curt, it is really very simple:

        255K BB equilibrates with the outer BB to 255K and the outer BB radiates at the same 255K to 4K space. All you have done is increase the heat capacity/mass of the total steel greenhouse, while keeping the power input the same. Once the total mass of the inner and outer steel greenhouse has equilibrated to the 255K power source there is an increase in internal energy dU due to the increased heat capacity of the total mass.

        If your steel greenhouse was true, one could create a Carnot engine between the reservoirs 283K inner BB and 4K space to generate 364 W/m2 = [5.6704e-8*(283^4 – 4^4)]

        instead of the 240 W/m2 = [5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 4^4)] provided by the ONLY energy source to the system!

        Thus, you have created a perpetual motion machine that amplifies the ONLY power source by a factor of 1.5X!!

        Congratulations, call the USPTO immediately!!

        But please please read this first before spending any money on patent attorneys:

        “/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-3/” in post I linked above

      • It is really very simple:

        255K BB equilibrates with the outer BB to 255K and the outer BB radiates at the same 255K to 4K space. All you have done is increase the heat capacity/mass of the total steel greenhouse, while keeping the power input the same. Once the total mass of the inner and outer steel greenhouse has equilibrated to the 255K power source there is an increase in internal energy dU due to the increased heat capacity of the total mass.

        If your steel greenhouse was true, one could create a Carnot engine between the reservoirs 283K inner BB and 4K space to generate 364 W/m2 = [5.6704e-8*(283^4 – 4^4)]

        instead of the 240 W/m2 = [5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 4^4)] provided by the ONLY energy source to the system!

        Thus, you have created a perpetual motion machine that amplifies the ONLY power source by a factor of 1.5X!!

      • HS: Wow! Just wow!

        I had totally underestimated the depth and breadth of your incompetence in the field!

        Even when it is directly pointed out to you, you cannot understand the blatant 1st LoT violation of your analysis when it comes to the shell. You still maintain that it can receive 0 watts from the sphere, radiate 240*Area watts to space, and not change its internal energy level. If you cannot figure out why this is dead wrong, there is no hope for you!

        If you deposited no money into one of your bank accounts, and withdrew $240 per week from that account, would you expect its balance to stay constant from week to week? That is the same as what you are arguing!

        Like so many of the slayers, you cannot understand the difference between a static thermal equilibrium and a dynamic thermal steady-state condition. What we have here is the latter.

        Let’s take the sphere without the shell. We agree that it will radiate 240 W/m2 to deep space from its surface, for a surface temperature of 255K. You seem to think that that the interior of the sphere will be isothermal below the surface. No! In the steady state, the radiating surface layer must receive as much power from the interior as it radiates to space.

        This requires a temperature gradient below the surface. (Remember that heat transfer is defined as energy transfer that is due to temperature differential.) How big a temperature gradient? Let’s take a typical thermal conductivity value for steel of 48 W/m/K:

        dT/dz = (240 W/m2) / (48 W/m/K) = 5 K/m

        So one meter below the sphere surface, the temperature would be 255 + 5 = 260K. These are basic, basic concepts! If this material were isothermal, there would be no heat transfer.

        This brings us to your next point of confusion. The statement of the problem says the interior power source is radioactive decay. There is an assumption in the statement that the audience is sophisticated enough to know that radioactive decay can lead to very high temperatures.

        After all, the earth’s internal radioactive decay, which produces a heat flux density near the surface of less than 0.1 W/m2, still yields a core temperature of several thousand K (not several million K, as Al Gore would have it…).

        But the key is this — the source temperature of the power is much, much higher than the surface temperature range we are talking about. And as long as the surface temperature is less than the core temperature (and greater than the deep space temperature), there is no 2nd LoT violation.

        Another thing: I can’t believe your technical intuition is so bad that you cannot immediately see in a qualitative sense that a vacuum barrier between a hot powered object and a cold ambient is going to increase the thermal resistance to shedding that power, requiring a higher temperature to get rid of the input power.

        There is a reason there are “vacuum furnaces” with “multilayer radiative insulation” in the vacuum barrier — the same amount of power input to the furnace leads to much higher temperatures. This is proven in the laboratory and available commercially; not just a theoretical construct.

        Oh, and Kristian’s post you link to — you don’t even understand that he disagrees with you! He agrees that the sphere surface temperature will increase when the shell is placed around it. His entire post is really just a semantic argument about what heat flow is. In it, he disagrees with Clausius on the bidirectional nature of heat transfer — I’ll side with Clausius.

      • HS, exactly how many ppm of CO2 or H2O or their combination does it take to put your radiative level at P/2? What happens if you have half that? Why is the center of mass so special when the H2O is almost 90% below the center of mass, and that accounts for 90% of the GHG molecules?

      • “Wow! Just wow! I had totally underestimated the depth and breadth of your incompetence in the field!”

        And the same to you Curt. I note that you have completely ignored your perpetual motion machine Carnot engine:

        “If your steel greenhouse was true, one could create a Carnot engine between the reservoirs 283K inner BB and 4K space to generate 364 W/m2 = [5.6704e-8*(283^4 – 4^4)]

        instead of the 240 W/m2 = [5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 4^4)] provided by the ONLY energy source to the system!

        Thus, you have created a perpetual motion machine that continuously amplifies the ONLY power source by a factor of 1.5X!!”

        Hmmm, wonder why you fail to say anything about the Carnot engine operating between the 283^4 hot body and 4^4 cold body, continuously outputting more than the only source of power, and instead resort to misquoting me and making strawman arguments about radioactive decay and things I never said! One example of many misquotes:

        You falsely claim, “You still maintain that it [shell] can receive 0 watts from the sphere, radiate 240*Area watts to space, and not change its internal energy level.”

        Absolutely false. I said that the initially 217K shell does accumulate internal energy from the sphere until it equilibrates with the sphere with both BBs then at 255K. You make the ridiculous assumption that the temperature of the shell “is held at 217K” which is just one of your fundamental, unphysical mistakes.

        “1. Initially 5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 217^4) = 114 W/m2 from HOT to COLD &
        5.6704e-8*(217^4 – 4^4) = 126 W/m2 From COLD to COLDER space

        2. After the outer shell BB equilibrates with the inner BB, the maximum temperature of both remains 255K”

        If the MOST that the power source can do is to warm ONE blackbody to a surface temperature 255K, what possibly makes you think the same power source can raise the temperature of that blackbody by an additional 28K and a SECOND blackbody also to a surface temperature of 255K?

        When the 2 BBs are equilibrated the net heat transfer between them is zero net heat transfer as given by the heat transfer equation:

        5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 255^4) = 0 when both are at 255K

        and then outer shell BB at 255K radiates to 4K space:

        5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 4^4) = 240 W/m2

        The inner and outer BBs are at 255K maximum, there is no gain of heat/temperature/energy/frequency by the inner BB whatsoever. Steel greenhouse falsified.”

        Sphere BB at 255K radiates to equilibrated shell BB at 255K radiates to 4K space. Simple.

        And please read this post since you still don’t understand why heat never flows cold to hot and why heat transfer never decreases entropy:

        climateofsophistry dot com /2014/11/20/gift-of-the-steel-greenhouse-keeps-giving/

        Oh, and by the way, Clausius said

        “It is impossible to construct a device that will transfer heat from a cold reservoir to a hot reservoir in a continuous cycle with no net expenditure of work.”

        That is exactly what your perpetual Carnot machine is – “impossible”

      • I think they are done with you, hockeypuck. Don’t let them discourage you. Galileo was treated with similar disdain and ridicule, even worse. He was eventually vindicated.

      • HS: Oh, where to begin? It’s such a target-rich environment…

        1.) I showed very carefully that your analysis of the shell in the steady-state (when it reached 255K) was not even close to steady state, saying “You still maintain that it [shell] can receive 0 watts from the sphere, radiate 240*Area watts to space, and not change its internal energy level.”

        You say this is “absolutely false”, but then go on to say:

        “When the 2 BBs are equilibrated the net heat transfer between them is zero net heat transfer as given by the heat transfer equation:

        5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 255^4) = 0 when both are at 255K

        and then outer shell BB at 255K radiates to 4K space:

        5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 4^4) = 240 W/m2”

        WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I CLAIMED YOU HAD SAID!!!

        You have the shell receiving 0 W/m2 and putting out 240 W/m2, and you STILL claim this is steady-state! Anyone with the most basic understanding of the 1st Law would realize the absolute ridiculousness of this claim!

        (The post you cite makes the exact same incredible mistake!)

        2.) You had claimed that the presence of a shell at 217K between a (separately powered) surface at 255K and an ambient at 3K could not result in the increase in the temperature of the surface. I showed through careful energy balance calculations that it would indeed do this, EVEN IF the shell were maintained at 217K.

        Now, if the shell were not maintained at 217K, as in Willis’ steel greenhouse example (which we were not discussing at the time), its temperature would also increase until it radiated 240 W/m2 to space, and the surface temperature of the sphere would increase EVEN MORE — to 303K in the case of the steel greenhouse.

        Oh, and as the temperatures of the shell and sphere are increasin to the new higher steady-state values, NET heat flows are ALWAYS from hot to cold, from the core of the sphere to its surface, from the surface of the sphere to the shell, and from the shell to space. So no, Clausius would not be spinning in his grave.

        3.) You keep bringing up your irrelevant point about Carnot engines. Hilariously, you use the equation for blackbody heat transfer for your Carnot generation value. A spectacular own goal!!! Do you even know the equation for Carnot efficiency? Do you have the foggiest notion what it means?

        Even as an expression for blackbody heat transfer, you’ve got it all wrong, because the whole point is that the sphere is not radiating to space — it is radiating to the shell. The sphere at 303K is radiating a NET 240 W/m2 to the shell at 255K, and the shell is radiating a NET 240 W/m2 to space at 3K. No amplification!

        (If you bypassed the shell even in part so the sphere could transfer power directly to cold space, the sphere surface temperature could not stay as high. But that is a different situation.)

      • Curt you just keep going around and around with the same nonsense, just like your perpetual Carnot machine. I suggest you call the USPTO immediately since you appear to believe it’s possible to wrap a steel BB around another BB to increase the power output from the 255K sphere surface to 283K, and increase the temperature of the shell to 255K as well, amplifying the power output 1.5X of a theoretical 100% efficient Carnot engine between the hot reservoir at 283K to 4K space. You have effectively continuously transferred heat from the cold shell to warm sphere, continuously decreasing entropy, absolutely forbidden by the 2nd law.

        We should use your Steel Greenhouse Carnot engine power amplification technology on satellites to power them perpetually, so please try to get a patent on that technology.

        As I have said repeatedly, the inner 255K sphere warms the shell to 255K. Obviously when the two BBs are in equilibrium at the same temperature there is no NET HEAT transfer between them by the heat transfer equation since 255^4-255^4 = 0 and they are in dynamic equilibrium with each other.

        By your same illogic and misuse of Clausius’ statement

        “In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it….”

        So next we will build a steel greenhouse where the sphere and shell are in direct contact with each other and transfer heat primarily by conduction. By your same illogic, it will also be possible to amplify the power output 1.5 of the theoretical Carnot engine operating between the interface rising from 255K to 283K of the sphere and shell and 4K space.

        You and your Carnot engine are clearly perpetual in spinning this nonsense over and over, but Postma, Kristian, myself, US Standard Atmosphere document, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Clausius, and Carnot have been unable to convince you that the atmosphere is not a perpetual steel greenhouse Carnot engine, so I’m not going to waste any further time responding to you and suggest that you read Carnot’s book, in which he uses our atmosphere as his model throughout the book for a heat engine, i.e. a heat pump/air conditioner that COOLS, not warms, the surface:

        https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/carnot1897.pdf

        http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/climate-c08/pauluis/pdf/Pauluis_Climate_Conf_KITP.pdf

        Adios

      • For those still following this thread:

        In many technical curricula, introductory thermodynamics is considered a “washout” course, eliminating up front those who just cannot deal with the key concepts. We have a perfect case in point here, with hockeyschtick.

        Let’s look at the key Thermo 101 concepts that HS just cannot understand:

        * He continually insists that an object (the steel greenhouse shell) with zero power input and positive power output is in steady-state condition with constant internal energy U, when the first equation you learn in Thermo 101 is:

        dU/dt = PowerIn – PowerOut.

        * He insists that there can be heat transfer through an isothermal medium, when the definition of heat transfer requires a temperature differential.

        * He doesn’t have the most basic real-world experience to realize that if you inhibit the heat flow to cold ambient from a powered object (e.g. toaster, iron, light bulb), it will have a higher temperature than if you did not.

        Recently I designed a power electronic device with power transistors mounted on an aluminum plate whose purpose was to conduct the heat away from the transistors and dissipate it to the room ambient. My design had the plate exposed directly to the room, but the people making the prototypes covered the plate with a thin metal shell.

        In the thermal testing of the prototypes, the power transistors were running much hotter than they were supposed to. When I was called in to examine, I told them to remove the metal shell. Repeating the same tests without the shell, the transistors ran 20C cooler. So this is a real-world example of a (cooler) shell leading to a higher temperature of a powered object inside. I have to make this stuff work, or I lose my job!!!

        * He doesn’t realize that a vacuum barrier will have a much higher resistance to heat flow than metal does. So he doesn’t realize the profound difference between adding the shell in direct conductive contact with the sphere and one with a vacuum barrier in between. (Why is there a separate shell around any device like a Thermos bottle or cryogenic dewar?)

        * He cannot keep straight the distinction between the “potential” variable in a system (temperature in a thermal system) and the “flow” variable (heat flux in a thermal system). So he cannot understand that you can have increases in potential (temperature) even while the flow is from hot to cold.

        Recently I had a substantial but not complete clog in my drain pipes. With the faucet running in my sink, this caused the water level (potential) in my sink to rise. According to HS’s analyses, this should not have been possible, because it would be impossible for a passive clump of hair in the drain pipes below my house to “push the water up” against gravity.

        But of course, the actual water flow was always downward, even as the water level in the sink was increasing. This is the exact same principle as the steel greenhouse thermal system. There is no “perpetual motion machine” of either the 1st type of the 2nd type here. Net heat flow is always from hot to cold.

        * He keeps incorrectly referring to Carnot engines (theoretical beasts that get the maximum possible thermodynamic work out of a temperature differential through a working fluid) in a system that produces no work whatsoever and has no working fluid. Incredibly, he uses the blackbody radiative exchange exchange equation when discussing Carnot engines.

        Overall, a horrendous failure of multiple basic Thermodynamics 101 concepts.

      • For those still following this thread, let’s review how Curt purposely and fraudulently misstates what I have said to create strawman arguments which he then attacks:

        Curt falsely claims I said “He continually insists that an object (the steel greenhouse shell) with zero power input and positive power output is in steady-state condition with constant internal energy U, when the first equation you learn in Thermo 101 is: dU/dt = PowerIn – PowerOut.”

        False, I said the sphere and shell reach a dynamic equilibrium with both at the same temperature of 255K. There obviously is dynamic heat energy transfer from the source -> sphere -> shell -> space, i.e. only from hot to cold, but when the sphere and shell are the same equilibrated temperature there is no NET HEAT transfer since by the heat transfer equation 255^4 – 255^4 = 0, even though energy continues to pass thru the shell and then onto 4K space, the internal energy U of the 255K dynamically equilibrated BBs remains the same.

        Of course, dU/dt = PowerIn – PowerOut, and dU change in internal energy is the temperature change. If both bodies are dynamically equilibrated at 255K, then at that point there is no further dU!

        Curt next claims “He doesn’t have the most basic real-world experience to realize that if you inhibit the heat flow to cold ambient from a powered object (e.g. toaster, iron, light bulb), it will have a higher temperature than if you did not”

        Your example shield over the transistors works by inhibiting CONVECTION, the primary mode of heat transfer in the atmosphere, and has NOTHING to do with ‘radiative forcing”!

        Curt, when you put a larger heat sink (i.e. just like your shell BB) on your microprocessor, does the temperature of the microprocessor

        a) increase
        b) decrease
        c) stay the same

        Hint: a larger heat sink increases both convection and radiative surface area/radiative cooling, NOT warming as your ridiculous theory predicts!

        Next Curt lie: “He keeps incorrectly referring to Carnot engines (theoretical beasts that get the maximum possible thermodynamic work out of a temperature differential through a working fluid) in a system that produces no work whatsoever and has no working fluid.”

        What I said is that IT WOULD BE THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE to create a Carnot engine (which by definition DOES have a working fluid, obviously) between your hotter reservoir at 283K (rather than the actual 255K) and 4K space for which the heat transferred through the engine is calculated by the heat transfer equation, but even a theoretical Carnot engine is not 100% efficient, although it would be close to a theoretical 100% in the steel greenhouse thought experiment:

        The Carnot EFFICIENCY of such an engine is

        (Th – Tc)/Th *100% = 100*(283-4)/283 = 98.6%

        But since the actual temperature of the sphere and shell are 255K, the actual efficiency of such an engine is

        (Th – Tc)/Th *100% = 100*(255-4)/255 = 98.4%

        Thus 5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 4^4) = 240

        240*.984 = 236.13 W/m2 available to create work by this theoretical Carnot engine

        I note Curt hasn’t bothered to read Carnot’s book that I provided him, which uses our atmosphere as his model for a giant heat engine/AIR CONDITIONER which COOLS, not WARMS, the surface.

        Thus, we find once again that Curt “Overall, is a horrendous failure of multiple basic Thermodynamics 101 concepts,” including, but not limited to:

        1. False assumption heat can ever be transferred from cold to hot
        2. False assumption that any continuous transfer of heat from cold to hot doesn’t cause a net decrease of entropy, forbidden by the second law.
        3. Denial that 2 blackbodies in dynamic equilibrium at 255K cannot transfer any net HEAT to each other or raise their /frequency/internal energy/temperatures above 255K
        4. Denial that inhibiting CONVECTION, not radiation, is what makes his transistor board warmer.
        5. Denial that a theoretical Carnot engine between Curt’s fictitious 283K sphere to 4 space generates a continuous power output ~1.5X higher than the only source of power to the system!
        6. etc etc as already pointed out multiple times by me above.

        ie Curt, sadly, you are not even wrong!

      • HS:

        You are obviously totally incapable of even the most basic of thermodynamic analysis tasks — the definition of a system for analysis, and the consistent use of it. No matter how many times it is pointed out to you, you cannot understand it.

        Take the greenhouse “shell” as a system. The 1st Law applies to it, by itself. In the steady state, its internal energy U must be constant, so its dU/dt = 0

        The basic equation for analyzing a system with the 1st Law is:

        dU/dt = PowerIn – PowerOut.

        Your “solution” for the shell, as you have repeatedly stated, is that it receives 0 power from the sphere, because the sphere and the shell are at the same temperature. So, you have:

        PowerIn = 0

        You also state that the exterior of the shell is radiating 240 W/m2 to deep space. So you have:

        PowerOut = 240

        So your “steady state” energy balance is:

        dU/dt = 0 = 0 – 240

        This would get you slapped down hard in the first week of an introductory thermodynamics course. If you can’t understand this, you are not even ready to start to approach more subtle problems (which you get completely wrong as well.

        You say, “energy continues to pass thru the shell and then onto 4K space, the internal energy U of the 255K dynamically equilibrated BBs remains the same.” This just shows that you have no idea how to analyze a system. The shell itself must be in energy balance, and in your solution, its not even close!

        Until you can comprehend these basic, basic points, all your subsequent analysis is completely worthless.

        I find it highly amusing that you post an analysis of the Carnot heat engine operating between the “sphere” and “shell”, when you insist these would be the same temperature, and your equations are working with the cold ambient beyond the shell.

        Let’s look at an engineered heat engine, where we have a hot flame (at several thousand K) heating water in boiler. We want to use the water/steam from the boiler to drive an engine that will produce work.

        Someone suggests that we insulate the boiler so that for the same heat input from the flame, we get a higher temperature in the boiler, which permits a higher thermodynamic efficiency from our engine, which uses the same cold ambient to reject heat to. Your logic says that this could not help, but this in fact has been ubiquitous in boilers for well over a century now. Are all of those designers idiots?

      • Next Curt lie: “I find it highly amusing that you post an analysis of the Carnot heat engine operating between the “sphere” and “shell”, when you insist these would be the same temperature, and your equations are working with the cold ambient beyond the shell.”

        NO for at least the 5th time, the theoretical Carnot engine is operating between the sphere at 255K (or your false claim of 283K) and space at 4K.

        Your ridiculous power amplifying ~150% efficient Carnot engine is operating between the sphere at 283K and space at 4K, despite a power source only capable of warming the sphere to 255K!

        You also have no clue that dU is the change in temperature for both the sphere and shell, and since the shell is initially 217K, dU of the shell increases until it is in dynamic equilibrium with the sphere and now both are at 255K. When both are equilibrated at 255K, dU then becomes zero since both blackbodies are at the same 255K temperature.

        Of course Ein = Eout !

        YOU Curt are the one claiming that a power source only capable of heating ONE blackbody [sphere] to 255K somehow suddenly increases in power output to heat both the sphere and thus the shell (after equilibration) to 283K, i.e. Eout to space > Ein !

        FAIL FAIL FAIL!

        I’m done with your ridiculous theories that clearly violate both the 1st and 2nd laws. Since you don’t believe me, read Carnot’s book that clearly proves our atmosphere is an AIR CONDITIONER heat engine that solely acts to COOL, not warm, the surface.

      • HS:

        If you had ever taken an actual thermodynamics class, one of the first things you would have learned in solving a problem is that you can isolate ANY subsystem of your overall system and apply 1st Law energy balance analysis to it. Each subsystem, as well as the full system, must follow the 1st LoT. This is THE key strategy in solving most thermodynamic problems.

        I choose the shell as my subsystem. For the shell ALONE, the following equation must apply:

        dU/dt = PowerIn – PowerOut

        Your solution fails spectacularly on this account, with PowerIn = 0, and PowerOut = 240.

        It is NO defense whatsoever for you to say that your solution works for the full sphere-plus-shell system. You cannot say that the shell itself is exempt from the 1st LoT.

        The fact that you cannot understand this point no matter how often it is pointed out to you proves that you do not have any grasp at all of the most fundamental thermodynamic concepts.

      • Curt, YOU are the one who has no grasp of the fundamental thermodynamic concepts, including, but not limited to:

        1. False assumption heat can ever be transferred from cold to hot
        2. False assumption that any continuous transfer of heat from cold to hot doesn’t cause a net decrease of entropy, forbidden by the second law.
        3. Denial that 2 blackbodies in dynamic equilibrium at 255K cannot transfer any net HEAT to each other or raise their /frequency/internal energy/temperatures above 255K
        4. Denial that inhibiting CONVECTION, not radiation, is what makes his transistor board warmer.
        5. Denial that a theoretical Carnot engine between Curt’s fictitious 283K sphere to 4 space generates a continuous power output ~1.5X higher than the only source of power to the system!
        6. Confusion of the difference between HEAT/Kinetic energy and radiation.
        7. Confusion that internal energy U of either blackbody does NOT change if their temperatures remain the same, i.e. when both blackbodies are dynamically equilibrated at 255K each, dU [CHANGE OF INTERNAL ENERGY] drops to zero
        8. Curt falsely claims: “It is NO defense whatsoever for you to say that your solution works for the full sphere-plus-shell system.” Ah, yes it absolutely is, and your POWER-AMPLIFYING COLD-TO-HOT-HEAT TRANSFER solution clearly violates both the 1st & 2nd laws.
        9. Curt falsely claims, “You cannot say that the shell itself is exempt from the 1st LoT” Yet another false strawman, and YOU CURT are the one who claims the shell is exempt from the 1st LoT by “holding the temperature at 217K” and not assuming a dynamic equilibrium with the 255K sphere.
        10. etc etc. ad nauseum

        I’M DONE, FINISHED, NOT TO RETURN TO THIS HUGE WASTE OF MY TIME WITH CURT’S PERPETUAL MOTION THEORIES. LACK OF FURTHER RESPONSE TO THIS THREAD SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AGREEMENT WITH ANY OF CURT’S CLAIMS.

      • Well, you finally got through to the hockeypuck, Curt. He now knows he’s wrong, but is too EMBARRASSED to admit it. We won’t be hearing from that little fella again. What a spectacle of willful ignorance.

  21. First link is not working: Japan heading for nuclear restart

  22. There was a big uproar over mistreatment of Chinese workers by Apple. The Chinese found a solution to that problem. From the article:

    Of course, what looks sensible from the perspective of the economic planner’s office is more distressing from the factory floor. In March, Caixin, a Chinese business magazine, reported that Midea, a major Chinese manufacturer of air-conditioners and other appliances, plans to cut 6,000 of its 30,000 workers in 2015 to make way for automation. By 2018, it will cut another 4,000. What will happen to those and the millions of other low skill workers who will be displaced by the shift?

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-09/robots-leave-behind-chinese-workers

  23. EPA: Mine waste spill much larger than initially reported
    Updated: 08/09/2015 5:52 PM MDT

    “The preliminary number that the stream gauge is showing is more in the range of three million gallons,” said Shaun McGrath, the EPA’s Region 8 Administrator.
    The EPA still advised people to call the EPA to have their well water tested if they live near the rivers, and to also refrain from showering or drinking the water.
    http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3874609.shtml?cat=504#.Vcfsq7TZWq1

  24. This one: “Methane Leaks May Greatly Exceed Estimates, Report Says [[ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/science/methane-leaks-may-greatly-exceed-estimates-report-says.html ]] ” has a very misleading headline, and is simply a report from the inventor of one of the tools used to measure methane leaks stating that his machine can sometimes, under certain conditions, fail and report too low a reading.

    Researchers, who use the tool, counter that they use multiple instruments redundantly to ensure that even if one particular tool fails, it will show up as an outlier result for the particular site — and that they regularly adjust and calibrate the inventors tool to keep it in line.

    Thus the “may” in the title is true but improbable — multiple, simultaneous failures would have to take place to skew results of large studies.

    • Kip

      “Thus the “may” in the title is true but improbable — multiple, simultaneous failures would have to take place to skew results of large studies.”

      I suspect the title of the article fits the nyt narrative, which is why they report this as news in the first place. Handled cleverly, editorial content can be dressed up as news. The MSM is good at that.

  25. Oil still in the neighborhood of $45. Contango still $7, putting pressure for oil to storage. Rig count was up last week. Inventories fell more than expected, but oil prices remained soft. Another boring day in the oil patch.

    8/7/15
    OIL 43.64
    BRENT 48.32
    NAT GAS 2.84
    RBOB GAS 1.6323

    http://marketrealist.com/2015/08/crude-oil-inventories-fell-wti-crude-prices-slump/

  26. “Obama spurns natural gas in climate rule”

    So the left has worked to block nuclear for two generations, has begun shuttering viable coal power plants, is furiously waging war against fracking and natural gas, and is pushing for early and mass adoption of intermittent wind and solar with no economically sound system for adequate storage available today or on the horizon.

    And these are the smart folks? If smart equals self-delusional, then maybe so.

    • You certainly need to read that article further. The headline does not say what the article does.

      • I did read it. The headline is click bait. But while the administration has touted the CO2 reduction made possible by increased use of cheap natural gas, it is using the EPA to prepare for a war against the gas industry.

        Why? One might assume because cheap natural gas makes the cost of renewables (except the “non-renewable” renewable, hydro) look crazy expensive.

        But there is no need to read minds. Just look at some of the state mandates.

        For instance, Mississippi currently generates about 80% of its power from natural gas. Yet it is required to trim about 20% of its carbon footprint. It could go all natural gas and cut CO2 by maybe 10%, and then curtail any industrial growth and utilize conservation to save the other 10%. I just drove across the coast for the first time since shortly after Katrina. Ten years later it is incredible how much is gone. I should have photographed the historical markers which once documented 100+ year-old structures and now stand before empty lots. I guess the administration is OK with telling the folks there that any continued redevelopment will have to be on a zero-energy basis, and to forget trying to land new energy-hungry industries. Its probably not a must-have state for 2016 or 2020 anyway so what do they care?

        The point which the article was (poorly) making was this: by stiffening the requirements, a changeover to natural gas was made less attractive. By pushing back the deadlines, the administration can obscure the damage which will be done to the state economy by claiming that wind/solar/storage/unicorns will be available in time to make everything work out just fine.

        And two presidential election cycles will come and go before the chickens come home to roost in 2022.

      • Natural gas is a very limited resource, and the sooner it becomes just a backup for renewables, the longer it will last.

      • According to the EIA, natural gas reserves nearly doubled from 2001 to 2013 to something over 350 trillion cu ft. as opposed to annual withdrawals of about 30 trillion cu ft.

        http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/excel/table_9.xls
        http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dcu_NUS_a.htm

        Meanwhile the cost to manufacture in the US has almost returned to par with China, in no small part due to low energy prices.

        http://www.industryweek.com/competitiveness/us-mexico-are-rising-stars-manufacturing-cost-competitiveness

        So go to a state with demographics which dictate that near-term economic growth must come from manufacturing and tell them to pound sand because you have a hunch that this directional drilling business is just a fad and you want to arbitrarily keep the gas reserves in the ground. Don’t expect folks to be happy when you deny them a decent job and local economic growth.

      • Natural gas is a very limited resource, and the sooner it becomes just a backup for renewables, the longer it will last.

        Nonsense:

        Recent estimates constrained by direct sampling suggest the global inventory occupies between 1×1015and 5×1015 m³ (0.24 to 1.2 million cubic miles).[18] This estimate, corresponding to 500-2500 gigatonnes carbon (Gt C), is smaller than the 5000 Gt C estimated for all other geo-organic fuel reserves but substantially larger than the ~230 Gt C estimated for other natural gas sources.[18][20] The permafrost reservoir has been estimated at about 400 Gt C in the Arctic,[21][citation needed] but no estimates have been made of possible Antarctic reservoirs. These are large amounts; for comparison the total carbon in the atmosphere is around 800 gigatons (see Carbon: Occurrence).

  27. Like Apple and so many progressive bodies and individuals, I operate on 100% renewable energy.

    You see, a bit of the electricity supply which flows to my house is a product of the venerable Snowy Mountains Hydro scheme. And water is 100% renewable, is it not?

    Ergo, I operate on 100% renewable energy.

    I didn’t say all my energy was renewable, just that the bit-of-the-mix which is renewable is 100% renewable. I mean, it’s hard to make water non-renewable, right?

    Now, if any high-paying institutions would like me to confect more of such verbal and intellectual stunts, they should grab my services quickly. With Peak Silly rapidly approaching, the market for climate panics and energy white elephants could be weakening. Remember Big Tulip!

  28. The CATO Institute has a paper on the size of government which is pertinent to policy debates here (and accords with views derived from my own experience). Herewith the Exec Sum and a link:

    Why the Federal Government Fails. Chris Edwards Cato Policy Analysis 777 27/7/2015

    Most Americans think that the federal government is incompetent and wasteful. Their negative view is not surprising given the steady stream of scandals emanating from Washington. Scholarly studies support the idea that many federal activities are misguided and harmful. A recent book on federal performance by Yale University law professor Peter Schuck concluded that failure is “endemic.” What causes all the failures?

    First, federal policies rely on top-down planning and coercion. That tends to create winners and losers, which is unlike the mutually beneficial relationships of markets. It also means that federal policies are based on guesswork because there is no price system to guide decision making. A further problem is that failed policies are not weeded out because they are funded by taxes, which are compulsory and not contingent on performance.

    Second, the government lacks knowledge about our complex society. That ignorance is behind many unintended and harmful side effects of federal policies. While markets gather knowledge from the bottom up and are rooted in individual preferences, the government’s actions destroy knowledge and squelch diversity.

    Third, legislators often act counter to the general public interest. They use debt, an opaque tax system, and other techniques to hide the full costs of programs. Furthermore, they use logrolling to pass harmful policies that do not have broad public support.

    Fourth, civil servants act within a bureaucratic system that rewards inertia, not the creation of value. Various reforms over the decades have tried to fix the bureaucracy, but the incentives that generate poor performance are deeply entrenched in the executive branch.

    Fifth, the federal government has grown enormous in size and scope. Each increment of spending has produced less value but rising taxpayer costs. Failure has increased as legislators have become overloaded by the vast array of programs they have created. Today’s federal budget is 100 times larger than the average state budget, and it is far too large to adequately oversee. Management reforms and changes to budget rules might reduce some types of failure. But the only way to create a major improvement in performance is to cut the overall size of the federal government.

    http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/why-federal-government-fails

    Faustino

  29. One Judith missed: The Trouble with Obama’s Clean Power Plan, by Paul C “Chip” Knappenberger. On CNN 4 Aug and available at CATO Inst: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trouble-obamas-clean-power-plan

    “In unveiling the final details of his Clean Power Plan on Monday, President Barack Obama laid out the three main objectives of this federal action: Mitigate dangerous climate change, protect the public health, and provide international leadership. For good measure, he also threw in a fourth aspiration: Protect the planet for our children.

    “Unfortunately, upon close inspection, the plan’s actual impact on climate turns out to be largely undetectable and the public health benefits tenuous, at best. It’s tough to leave the world better for future generations by deliberately slowing the rate of human development, which is what this plan unfortunately calls for.”

  30. How We Can Use Less Water to Grow More Crops [link]
    They did not mention that more CO2 helps crops grow better using less water. That has already helped, worldwide.

  31. Pingback: Week in review – energy and policy edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  32. From the article:

    After the Fukushima meltdown, all of Japan’s nuclear power plants were shutdown, the last in late 2013. This week the government plans on starting up reactor No.1 at the Sendai nuclear power plant. Energy prices have risen 30% since 2011, and it is hoped that the plant will soon be producing a surplus of electricity. Not everyone is happy about the plant restarting. This weekend, about 2,000 protesters marched around the plant and voiced their opposition. “Past arguments that nuclear plants were safe and nuclear energy was cheap were all shown to be lies,” said writer Satoshi Kamata, one of the demonstration organizers. “Kyushu Electric is not qualified to resume operations because it has not completed an anti-quake structure to oversee a possible accident as well as a venting facility.”

    http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/15/08/10/214233/japan-to-restart-nuclear-power-tomorrow-after-energy-prices-soar

  33. David L. Hagen

    Watch Four Years of Oil Drilling Collapse in Seconds
    Oil rig count has plummeted > 50% from 1600 to below 800, since oil prices plummeted (with the Saudi’s joining the US in driving down oil prices). Low oil is devastating high cost oil operations – which under present conditions will cause a higher more extended rise in the price of future oil.

  34. So which is it now, peak oil or web bubble?

  35. EPA:
    balance between seasons seems to be disappearing

    ““Climate change has impacted the way I garden. I planted vegetables later this year due to the weather. This shortens the growing season and reduces the yields. We’ve gotten a lot of rain recently, which can also negatively affect the vegetables. The balance between seasons seems to be disappearing.”