Week in review – energy and policy edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Can #offsets & #biofuels make future international #aviation growth ‘carbon-neutral’? [link]

Where Brexit and climate-change scepticism converge [link]

More than half of jobs in UK solar industry lost in wake of subsidy cuts [link]

Sweden abolishes nuclear tax [link]

A Not-So-Modest Climate Proposal: Why Not Just Buy Out the US Coal Industry? [link]

Carbon tax proponents claim it would be “revenue neutral”. Here’s why that likely won’t be the case: [link]

10 Reasons to Oppose a Carbon Tax [link]

Special Report: The Future of Agriculture [link]

Unlikely casualty in California’s renewable energy boom: natural gas [link]

Dem AG: Free speech no defense against climate crimes [link]

This heated fight over methane emissions is almost as hot as the gas  [link]

Improving the soil we grow our food in may be as simple as understanding the bacteria and fungi living there. [link]

India contradicts US claim over signing climate deal this year [link]

Energy is one of the largest consumers of water in a drought-threatened world [link]

MPs criticise government over flood protection plans [link]

The rise of ocean optimism. The damage of apocalyptic story telling [link]

Nuclear vs. 100% Renewable Energy: An Unnecessary Battle [link] …

The #Drought Solution That’s Under Our Feet: Soil. [link]

Wind-Energy Sector Gets $176 Billion Worth of Crony Capitalism [link]

Denmark Cancels All Coastal Wind Turbines To Save Taxpayers $1 Billion [link]

America’s model of post-disaster funding is broken. State & local governments can take the lead in changing that. Investing in resilient infrastructure before disaster hits. [link]

The Energy Sector: A Prime Target for Cyber Attacks [link]

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

  1. Curious George

    “The current model of post-disaster funding is broken.” Not really; it does not exist; it never did. Who plans for the worst case? Not even the military. Insurance companies are mentioned twice in passing.

    • David Wojick

      The worst case DOE’s not exist, or everyone dies so there is nothing to plan for.

  2. Curious George

    Free speech no defense against climate crimes. The position of the US Virgin Islands Attorney General would fit nicely in a 1935 Germany. Who cares for the First Amendment? He is working on a new amendment for Climate Crime Denial. That one will justify his actions 100%.

    • David Wojick

      The idea is that this is basically a product liability case. If the Courts accept EPA’s endangerment finding then the argument is that the oil companies failed to disclose a known threat from their product. The First Amendment is probably not a defense in such cases.

    • His actions together with the other AGs are criminal under 18USC241. They are also subject to civil liability under 42USC1983 and/or 1985. The consequences train has not yet left the station. It will.

    • OK, make the distinction with big tobacco, which is the parallel they use, or do you also consider the tobacco case wrong?

      • Jim D,

        Warmist deny, divert, confuse tactics, yet again. Witless Warmist analogies to boot!

        Why don’t you make the distinction, yourself? Why demand everybody else fly off at a tangent? What about mercury in tooth filling amalgams? What about deadly chlorine in the water supply or swimming pools? What about deadly anaphylactic reactions to bee stings or peanut butter?

        What’s your silly Warmist proposal? Ban everything, or just kill off the human race by taking all the CO2 from the atmosphere?

        Is it possible that a Warmist could ever directly address anything at all?

        The world wonders!

        Cheers.

      • JD, easy. Big tobacco knee since the 1954 UK surgeon general report that tobacco caused lung diseases.
        Now prove that any of the future modeled equivalents are possibly true. None of the past ‘projections’ have proven true, as a matter of fact.

      • Their crime was not that they knew, but that they proceeded to deny in public and not change course even after they knew. Exxon were doing something similar, opposing measures despite seeing the writing on the wall, and have only lately conceded in public statements that measures are needed.

      • The assertion that Exxon knew, or knows now, that ACO2 is dangerous is nonsense. The science does not support such an assertion today. The only “writing on the wall” would have been to predict the current political conditions.

      • They are advocating emission reductions now. Probably not for no reason because it doesn’t help their business model.

      • “OK, make the distinction with big tobacco, which is the parallel they use, or do you also consider the tobacco case wrong?”

        The distinction is the strong statistical link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, but with CAGW there is nowhere near any such link…and yes, the AG’s who used RICO to pursue big tobacco was wrong. RICO was not intended for such purposes and even with the strong statistical link between cancer and smoking the creative use of RICO back then smacked of officials attempting to expand their jurisdiction where none existed.

      • Jim D,

        the tobacco analogy was developed for use on the lazy and the retarded. It’s obvious you don’t fit the first set from the efforts you expend here. I won’t necessarily see you fitting into the second set. Which leaves you know it is a BS argument, but are willing to use it because it fits with you narrative.

      • I point to what they use. It makes you angry. Got it.

      • RE: “Their crime was not that they knew, but that they proceeded to deny in public and not change course even after they knew. Exxon were doing something similar, opposing measures despite seeing the writing on the wall, and have only lately conceded in public statements that measures are needed.”

        From this it is clear Jim D has zero knowledge of either the case against tobacco companies or any details on Exxon Mobil and its actions. All he can do is repeat simple narratives pushed by an agenda driven alarmist media outlet.

      • No anger Jim D.

        Just fatigue at seeing you make one fact free assertion after another.

      • They are advocating emission reductions now. Probably not for no reason because it doesn’t help their business model.

        How do you know that? Perhaps they’re just playing their cards close to their chests.

      • It’s in their public statements on climate. Something needs to be done.

      • I meant how do you know it doesn’t help their business model?

      • OK, maybe they have evolved their business model to where reducing emissions actually helps it.

      • Jim D,

        You wrote –

        “It’s in their public statements on climate. Something needs to be done.”

        On the other hand, doing nothing requires less effort, and is obviously the right thing to do here. Nothing needs to be done.

        You can do something yourself. Even if it consists of demanding others do what you are incapable of doing. Maybe you could cry, or bang your head against the wall. Maybe that will stop the climate from changing!

        Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out for you.

        Cheers.

      • MF, take that up with Exxon. They could be effective, but you have to encourage them more.

      • Jim D,

        There you go again. Demanding that I do something that you can’t do. I’ve told you that I intend to do nothing at your behest. Don’t you believe me?

        Warmists. Powerless to actually do anything except waste other people’s money and time. How that’s supposed to stop the climate from changing, none of them can say.

        You can threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, if you like. My care factor will remain indistinguishable from zero. Next threat?

        Cheers.

  3. From the article on Brexit and climate change:

    “Remarkably, however, many of the leading campaigners for Brexit are sceptics about climate change.”

    There’s nothing remarkable about it. Climate change is not about climate. And the EU is not about free movement of labor. Both are solely about centralization of power in progressives, ever further removed from the stupid voters.

    • Curious George

      Is there a study relating a political orientation with IQ?

    • Anti-science started on the right. First it was (and still is among many) evolution, now climate change. They are conditioned not to accept science.

      • David Wojick

        Ridiculous. Skeptics have the better scientific arguments. AGW is based on simple minded speculation, seldom getting beyond that CO2 is a GHG.

      • GHGs have a major explanatory role in why the surface temperature is what it is rather than -18 C, for example. This is a successful area of science, not to be dismissed.

      • Do not confuse the general ‘right’ with religious evangelicals uncomfortable with evolution. Those are arguably a very small but vocal minority of conservatives.
        Do not confuse climate change with rejection of science. I reject CAGW precisely because it has been shown insufficiently scientific. That you would be hard pressed to deny. Mann, Marcott, OLeary (abrupt historical SLR), Fabricius (corals), the pause (erased by Karl, admitted by Mann), …

      • Jimd

        What about the left and their long standing antipathy to nuclear?

        Tonyb

      • Is that a concern about science? The left has concerns about safety, but they do believe basic science.

      • Curious George

        Remember that the German race superiority theory was based on (pseudo) Darwinism. Was the National Socialism on the left, or on the right?

      • The science part is evolution. Anything beyond that was politics.

      • Jim D
        this is the argument that’s sinking your cause
        science is not accepted
        it simply is or is not

        but just for fun …
        let’s take Evolution…
        Darwin predicted there would one day be found a bug with super long tongue just to fit this one unique flower
        Sho’ nuff
        Evolution fills every nook and crack perfectly
        we are no different than the bug
        I am conditioned to believe in Evolution …
        and that science requires predictions to come true

      • Science relies not on predicting but explaining things that have happened. In some cases those explanations can be used to project what-if scenarios in experiments, which gives another way to confirm the science, but that is secondary to explaining the observations that we already have.

      • Naive to call one party the party of science as contrasted to the other. The left and the right are both capable of errors and misunderstandings of science, evidence and reasoning. Eugenics was tied to progressivism and had a base in biological determinism. Those challenging vaccines come disproportionately from the left as do practitioners of reiki, crystal healing and such. Past elections have shown republican presidential candidates distancing themselves from evolution. Politicians from both parties have shown grave misunderstandings and made ludicrous statements around climate change.

      • This is why I distinguish basic science from areas you might classify as social science or medicine. The right almost has the monopoly on doubting basic science. The majority of Republicans are Creationists, for example, and vice versa.

      • Science relies not on predicting but explaining things that have happened.

        Absolute proof you have no understanding of science.

        About what could be expected of a religious fanatic.

      • For example, why do you think the surface temperature of the earth is 33 C warmer than the radiative temperature? Science tells us exactly why, but this is the same science you doubt. An important part of the reason quantitatively is CO2, which maybe you especially doubt because it is CO2 and that has ramifications in certain circumstances.

      • Steven Mosher

        AK

        https://climateaudit.org/2016/06/07/deflategate-controversy-is-due-to-scientist-error/

        Read through this.

        What do you call this behavior?

        Science?

        I call it science.

        Theres a word for it.

        Forensic science. also observational science. Lots of tools get used to explain and predict.

      • @Steven Mosher…

        I read it the day it was published. All the explanations involved are (at least implicitly) predictive. Speaking forensically, the entire “crime” could be reproduced, and McSteve’s explanation predicts the outcome, according to highly predictive theories of physics.

        So much so that I’d guess most people who understand the science wouldn’t want to be bothered, but in principle it could.

      • For example, why do you think the surface temperature of the earth is 33 C warmer than the radiative temperature? Science tells us exactly why, but this is the same science you doubt.

        The “explanation” coming from science is based on a number of theoretical building blocks that have been verified by experiment. The science predicted the outcome of those experiments.

        Explanations that are not predictive, or at least based on predictive components, aren’t part of science.

      • They are predictive. If you change the amount of GHGs you don’t get the right answer. So, if we change the GHGs we change the temperature. We are doing that experiment and so far the results are confirmatory.

      • They are predictive.

        Slightly. On average.

        But all of a sudden, you’ve changed your tune. You said:

        Science relies not on predicting but explaining things that have happened.

        That’s simply not true. Scientific explanations have to be predictive, at least statistically.

        You clearly don’t understand science. You’re just manipulating words (empty rhetoric) in an attempt to get your way.

        We are doing that experiment and so far the results are confirmatory.

        Perhaps. In a very general, “adding CO2 will warm the planet”, way.

        But you’re modifying your theory ex post facto. People put numbers to their predictions, from the ’80’s through the last decade, and those numbers didn’t pan out. The predictions based on their “explanations” were wrong. It was a travesty.

        OK, it’s good science to modify your theories in the light of experimental data. But those new theories are still speculative. None of their predictions have had time to pan out yet.

        Nothing about the AGW predictions has panned out except the rough correlation between anthropogenic emissions and temperature rise.

        And that correlation can also be explained as a vagary of unforced variation. Or a combination of both in any of a number of ratios.

      • Climate science explains observations in the same way astrophysics explains stars, etc, biology explains evolution. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics explained observations better than their predecessors too, and predicting other results came as a bonus after they were already accepted for their explanatory power. In the case of climate science, astrophysics and evolution biology, these can’t predict far because of the time scales, but they are science because they explain how things have changed in the past.

      • Climate science explains observations in the same way astrophysics explains stars, etc, […]

        I suppose. I must admit considerable skepticism about some astrophysical “explanations”. Big difference: nobody’s trying to upset the world economy based on it. (Unless you want to count killer-asteroid hunting proposals.)

        [… B]iology explains evolution.

        Nope. Almost every mechanism used in evolutionary theory has been fully verified by predictive experimentation. Evolutionary history is “explained” by vagaries of those mechanisms (especially mutation), but the details are always changing as they dig up new fossils.

        Relativity and Quantum Mechanics explained observations better than their predecessors too, and predicting other results came as a bonus after they were already accepted for their explanatory power.

        Absolute BS. Both relativity and quantum mechanics saw tremendous controversy, and weren’t fully accepted until they’d been verified by predictive experiments. New predictions.

        In the case of climate science, astrophysics and evolution biology, these can’t predict far because of the time scales, but they are science because they explain how things have changed in the past.

        Nope.

        Astrophysics and evolutionary biology are science because their “explanations” are based on building blocks/mechanisms that have been tested through predicting experimental results.

      • We are going to disagree here. Relativity was better than Newtonian mechanics even before it predicted anything. It explained the Michelson-Morley experiment. You are saying, well, let’s hold onto the failed Newtonian mechanics and ether idea until relativity predicts something. Science advances by better explanations, tying loose ends together, and discovery (see the whole field of medicine, for example), not just by prediction.

      • We are going to disagree here.

        Yup. I say you don’t have the faintest understanding what science is or how it works. You think you do. Then keep proving you don’t.

        Relativity was better than Newtonian mechanics even before it predicted anything. It explained the Michelson-Morley experiment.

        Yup.

        You are saying, well, let’s hold onto the failed Newtonian mechanics and ether idea until relativity predicts something.

        Standard straw man argument. That’s nothing like what I’m saying. The fact that you keep putting words in my mouth (metaphorically) just demonstrates your empty sophistry.

        Science advances by better explanations, tying loose ends together, and discovery (see the whole field of medicine, for example), not just by prediction.

        Nope.

        I’d like to leave it at that, since IMO you won’t understand my elaboration, but for the sake of anybody else who’s stayed with this discussion:

        Better explanations” are part of it. Relativity and quantum mechanics certainly explained things the current paradigm didn’t. But they were also contrary to that paradigm, and they and their new/revised paradigm had to prove themselves by predictive experiment.

        Basically, the way any scientific theory (sensu latu) proves itself is by making predictions for the outcome of an experiment that are contrary to what the currently accepted paradigm predicts. Or at least the “default assumption” in cases where the paradigm hasn’t extended to the point of predicting outcomes.

        In the case of relativity, and (AFAIK) quantum mechanics, they progressed from the status of hypothesis, through theory, to a “built into the paradigm” status as they continued racking up a score of successful experimental predictions.

        In those cases, the existing paradigm had already failed. But there were other contending explanations they had to out-compete.

        I’d say your either-or approach to explanation is part of why you don’t have the faintest understanding of what science is and how it works. But there might be other factors.

      • Well, it looks like you did shift from asserting new predictions had to exist to now saying, yes, better explanations are also scientific progress, which is what I was trying to get into you all along. Success.

      • Steven Mosher

        “I read it the day it was published. All the explanations involved are (at least implicitly) predictive. Speaking forensically, the entire “crime” could be reproduced, and McSteve’s explanation predicts the outcome, according to highly predictive theories of physics.

        So much so that I’d guess most people who understand the science wouldn’t want to be bothered, but in principle it could.”

        Haha.
        How much rain was there that day?
        How exactly did it fall?
        How long did they rub the ball? how fast?
        Did the refs gauge change during the day? and then change back?
        Did he read it correctly?
        Do you have access to the actual balls used?

        You couldnt reproduce anything. and you couldnt check that you
        got it correct.
        you might do a simulation of it but with so many possible things
        that could be different it would take foreever.

        But seriously what he does is simple. he reasons to the best explanation.

      • @Steven Mosher…

        Science is about replication of categorized experiments. Any simulation includes a large number of assumptions about any member of a class duplicating the behavior of any other, and much of science consists of finding better techniques of classification.

        That being said, according to the actual paper submitted by Stephen McIntyre simulations and “purported simulations” were run, both by Exponent and McIntyre, in analyzing various theories of what happened.

        All the simulations and other experiments can be replicated, and the conditions were duplicated sufficiently to make good predictions.

        Putting it simply, Exponent failed to properly re-create the “crime”, but the “recreation” they made properly predicted any experimental replication.

        McIntyre dug out evidence supporting a different re-creation, and his simulations also properly predict any experimental replication.

        That replication, or at least the implicit potential for it, is at the heart of science. Anybody who says “Science relies not on predicting but explaining things that have happened” doesn’t understand science.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Slightly. On average.

        But all of a sudden, you’ve changed your tune. You said:
        Science relies not on predicting but explaining things that have happened.
        That’s simply not true. Scientific explanations have to be predictive, at least statistically.”

        Predictive? statistically? Any explanation that explains the past has the capacity to be turned into a prediction about the future. Whether or not we want to test that prediction or whether we can is another question.
        We can for example look at the history of airplanes running into buildings
        and explain what happened and then use that to predict. but we choose
        not to go out and test that.

        “But you’re modifying your theory ex post facto. People put numbers to their predictions, from the ’80’s through the last decade, and those numbers didn’t pan out. The predictions based on their “explanations” were wrong. It was a travesty.”

        1. we always modify theories after the experiment. that is called science.
        2. the experiment was not run in a controlled fashion. LIKE ALL
        observational science.
        3. The predictions came out pretty darn good. Hansen’s predictions
        out perform a naive prediction.
        4. When you predictions go wrong you have choices
        A) run the experiment over
        B) check your data again
        C) make sure you held all the controls equal during your test
        D) modify your theory and re run

        OK, it’s good science to modify your theories in the light of experimental data. But those new theories are still speculative. None of their predictions have had time to pan out yet.

        1. It’s easy enough to see that the predictions get the direction correct
        as opposed to the skeptical no warming junk
        2. Its easy enough to see that the central estimate of 3C of warming
        may be closer to an upper bound rather than a mean. but thats
        OK, at this stage of modelling getting within 50% is fantastic
        performance..

        “And that correlation can also be explained as a vagary of unforced variation. Or a combination of both in any of a number of ratios.”

        Ah yes, the vague anti science ” it could be unicorns”

        Now go read McIntyre again on deflategate!!!!

        See how some people reject his adequate analysis and best explanation
        by using “It could be explained otherwise”

        See that?

        you are doing the same logical thing.

        Any time you hear someone use the “It could be something else” they are not doing science.. they are doing philosophical skepticism.
        to do science you have to not only Speculate that it could be something else, you have to propose a viable alternative and test it.

      • Whether or not we want to test that prediction or whether we can is another question.
        We can for example look at the history of airplanes running into buildings
        and explain what happened and then use that to predict. but we choose
        not to go out and test that.

        But in principle we could.

        3. The predictions came out pretty darn good. Hansen’s predictions
        out perform a naive prediction.

        1. It’s easy enough to see that the predictions get the direction correct
        as opposed to the skeptical no warming junk
        2. Its easy enough to see that the central estimate of 3C of warming
        may be closer to an upper bound rather than a mean. but thats
        OK, at this stage of modelling getting within 50% is fantastic
        performance..

        I did say that ‘in a very general, “adding CO2 will warm the planet”, way.

        Ah yes, the vague anti science ” it could be unicorns”

        Hm…

        And what “unicorns” can AGW science provide to explain the warming from 1910 to 1940?

        to do science you have to not only Speculate that it could be something else, you have to propose a viable alternative and test it.

        OK. I propose that natural unforced variation is responsible for a lot of variation in any metric for global temperature on time-scales from annual to millennial. Let’s test it: we find a temperature rise from 1910-1940, at a time when the pCO2 appears not to have changed appreciably.

        What unicorns do you propose as an alternative explanation? Seeing that real science is coming up with evidence that you can’t blame aerosols?

      • Steven Mosher,

        You wrote –

        “to do science you have to not only Speculate that it could be something else, you have to propose a viable alternative and test it.”

        As you might say “Not even wrong.”

        As an example, if you guess that the essential stated properties of the luminiferous aether are logically contradictory, you might surmise that the aether doesn’t actually exist.

        You might run a repeatable experiment, and be convinced your guess was correct. Others might repeat your experiment, and improve on your results by refining either the techniques or the equipment.

        No viable alternative needed to be considered at that time.

        The same for the CO2 greenhouse effect. After considering that the effect, according to Warmists, only operates outdoors, when the Sun is shining brightly, not at night, not in an enclosed area, and not under scientifically controlled conditions, one might guess that a CO2 greenhouse effect, resulting in surface heating, is complete balderdash

        And everyone from Tyndall onwards has discovered this to be true. Einstein even pointed out that the maximum velocity of light (all wavelengths, incidentally) occurred in a vacuum. No ifs, no buts, no supposedly transparent gases. A vacuum – perfectly transparent to light.

        Warmists make much play of the fact that CO2 can be heated by photons emitted from the Earth’s surface. Perfectly true, and in the finest Waffling Warmist tradition, totally misleading. The photons emitted from the Earths surface carry with them part of the surface’s energy. The surface temperature cannot go up as a result, nor can it remain the same. It falls.

        The proportion of energy returned to the surface is not enough to make up for the amount which was emitted.

        Nighttime is an example of this. Of course, Warmists with their published brightly coloured flat Earth diagrams, don’t exactly point this out.

        Sorry, Steven Mosher. I’d give you a clue, but I surmise you’d lose it. Keep reanalysing and adjusting historical temperatures. Call it science if you wish. Warmists might.

        Cheers.

      • Anti-junkscience is the issue here. The left are all for it.

      • “Science relies not on predicting but explaining things that have happened.”

        ??????
        You mean the theory of special relativity, or the general one, by some Albert Einstein, has been borne out of something happening in the past?
        Nonsense.

      • Yes, in that case the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887.

      • Mary Shelley, known for her liberal ideology, first published (anonymously) her novel Frankenstein in 1818. Darwin would not publish his book On the Origin of Species in 1859. Anyone who has read Shelley’s Frankenstein can’t help but recognize her strong anti-science bias…which had nothing to do with evolution.

      • Another fact free assertion.

        It’s what Jim D specializes in.

        Depending on where one draws the lines, I’m center to center right on the majority of issues. I also have a couple of graduate science degrees and must have missed the anti -science conditioning classes. What I am conditioned not to accept is fact free BS, the use of scare tactics and efforts to suppress dissent when the first two don’t work.

      • After already establishing his penchant for fact free assertion, Jim D blesses us with this all star effort:

        “The majority of Republicans are Creationists, for example,”

        Definitely an assertion. And nary a fact to support it.

      • The Chair of the House Science committee is a Christian Scientist who holds Creationism as a central tenet (!). I find this kind of thing in a modern country, let’s just say, surprising.

      • “The Chair of the House Science committee is a Christian Scientist who holds Creationism as a central tenet (!). I find this kind of thing in a modern country, let’s just say, surprising.”

        We can add the US Constitution and the principles our nation was founded on to the list of topics Jim D is knowledgeless on.

        It’s called Freedom of religion Jim D. It’s a bit ironic you not getting that, seeing how you have been exercising your right to worship here every day.

      • Missing the point. Creationist. Science Committee. Hello.

    • The “mother” of Monopolies was caused by a catastrophic eustatic SLR [rise ] when the salt pans of Ostia were flooded and liberal Rome became less liberal. Rome even had to remove itself to Constantinople and import [marble salt] from the great Salt desert of Persia.
      Centralisation of power – how right you are !

  4. Energy and water. Usual Conversation nonsense. Look at their ‘by generation type’ chart. Pumped storage/hydro uses the most water. Uses, BUT DOES NOT consume any of that water. Complete muddle between pass through and consume. And 80 percent of agriculture depends only on precipitation, so the notion that food production is the biggest water consumer (while true, ~2/3 of ‘available water’) is very misleading about future water and food availability. Globally there is no water shortage and never will be. Locally, if you build Las Vegas in the Nevada desert or grow Egypt’s population to 82 million in the narrow Nile valley (or Syrias to 24 million in semidesert country) sure, there are local problems caused by local foolishness. Solvable with enough wealth and ‘virtual water’ (agricultural imports from places that have water).

    • +1

    • Yes, drought is the normal condition in the arid portions of southern California. 40 million people (up from 10 million 50 years ago) is the reason they are having drought problems. “Climate change/global warming” has nothing to do with it.

    • Pumped storage/hydro uses the most water. Uses, BUT DOES NOT consume any of that water. Complete muddle between pass through and consume.

      Just a thought: adding more pumped storage to existing dams might ease some of the conflict between water for hydro-power and water for agriculture.

      Another thought: floating PV on many of these reservoirs (combined with pumped hydro storage) might actually have negative effective consumption.

      Most used for washing would end up back in the reservoir, and the amount evaporated during washing would probably be an order of magnitude less than the evaporation prevented just by the PV being there.

    • AK,

      Just a thought: adding more pumped storage to existing dams might ease some of the conflict between water for hydro-power and water for agriculture.

      As usual you are posting thought bubbles with not thought of the cost benefit analyses. Pumped hydro rarely makes sense nowdays and certainly not with weather depend renewables. Pumped hydro made a lot of sense in the 1970’s and 80’s when matched with baseload power stations that supplied cheap electricity during the night for pumping. But it rarely makes economic or financial sense to build pumped hydro now.

      Here’s a conceptual study I did of a pumped 8 GW, 400 GWh pumped hydro scheme linking two existing large reservoirs in the Australian Snowy Mountains Scheme. It is not viable either technically or economically. I did it as a fun exercise to explain some of the important inputs we look at during pre-feasibility investigations.

      Pumped-Hydro Energy Storage – Tantangara-Blowering Cost Estimate https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/05/pumped-hydro-system-cost/

      • Peter Lang,

        Probably only a tiny impact, but for every litre pumped which eventually evaporates, you have nothing for something. With a reservoir area of over 2000 hectares, given the elevation and summer conditions, quite a few expensively relocated litres of water will vanish.

        Last February in Darwin was hot, and the Wet Season wasn’t as Wet as it could be.

        From the ABC –

        “For the entire month, 177.4mm of rain was evaporated while just 149.6mm of rain was recorded, putting Darwin rainfall In the red.”

        I love the precision and claimed accuracy, though – measuring evaporation and precipitation to 4/1000 of an inch! Completely pointless, as just a few meters away, a rain gauge may show a difference of a millimeter or more.

        Cheers.

      • Curious George

        Peter – just curious. Where did the figure 9 GW for your project come from? There is a dam (no pumped storage) supplying Prague, Czech Republic (population about 1M) with a peak power. It supplies 144 MW.

      • Curious George,

        All you have to do is click on the link to answer your question.

      • Curious George

        Peter – could you be more specific please? I found “The facility would generate 9GW peak power, for 3 hours per day from 6 hours of pumping at full pumping rate. It could generate for longer at less than 9GW, or if pumping was for longer than 6 hours per day, or if the pumping rate is greater than assumed in this analysis” – but where do these numbers come from? What problem did your design solve?

      • Pumped hydro rarely makes sense nowdays and certainly not with weather depend renewables.

        Makes a great deal of sense. Eagle Crest, for instance, would appear to be fully cost-justified. The only thing holding it up is a campaign by environmentalists. (And I wonder (not!) what those environmentalists would say about a nuclear plant next door.)

        I do remember that study of yours. IIRC you challenged me to use it as a model for a cost analysis of installing pumped hydro at Hoover Dam. But when I did, getting, IIRC, a cost of around 28¢/watt, you came back with arm-waving denial and “it wouldn’t work”. But you could never actually document your problems with it beyond “you just don’t understand”.

        I could probably dig up links if you really want to make an issue of it. IIRC even Planning Engineer agreed that the extra spinning reserve would probably be helpful to the LA power region.

        (I will admit that there are probably political issues. Environmentalists would probably complain about that as well.)

      • Curious George,

        The basis of the estimate of 9 GW capacity (for average head) is in the Appendix. For minimum head, which is the nominal rating (see reviewer’s comments), the basis of estimate is:

        Minimum head (bottom reservoir full top empty) = 827 m
        Maximum flow rate = 1137.7 m3/s
        Head loss in tunnels at maximum flow rate = 69 m
        Gravity = 9.81 m/s2
        Turbine efficiency = 95%
        Power = 8002 MW = ~8 GW

      • AK,

        I explained why your idea was totally unrealistic, like nearly all yout thought-bubbles. PE did not say your idea was realistic; he was just being nice to you but you are not capable of reading between the lines. So, I tell you bluntly. I explained why it was unrealistic back than. You didn’t have sufficient background to understand and I gave up arguing with you. You are incapable of costing any of your ideas, so you don’t attempt to estimate the cost or cost benefit of them.

        If you were capable of being objective you would see for yourself that pumped hydro is rarely viable now because very little is being built world wide, whereas lots was being built in the 1970s and 1980s. If you think differently then quote figures of the total global generating capacity and total global energy storage capacity of pumped hydro as a proportion of total global electricity generation competed per year now, compared with per year during the 1970’s and 1980s. If you can’t answer, don’t bother trying to raise diversions.

      • Here’s another totally ridiculous proposal for a pumped storage hydro project. It’s another example of how people with no idea of the subject get these ridiculous thought bubbles and then claim they are viable without doing even the most basic reality checks:

        World’s biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro-scheme, for Scotland?
        https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/worlds-biggest-ever-pumped-storage-hydro-scheme-for-scotland/

        Here’s the second of my three comments: https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/worlds-biggest-ever-pumped-storage-hydro-scheme-for-scotland/comment-page-3/#comment-189

      • If you were capable of being objective you would see for yourself that pumped hydro is rarely viable now because very little is being built world wide, whereas lots was being built in the 1970s and 1980s.

        Non sequitur. Just because it isn’t being done doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be cost-effective to do it.

        IMO the primary reason it “is rarely viable now” is the same reason as for nuclear: NIMBY.

        As for the rest of your bluster, it’s not worth responding to. IIRC you never provided an explanation why you didn’t like the cost analysis based on the model you recommended. If you say otherwise, show me a link.

      • look for it yourself, eegit.

      • So your claim that you “explained why it was unrealistic back than” was just more bluster.

        Well, macht nichts to me. I didn’t take it very seriously anyway, because I was, and am, highly skeptical of the estimating technique you used.

        Especially since it’s one big straw man when applied to future pumped hydro.

      • AK,

        So your claim that you “explained why it was unrealistic back than” was just more bluster.

        No, not bluster at all. That’s what you are doing. Go and read my responses to your comments on the thread. And try to understand. The problem is that you do not have any background in the subject and haven’t a clue how to estimate and haven’t a clue what you are talking about on this subject, just like Scottish Scientist.

        Regarding bluster, that’s your tactic – what you are doing to digress and not answer the question I asked you (Sign 4 of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty ) The question I asked you – which you have not answered and which I asked in response to your incorrect attempt to rebut, with a single project, my statement that new pumped hydro projects seldom make economic or financial sense now – was:

        If you were capable of being objective you would see for yourself that pumped hydro is rarely viable now because very little is being built worldwide, whereas lots was being built in the 1970s and 1980s. If you think differently then quote figures of the total global generating capacity and total global energy storage capacity of pumped hydro as a proportion of total global electricity generation competed per year now, compared with per year during the 1970’s and 1980s? If you can’t answer, don’t bother trying to raise diversions.

        AK, answer that question, or admit you were wrong. (or ignore and dodge and demonstrate Sign 5 of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty)

      • AK, answer that question, or admit you were wrong. (or ignore and dodge and demonstrate Sign 5 of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty)

        False dilemma. I already answered your nonsense: “Non sequitur. Just because it isn’t being done doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be cost-effective to do it.

        It simply isn’t your prerogative to impose your framing on others. Do you think nobody’s noticed how you end up accusing just about everybody who disagrees with you of “intellectual dishonesty”?

        BTW: have you stopped beating your wife?

      • Curious George

        Peter, we have a basic misunderstanding. I don’t doubt that your design would produce 9 GW; i ask: who needed those 9 GW? Why did you not design a project for 2 GW? For 1 GW? For 0.3 GW?

      • Because, people keep advocating for huge amounts of pumped storage to tray to say intermittent energy supply from weather dependent renewables is not a problem. 100% renewables for eastern Australia would require 35 GW capacity and around 10,000-50,000 GWh of electricity storage. 400 GWh is insufficient to support much intermittent renewables at all. Not only are the pumped storage sites not available, but even if they were, the cost of the renewables plus pumped storage would be an order of magnitude more expensive than good old reliable, safe proven nuclear power.

      • AK,

        BTW: have you stopped beating your wife?

        You invariably resort to avoiding the question dodging and weaving to avoid dealing with what is relevant and this sort of childishness when you’re clearly wrong. This demonstrates your inability to acknowledge you are wrong – a sign if intellectual dishonesty,

      • @AK

        “IMO the primary reason it “is rarely viable now” is the same reason as for nuclear: NIMBY.”

        No. The main reason is economic viability, which was not extremely good already 10 years ago, and has become less and less attractive due to the ridiculous expansion of heavily/scandalously-subsidized intermittent renewables.

        One recent example: Campolattaro pumped-hydro in southern Italy, completed 2 years ago or so by Swiss REpower company…. 600 million Euros and 6 years build time, capable of storing 10 GWh (i.e. close to nothing)… REpower is trying to sell it to a Chinese company because it has become highly unprofitable… they loose money on it big time.

      • @robertok06…

        No. The main reason is economic viability, which was not extremely good already 10 years ago, and has become less and less attractive due to the ridiculous expansion of heavily/scandalously-subsidized intermittent renewables.

        That doesn’t seem to be this report says, although it does come from a biased source.

        And my understanding of this article would suggest that yes it is NIMBY.

        One recent example: Campolattaro pumped-hydro in southern Italy, completed 2 years ago or so by Swiss REpower company….

        According to this article (as best I can make sense of Google’s translation), Repower’s woes are “self-inflicted”.

        Perhaps you have links to something to back up your claim to a general lack of economic viability, rather than a few cherry-picked examples that seem to be due to corporate mismanagement?

  5. David L. Hagen

    CEI Leads Coalition to Support the Separation of Powers Restoration Act

    . . .in support of the bill, H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016 (SOPRA).
    Key Points:
    The bill directs courts to review regulations and questions of law without deferring to agencies.
    Courts have adopted two doctrines to decide the extent of powers Congress delegates to agencies, known as Chevron and Auer. The Chevron doctrine represents a general presumption that courts should defer to agency interpretation of statues. The Auer docrine requires that courts defer to agency interpretations of their own regulations.
    SOPRA would retain the courts’ utilization of agency expertise as a guide for their decision making, but maintain the courts’ fundamental responsibility of interpreting the meaning of statutes without handing that power over to agencies.
    SOPRA would amend the Administrative Procedure Act to require courts to conduct a review of all relevant questions of law and regulation when they are called into question. This represents a vital step in restoring the courts to their proper role as arbiters of statutory interpretation.
    SOPRA lifts the weight of burdensome regulations that, up to now, have prevented millions of Americans from effectively challenging unjust agency rules.

    This would strongly shift the burden of proof, with the potential to restore common sense consideration of scientific evidence. vis EPA & climate.
    Please ask your Representatives and Senators to support this bill.

  6. Sweden abolishes nuclear tax

    Well, yes but … The issues of the distortions and impediments to nuclear power are enormous throughout the world, thanks mostly to the anti-nukes movements in the US and EU. Here’s a comment from Sweden about Sweden’s nuclear tax (other similarly distorting and progress-blocking impediments are imposed in other countries):

    Professor Barry Brook wrote on BNC:

    Interesting comment from my co-author, [Dr Staffan Qvist from Uppsala University]:

    “To their credit, the greens of the current government have come up with a quite clever way to phase out nuclear. The law allowing new-build still stands but has been rendered moot due to the implementation and subsequent increases in a nuclear-specific tax called the “effect tax” (separate from the tax paid to finance the repository). It’s a tax of about $25000/MW-thermal of installed power per year, to be paid monthly, even if the plant is not in operation. It is thus completely disconnected from electricity production, and is only levied on nuclear. The extra tax of $100m/year per large reactor, on top of all other taxes, plus the heavy subsidy of construction of large amounts of un-needed wind and solar and the dumping of cheap coal on the European market means that at current electricity prices some of the nuclear plants are “economically uncompetitive”. The government then claims that nuclear “can’t compete in the market”, nuclear proceeds to decommission itself, without any law imposed for this and any settlement payments.”

    https://bravenewclimate.com/2015/05/05/environmental-and-health-impacts-of-a-policy-to-phase-out-nuclear-power-in-sweden/#comment-405169

  7. 10 Reasons to Oppose a Carbon Tax

    The main reason is not included in this list. The main reason is that carbon pricing in any form cannot succeed. It is not politically sustainable therefore it cannot survive long enough to deliver the objective – i.e. reduced climate damages. This explains why:

    Peter Lang, 2015. Why carbon pricing will not succeed http://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/

  8. “It takes enormous amounts of taxpayer cash to make wind energy seem affordable.”
    National Review fail.
    Total subsidies stated: $176 billion
    Federal loans or loan guarantees portion of the above: $164 billion
    More quantifiable subsidies: The difference plus or minus some stuff
    Best case, all the loans will be paid, but there are still overhead costs and probably interest income never received. We could guess at a 20% cost or losses, giving us $33 billion loans and $12 billion other subsidies. Not quite $176 billion, so they seem to have sensationalized the costs.
    It’s interesting you could get loan to build the things, and then get more more as you produce power, perhaps enough to pay off of the loan with the governments own money. Am I watching late night, how to get rich TV?

    • Do you know of the actual source of the loan guarantee numbers cited? The DOE Loan Guarantee Program page doesn’t have numbers any where near the amounts cited: http://energy.gov/lpo/portfolio-projects-technology

      Thank you.

      • Stephen Seagrest,

        I’m not arguing with anyone, but it always surprises me that industries get handouts of taxpayers’ money for any reason.

        One might think that in a capitalist society, the lure of making a potful of money is the aim of the entrepreneur. Once the possibility of transferring taxpayers’ funds directly into one’s pocket is on the table, companies might compete with each other for subsidies, all making the claim that it is in the subsidy provider’s interest to do so.

        Why not cut out all subsidies, and let capitalism operate? Or is the nominally capitalist and nominally democratic government terrified of what might ensue?

        Espousing capitalism, but practising socialism through compulsory wealth transfer from the poor to not-quite-so-poor (in many cases), doesn’t seem to be a recipe for success. It’s also open to accusations of hypocrisy, I guess.

        I suppose if I owned a company that couldn’t compete on its own merits, I’d be with the rest, burying my snout in the Government trough, to the maximum extent possible.! Who wouldn’t? Didn’t someone pronounce that greed was good? There are obviously a lot of very good companies and individuals around, by that standard.

        Cheers.

      • In the U.S., there is a Politician (Libertarian) — Ron Paul. While I disagree with Mr. Paul on many things, I hold him high esteem because of his consistency. On energy matters, Mr. Paul always stresses that all Government subsidies should be removed.

        And that’s my problem with most comments here at CE. People emphasize Renewable subsidies and ignore or justify past, present, and future fossil and nuclear subsidies. Hypocrites.

        If I wanted to (which I don’t), I could inundate CE with stories like this (Shell’s new U.S. Plant in PA) each week:

        https://www.google.com/search?q=shell+oil+gets+big+tax+breaks+for+ethane&rlz=1C1AFAB_enUS485US485&oq=shell+oil+gets+big+tax+breaks+for+ethane&aqs=chrome..69i57.21871j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  9. Jim D,

    You wrote –

    “For example, why do you think the surface temperature of the earth is 33 C warmer than the radiative temperature? Science tells us exactly why, but this is the same science you doubt. An important part of the reason quantitatively is CO2, which maybe you especially doubt because it is CO2 and that has ramifications in certain circumstances.”

    You haven’t got the faintest idea of the surface temperature of the Earth. Neither have any of your fellow deluded Warmists. Appeals to science aren’t going yo help you, either.

    Actually, anybody silly enough to assume the Earth is flat, and all the other nonsense used by Warmists to try and baffle the public with, deserves all the derision they get, if not more.

    You’re blathering, and aligning yourself with a pack of largely incompetent blundering buffoons doesn’t bode well for you.

    But back to your original silly proposition. If you recalculate the surface temperature of the Earth, taking into account its measured internal heat loss, (equivalent to a body radiating at around 40 K, according to me, but heat loss measurements are somewhat variable, and scattered), and add the assumed absorbed energy from the Sun (which you’ll have to average of course, more’s the pity), then your supposed 33 C discrepancy vanishes.

    The 33 C is probably hiding with Trenberth’s missing heat, which likewise didn’t exist in the first place!

    So Jim D, in the best Warmist tradition, I’ll now demand and direct you to perform a calculation taking into account the surface temperature of the giant ball of molten rock you’re sitting on. When you have finished this trivial task, you may offer me the fulsome apology, which I so richly deserve.

    • Whoops. Fat finger syndrome, so apologies for any typos. I won’t add the rest. I’ll just finish off with –

      Cheers.

      • I stopped reading after you said the earth was flat. Cheers.

      • Jim D,

        You can’t read terribly well.

        As I said (I’ll say it again for the benefit of any intellectually impaired Warmists), anybody silly enough to believe the Earth is flat . . .

        NASA, Skeptical Science, Royal Meteorological Society – just a few that have energy balance diagrams showing a flat Earth.

        Oh well. I expected your Warmist response of deny, divert and confuse. Warmists are bullies, by and large. They can dish it out, but can’t take it, apparently.

        Cheers.

      • Steven Mosher

        Earth geometry in climate science?
        me tell NASA?
        gavin already knows

        SUBROUTINE GEOM_B 1,3
        !@sum GEOM_B Calculate spherical geometry for B grid
        !@auth Original development team (modifications by G. Schmidt)
        !@ver 1.0 (B grid version)
        USE DOMAIN_DECOMP, only : grid, get
        USE DOMAIN_DECOMP, only : halo_update, north, south, checksum
        IMPLICIT NONE
        REAL*8, PARAMETER :: EDPERD=1.,EDPERY = 365.

        INTEGER :: I,J,K,IM1 !@var I,J,K,IM1 loop variables
        INTEGER :: JVPO,JMHALF
        REAL*8 :: RAVPO,LAT1,COSP1,DXP1
        INTEGER J_0,J_1,J_0S,J_1S,J_0STG,J_1STG

        C**** latitudinal spacing depends on whether you have even spacing or
        C**** a partial box at the pole
        DLAT_DG=180./JM ! even spacing (default)
        IF (JM.eq.46) DLAT_DG=180./(JM-1) ! 1/2 box at pole for 4×5
        cc IF (JM.eq.24) DLAT_DG=180./(JM-1) ! 1/2 box at pole, orig 8×10
        IF (JM.eq.24) DLAT_DG=180./(JM-1.5) ! 1/4 box at pole, ‘real’ 8×10
        DLAT=DLAT_DG*radian
        CALL GET(grid, J_STRT =J_0, J_STOP =J_1,
        & J_STRT_SKP =J_0S, J_STOP_SKP =J_1S,
        & J_STRT_STGR=J_0STG, j_STOP_STGR=J_1STG)

        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE) THEN
        LAT(1) = -.25*TWOPI
        SINP(1) = -1.
        COSP(1) = 0.
        DXP(1) = 0.
        END IF
        IF (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE) THEN
        LAT(JM) = .25*TWOPI
        SINP(JM) = 1.
        COSP(JM) = 0.
        DXP(JM) = 0.
        END IF
        DO J=J_0S,J_1S
        LAT(J) = DLAT*(J-FJEQ)
        SINP(J) = SIN(LAT(J))
        COSP(J) = COS(LAT(J))
        DXP(J) = RADIUS*DLON*COSP(J)
        END DO
        BYDXP(J_0S:J_1S) = 1.D0/DXP(J_0S:J_1S)
        C****Update halos for arrays cosp, dxp, and lat
        CALL CHECKSUM(grid, COSP, 136, “GEOM_B.f”)
        CALL CHECKSUM(grid, DXP , 137, “GEOM_B.f”)
        CALL CHECKSUM(grid, LAT , 138, “GEOM_B.f”)
        CALL HALO_UPDATE( grid, COSP, from=SOUTH)
        CALL HALO_UPDATE( grid, DXP , from=SOUTH)
        CALL HALO_UPDATE( grid, LAT , from=SOUTH)

        LAT1 = DLAT*(1.-FJEQ)
        COSP1 = COS(LAT1)
        DXP1 = RADIUS*DLON*COSP1

        DO J=J_0STG,J_1STG
        COSV(J) = .5*(COSP(J-1)+COSP(J))
        DXV(J) = .5*(DXP(J-1)+DXP(J))
        DYV(J) = RADIUS*(LAT(J)-LAT(J-1))
        C**** The following corrections have no effect for half polar boxes
        C**** but are important for full and quarter polar box cases.
        IF (J.eq.2) THEN
        COSV(J) = .5*(COSP1+COSP(J))
        DXV(J) = .5*(DXP1+DXP(J))
        END IF
        IF (J.eq.JM) THEN
        COSV(J) = .5*(COSP(J-1)+COSP1)
        DXV(J) = .5*(DXP(J-1)+DXP1)
        END IF
        C****
        END DO
        C****POLES
        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE) THEN
        DYP(1) = RADIUS*(LAT(2)-LAT(1)-0.5*DLAT)
        DXYP(1) = .5*DXV(2)*DYP(1)
        BYDXYP(1) = 1./DXYP(1)
        DXYS(1) = 0.
        DXYN(1) = DXYP(1)
        ENDIF
        IF (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE) THEN
        DYP(JM) = RADIUS*(LAT(JM)-LAT(JM-1)-0.5*DLAT)
        DXYP(JM)= .5*DXV(JM)*DYP(JM)
        BYDXYP(JM) = 1./DXYP(JM)
        DXYS(JM) = DXYP(JM)
        DXYN(JM) = 0.
        END IF
        AREAG = DXYP(1)+DXYP(JM)

        DO J=J_0S,J_1S
        DYP(J) = .5*(DYV(J)+DYV(J+1))
        DXYP(J) = .5*(DXV(J)+DXV(J+1))*DYP(J)
        BYDXYP(J) = 1./DXYP(J)
        DXYS(J) = .5*DXYP(J)
        DXYN(J) = .5*DXYP(J)
        AREAG = AREAG+DXYP(J)
        END DO
        BYDYP(:) = 1.D0/DYP(:)
        AREAG = AREAG*FIM
        C****EXCEPTION!
        C**** dxyp is not distributed -> make sure all procs. have right values for
        C**** the whole array.
        C**** CALL ALL_GATHER(DXYP)

        C****POLES
        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE) THEN
        RAVPS(1) = 0.
        RAPVS(1) = 0.
        END IF
        IF (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE) THEN
        RAVPN(JM) = 0.
        RAPVN(JM) = 0.
        END IF
        DO J=J_0STG,J_1STG
        DXYV(J) = DXYN(J-1)+DXYS(J)
        BYDXYV(J) = 1./DXYV(J)
        RAPVS(J) = .5*DXYS(J)/DXYV(J)
        RAVPS(J) = .5*DXYS(J)/DXYP(J)
        END DO
        CALL CHECKSUM(grid,RAPVN, 210, “GEOM_B.f”)
        CALL HALO_UPDATE(grid,RAPVN, from=NORTH)
        DO J=J_0,J_1S
        RAPVN(J) = .5*DXYN(J)/DXYV(J+1)
        RAVPN(J) = .5*DXYN(J)/DXYP(J)
        END DO
        C**** LONGITUDES (degrees); used in ILMAP
        LON_DG(1,1) = -180.+360./(2.*FLOAT(IM))
        LON_DG(1,2) = -180.+360./ FLOAT(IM)
        DO I=2,IM
        LON_DG(I,1) = LON_DG(I-1,1)+360./FLOAT(IM)
        LON_DG(I,2) = LON_DG(I-1,2)+360./FLOAT(IM)
        END DO
        C**** LATITUDES (degrees); used extensively in the diagn. print routines
        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE) LAT_DG(1,1:2)=-90.
        IF (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE) LAT_DG(JM,1)=90.
        DO J=J_0S,J_1S
        LAT_DG(J,1)=DLAT_DG*(J-FJEQ) ! primary (tracer) latitudes
        END DO
        DO J=J_0STG,J_1STG
        LAT_DG(J,2)=DLAT_DG*(J-JM/2-1) ! secondary (velocity) latitudes
        END DO
        C**** WTJ: area weighting for JKMAP, JLMAP hemispheres
        JMHALF= JM/2
        DO J=J_0,J_1
        WTJ(J,1,1)=1.
        WTJ(J,2,1)=2.*FIM*DXYP(J)/AREAG
        END DO
        DO J=J_0STG,J_1STG
        WTJ(J,1,2)=1.
        WTJ(J,2,2)=2.*FIM*DXYV(J)/AREAG
        END DO
        C****EQUATOR
        IF (grid%HAVE_EQUATOR) THEN
        WTJ(JMHALF+1,1,2)=.5
        WTJ(JMHALF+1,2,2)=WTJ(JMHALF+1,2,2)/2.
        END IF
        C****POLE
        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE) THEN
        WTJ(1,1,2)=0.
        WTJ(1,2,2)=0.
        END IF

        C**** CALCULATE CORIOLIS PARAMETER (NOW RESOLUTION INDEPENDENT)
        c OMEGA = TWOPI*(EDPERD+EDPERY)/(EDPERD*EDPERY*SDAY)
        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE)
        & FCOR(1) = -OMEGA*DXV(2)*DXV(2)/DLON
        IF (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE)
        & FCOR(JM) = OMEGA*DXV(JM)*DXV(JM)/DLON
        C****Update halo for DXV array
        CALL CHECKSUM(grid,DXV, 260, “GEOM_B.f”)
        CALL HALO_UPDATE(grid,DXV, from=NORTH)
        DO J=J_0S,J_1S
        FCOR(J) = OMEGA*(DXV(J)*DXV(J)-DXV(J+1)*DXV(J+1))/DLON
        END DO

        C**** Set indexes and scalings for the influence of A grid points on
        C**** adjacent velocity points

        C**** Calculate relative directions of polar box to nearby U,V points
        DO I=1,IM
        SINIV(I)=SIN((I-1)*DLON)
        COSIV(I)=COS((I-1)*TWOPI*BYIM) ! DLON)
        LON(I)=DLON*(I-.5)
        SINIP(I)=SIN(LON(I))
        COSIP(I)=COS(LON(I))
        END DO

        C**** Conditions at the poles
        DO J=1,JM,JM-1
        IF (((J .EQ. 1) .AND. (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE)) .OR.
        & ((J .EQ.JM) .AND. (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE))) THEN
        IF(J.EQ.1) THEN
        JVPO=2
        RAVPO=2.*RAPVN(1)
        ELSE
        JVPO=JM
        RAVPO=2.*RAPVS(JM)
        END IF
        KMAXJ(J)=IM
        IMAXJ(J)=1
        RAVJ(1:KMAXJ(J),J)=RAVPO
        RAPJ(1:KMAXJ(J),J)=BYIM
        IDJJ(1:KMAXJ(J),J)=JVPO
        DO K=1,KMAXJ(J)
        IDIJ(K,1:IM,J)=K
        END DO
        END IF
        END DO
        C**** Conditions at non-polar points
        DO J=J_0S,J_1S
        KMAXJ(J)=4
        IMAXJ(J)=IM
        DO K=1,2
        RAVJ(K,J)=RAPVS(J)
        RAPJ(K,J)=RAVPS(J) ! = .25
        IDJJ(K,J)=J
        RAVJ(K+2,J)=RAPVN(J)
        RAPJ(K+2,J)=RAVPN(J) ! = .25
        IDJJ(K+2,J)=J+1
        END DO
        IM1=IM
        DO I=1,IM
        IDIJ(1,I,J)=IM1
        IDIJ(2,I,J)=I
        IDIJ(3,I,J)=IM1
        IDIJ(4,I,J)=I
        IM1=I
        END DO
        END DO

        RETURN
        END SUBROUTINE GEOM_B

        END MODULE GEOM

      • Steven a Mosher,

        You wrote –

        (Here insert part of a compute program which produces ever increasing incorrect answers at ever faster speeds).

        Now I suppose you’re going to tell me to read the rest, point out the poor programming practices involved, the unverified assumptions used, and so on.

        Can’t be bothered. Do your own fault finding.

        Here’s one for you.

        A complete program.

        #define So long
        #define R rand()
        #include
        #include
        #define T(i,F) ((So long)(i)<<F)
        #define O(c,L,i) c*sin(i)+L*cos(i)
        #define y(n,L) for(n=0; n>10&63|q>>24&4032|q>>38&258048
        char J[1<<18]; int G[W*p],_,k,I=W/4+1,w=p/4+1; float C,B,e;

        unsigned So long A,n,d, t,h,x, f,o,r,a,l,L,F,i,s,H=1<<18,b=250,D[1<<14],z[W*p],q
        =0x820008202625a0;main(){Display *j=XOpenDisplay(0);Window u=XCreateSimpleWindow
        (j,RootWindow(j,0),0,0,W,p,1,0,0);XImage *Y=XCreateImage(j,DefaultVisual(j,0),24
        ,2,0,(char*)G,W,p,32,0); XEvent M; for(XMapWindow(j,u); XSelectInput( j,u,1)&&a-
        65307; ){ if(!H){ if(XCheckWindowEvent(j,u,1,&M)){ a=XLookupKeysym(&M.xkey,0);*(
        a&1?&C:& B)-=(.05
        -a/2% 2* .1)*!(a-
        1& 4092^ 3920);a+
        2&0xfe0^ 0xfc0||(
        s=a+2&31 ); }else
        { y(k,p+ ){ F=k%w* 4|k/w; float a[6],S=(F-p /2.) /p;
        y(_,W+){ i=_%I*4|_/I; if( F<p&i>38)) { float V=(i-W/2. )/p,U=O(
        S,1,B),m =32768,Q=m; a[4] =O(-1,S,B); a[3]= O(U,V,C)
        ; a[5]=O (-V,U,C); P((a+3 ),s*42); t||(A=d) ;f=0;y(n
        ,){float N=a[n+3], E=1024 /fabs(N); b= N>20 *n)^~-b)+!b&1023 )/1024.; y(d,)a[d ]=a[d+3]
        *E; a[n] =round(a[n]); P( a,K); i=q+d; P(a, 1); e=E*
        K; for(; e<m; i+=d){ l=X(i); t=r=l^(l^l-( 1<<6*n))
        &63<>40)&1023|i>>8&4190208 |4194304
        :i&1023| i>>28&4190208|(b^l==r)<>6
        &0xf|x>> 14&0x3f0)+t*768]){ o=h; f=n|l*4| x<<32; m
        =e; } if (t==8&e>8; G[L]=o>> 32<<8|o&
        16711935 ; z[L]=3*(Q<=m)|f|b<<56; } else{ d=l*(f<>40)+( 4-l)*(h<>40)>>2&16774143; o=D [(d>> 6&
        15|d>>14 &1008)+J[(int)h/4]*768]*(b=h>>56 )>>8; G[
        L]=o>>32 <<8 | o& 16711935 ; z[L]=(
        int) h|d <<32|b<< 56; } }} } q +=A;
        XPutImage (j, u+0, DefaultGC (j,J[X(q
        )]=0),Y, 0,0,0,0, W,p); }} else{ L=
        –H/768; J[H] =R% 16*(R%4>
        6&63)-32 )+abs((H
        >>12&63) -32)-3);
        i=H &15; F=H %768
        >>4; if( L3?L-8?L-5?9858122:12365733-488848*((i+F/4*4)%8&&F%
        4):R%2*5298487:3352537*L*L-14202379*L+19205553; if(L==4)if(FF-19)b*=0.7; if(L==3){ if((i-1&15)<14&(F-1&15)>31; k^=k>>31; b=196-R%32+(k>_?k:_)%3*42;} else{ b*=1+R%2*(.5
        -(i&1)); } } D[H]=(a&16711935|(a&65280)<>(F>>5))>>8&0xff00ff00ff; } } }}

        But hey, I didn’t write this. It’s intentionally obfuscated. Valid C. Compile and run it on any X Windows system you have. I doubt you can be bothered, just like myself.

        Oh.Oh. Oh. I’m supposed to be frightened by a fragment of poorly written computer code! Who will save me?

        Not Steven Mosher, obviously.

        Cheers.

      • Steven Mosher

        too Funny Flynn

        Flynn suggests that I inform NASA the world is not flat.
        And he cant even read Gavin’s code.

      • Segrest,

        It is you that is the hypocrite. Either that or you don’t understand orders of magnitude. To make it simple for you, if one group of technologies has higher subsidies than another by an order of magnitude, the focus should be firmly on the technology that is being funded by orders of magnitude more than the other.
        US Federal government subsidies:
        – nuclear = $2.10/MWh
        – wind = $35/MWh
        – solar = $280/MWh
        http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

        Plus much higher subsidies for grid for renewables (but not properly attributed to renewables) and renewables are unsustainable – they cannot supply a large proportion of the worlds energy (nuclear can) and they require fossil fuels to support them.

        Your problem is that you are simply a died in the wool greenie advocate for renewables. You are incapable of rational analysis.

    • Curious George

      “For example, why do you think the surface temperature of the earth is 33 C warmer than the radiative temperature? Science tells us exactly why, but this is the same science you doubt.”

      Jim D apparently does not realize that his 33 C science assumes a flat earth.

      • You just agree with everything MF says, don’t you? Flat earth and all.

      • Jim D,

        Nothing wrong with agreeing with facts, wouldn’t you say? I repeat –
        NASA, Skeptical Science, Royal Meteorological Society – just a few that have energy balance diagrams showing a flat Earth.

        Warmists reject facts. They might be silly enough to claim that heat from a fire comes from the CO2 rather than the flame. Or even that surrounding a body with CO2 might cause its temperature to increase! Unless at night, indoors, or in the presence of unbelievers, of course!

        Even Warmists wouldn’t be that silly, would they?

        The world really does wonder.

        Cheers.

      • You still keep talking about a flat earth. What is this about in your mind?

      • Jim D,

        You wrote –

        “You still keep talking about a flat earth. What is this about in your mind?”

        Anybody that reads this will appreciate why you don’t want to admit that Warmists base their religion on a flat Earth. Like you, I wish it was not so, but alas, their delusion refuses to accept the essential irregular oblate spericity of the Earth.

        Maybe NASA doesn’t really believe the Earth is flat, and they just portray it as such to bolster the silly CO2 heating myth. Obviously, the Royal Meteorological Society, and others similarly gullible, follow on with the charade, possibly hoping no one will notice that the Earth is actually round.

        Maybe Steven a Mosher, Scientist, could inform NASA that the world is globular. Maybe even you could. It seems fairly evident to me.

        I know you don’t want to admit that Warmists publish pictures of a flat Earth, but they do. So sad. Too bad.

        Keep on with the deny, divert and confuse tactics of Warmist avoidance. They might work one day, if you clench your buttock cheeks and eyes tightly enough! Only joking, of course! Avoidance only defers the inevitable.

        Cheers.

      • But then there’s always this:

      • Do you have trouble understanding schematics? Don’t get into electrical engineering. You will be extremely confused by their diagrams, if you even have trouble with these. Sorry for your problem.

      • Steven Mosher

        NASA makes cartoon for Flynn.

        Why?

        because he cannot read this

        SUBROUTINE GEOM_B 1,3
        !@sum GEOM_B Calculate spherical geometry for B grid
        !@auth Original development team (modifications by G. Schmidt)
        !@ver 1.0 (B grid version)
        USE DOMAIN_DECOMP, only : grid, get
        USE DOMAIN_DECOMP, only : halo_update, north, south, checksum
        IMPLICIT NONE
        REAL*8, PARAMETER :: EDPERD=1.,EDPERY = 365.

        INTEGER :: I,J,K,IM1 !@var I,J,K,IM1 loop variables
        INTEGER :: JVPO,JMHALF
        REAL*8 :: RAVPO,LAT1,COSP1,DXP1
        INTEGER J_0,J_1,J_0S,J_1S,J_0STG,J_1STG

        C**** latitudinal spacing depends on whether you have even spacing or
        C**** a partial box at the pole
        DLAT_DG=180./JM ! even spacing (default)
        IF (JM.eq.46) DLAT_DG=180./(JM-1) ! 1/2 box at pole for 4×5
        cc IF (JM.eq.24) DLAT_DG=180./(JM-1) ! 1/2 box at pole, orig 8×10
        IF (JM.eq.24) DLAT_DG=180./(JM-1.5) ! 1/4 box at pole, ‘real’ 8×10
        DLAT=DLAT_DG*radian
        CALL GET(grid, J_STRT =J_0, J_STOP =J_1,
        & J_STRT_SKP =J_0S, J_STOP_SKP =J_1S,
        & J_STRT_STGR=J_0STG, j_STOP_STGR=J_1STG)

        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE) THEN
        LAT(1) = -.25*TWOPI
        SINP(1) = -1.
        COSP(1) = 0.
        DXP(1) = 0.
        END IF
        IF (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE) THEN
        LAT(JM) = .25*TWOPI
        SINP(JM) = 1.
        COSP(JM) = 0.
        DXP(JM) = 0.
        END IF
        DO J=J_0S,J_1S
        LAT(J) = DLAT*(J-FJEQ)
        SINP(J) = SIN(LAT(J))
        COSP(J) = COS(LAT(J))
        DXP(J) = RADIUS*DLON*COSP(J)
        END DO
        BYDXP(J_0S:J_1S) = 1.D0/DXP(J_0S:J_1S)
        C****Update halos for arrays cosp, dxp, and lat
        CALL CHECKSUM(grid, COSP, 136, “GEOM_B.f”)
        CALL CHECKSUM(grid, DXP , 137, “GEOM_B.f”)
        CALL CHECKSUM(grid, LAT , 138, “GEOM_B.f”)
        CALL HALO_UPDATE( grid, COSP, from=SOUTH)
        CALL HALO_UPDATE( grid, DXP , from=SOUTH)
        CALL HALO_UPDATE( grid, LAT , from=SOUTH)

        LAT1 = DLAT*(1.-FJEQ)
        COSP1 = COS(LAT1)
        DXP1 = RADIUS*DLON*COSP1

        DO J=J_0STG,J_1STG
        COSV(J) = .5*(COSP(J-1)+COSP(J))
        DXV(J) = .5*(DXP(J-1)+DXP(J))
        DYV(J) = RADIUS*(LAT(J)-LAT(J-1))
        C**** The following corrections have no effect for half polar boxes
        C**** but are important for full and quarter polar box cases.
        IF (J.eq.2) THEN
        COSV(J) = .5*(COSP1+COSP(J))
        DXV(J) = .5*(DXP1+DXP(J))
        END IF
        IF (J.eq.JM) THEN
        COSV(J) = .5*(COSP(J-1)+COSP1)
        DXV(J) = .5*(DXP(J-1)+DXP1)
        END IF
        C****
        END DO
        C****POLES
        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE) THEN
        DYP(1) = RADIUS*(LAT(2)-LAT(1)-0.5*DLAT)
        DXYP(1) = .5*DXV(2)*DYP(1)
        BYDXYP(1) = 1./DXYP(1)
        DXYS(1) = 0.
        DXYN(1) = DXYP(1)
        ENDIF
        IF (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE) THEN
        DYP(JM) = RADIUS*(LAT(JM)-LAT(JM-1)-0.5*DLAT)
        DXYP(JM)= .5*DXV(JM)*DYP(JM)
        BYDXYP(JM) = 1./DXYP(JM)
        DXYS(JM) = DXYP(JM)
        DXYN(JM) = 0.
        END IF
        AREAG = DXYP(1)+DXYP(JM)

        DO J=J_0S,J_1S
        DYP(J) = .5*(DYV(J)+DYV(J+1))
        DXYP(J) = .5*(DXV(J)+DXV(J+1))*DYP(J)
        BYDXYP(J) = 1./DXYP(J)
        DXYS(J) = .5*DXYP(J)
        DXYN(J) = .5*DXYP(J)
        AREAG = AREAG+DXYP(J)
        END DO
        BYDYP(:) = 1.D0/DYP(:)
        AREAG = AREAG*FIM
        C****EXCEPTION!
        C**** dxyp is not distributed -> make sure all procs. have right values for
        C**** the whole array.
        C**** CALL ALL_GATHER(DXYP)

        C****POLES
        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE) THEN
        RAVPS(1) = 0.
        RAPVS(1) = 0.
        END IF
        IF (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE) THEN
        RAVPN(JM) = 0.
        RAPVN(JM) = 0.
        END IF
        DO J=J_0STG,J_1STG
        DXYV(J) = DXYN(J-1)+DXYS(J)
        BYDXYV(J) = 1./DXYV(J)
        RAPVS(J) = .5*DXYS(J)/DXYV(J)
        RAVPS(J) = .5*DXYS(J)/DXYP(J)
        END DO
        CALL CHECKSUM(grid,RAPVN, 210, “GEOM_B.f”)
        CALL HALO_UPDATE(grid,RAPVN, from=NORTH)
        DO J=J_0,J_1S
        RAPVN(J) = .5*DXYN(J)/DXYV(J+1)
        RAVPN(J) = .5*DXYN(J)/DXYP(J)
        END DO
        C**** LONGITUDES (degrees); used in ILMAP
        LON_DG(1,1) = -180.+360./(2.*FLOAT(IM))
        LON_DG(1,2) = -180.+360./ FLOAT(IM)
        DO I=2,IM
        LON_DG(I,1) = LON_DG(I-1,1)+360./FLOAT(IM)
        LON_DG(I,2) = LON_DG(I-1,2)+360./FLOAT(IM)
        END DO
        C**** LATITUDES (degrees); used extensively in the diagn. print routines
        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE) LAT_DG(1,1:2)=-90.
        IF (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE) LAT_DG(JM,1)=90.
        DO J=J_0S,J_1S
        LAT_DG(J,1)=DLAT_DG*(J-FJEQ) ! primary (tracer) latitudes
        END DO
        DO J=J_0STG,J_1STG
        LAT_DG(J,2)=DLAT_DG*(J-JM/2-1) ! secondary (velocity) latitudes
        END DO
        C**** WTJ: area weighting for JKMAP, JLMAP hemispheres
        JMHALF= JM/2
        DO J=J_0,J_1
        WTJ(J,1,1)=1.
        WTJ(J,2,1)=2.*FIM*DXYP(J)/AREAG
        END DO
        DO J=J_0STG,J_1STG
        WTJ(J,1,2)=1.
        WTJ(J,2,2)=2.*FIM*DXYV(J)/AREAG
        END DO
        C****EQUATOR
        IF (grid%HAVE_EQUATOR) THEN
        WTJ(JMHALF+1,1,2)=.5
        WTJ(JMHALF+1,2,2)=WTJ(JMHALF+1,2,2)/2.
        END IF
        C****POLE
        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE) THEN
        WTJ(1,1,2)=0.
        WTJ(1,2,2)=0.
        END IF

        C**** CALCULATE CORIOLIS PARAMETER (NOW RESOLUTION INDEPENDENT)
        c OMEGA = TWOPI*(EDPERD+EDPERY)/(EDPERD*EDPERY*SDAY)
        IF (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE)
        & FCOR(1) = -OMEGA*DXV(2)*DXV(2)/DLON
        IF (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE)
        & FCOR(JM) = OMEGA*DXV(JM)*DXV(JM)/DLON
        C****Update halo for DXV array
        CALL CHECKSUM(grid,DXV, 260, “GEOM_B.f”)
        CALL HALO_UPDATE(grid,DXV, from=NORTH)
        DO J=J_0S,J_1S
        FCOR(J) = OMEGA*(DXV(J)*DXV(J)-DXV(J+1)*DXV(J+1))/DLON
        END DO

        C**** Set indexes and scalings for the influence of A grid points on
        C**** adjacent velocity points

        C**** Calculate relative directions of polar box to nearby U,V points
        DO I=1,IM
        SINIV(I)=SIN((I-1)*DLON)
        COSIV(I)=COS((I-1)*TWOPI*BYIM) ! DLON)
        LON(I)=DLON*(I-.5)
        SINIP(I)=SIN(LON(I))
        COSIP(I)=COS(LON(I))
        END DO

        C**** Conditions at the poles
        DO J=1,JM,JM-1
        IF (((J .EQ. 1) .AND. (grid%HAVE_SOUTH_POLE)) .OR.
        & ((J .EQ.JM) .AND. (grid%HAVE_NORTH_POLE))) THEN
        IF(J.EQ.1) THEN
        JVPO=2
        RAVPO=2.*RAPVN(1)
        ELSE
        JVPO=JM
        RAVPO=2.*RAPVS(JM)
        END IF
        KMAXJ(J)=IM
        IMAXJ(J)=1
        RAVJ(1:KMAXJ(J),J)=RAVPO
        RAPJ(1:KMAXJ(J),J)=BYIM
        IDJJ(1:KMAXJ(J),J)=JVPO
        DO K=1,KMAXJ(J)
        IDIJ(K,1:IM,J)=K
        END DO
        END IF
        END DO
        C**** Conditions at non-polar points
        DO J=J_0S,J_1S
        KMAXJ(J)=4
        IMAXJ(J)=IM
        DO K=1,2
        RAVJ(K,J)=RAPVS(J)
        RAPJ(K,J)=RAVPS(J) ! = .25
        IDJJ(K,J)=J
        RAVJ(K+2,J)=RAPVN(J)
        RAPJ(K+2,J)=RAVPN(J) ! = .25
        IDJJ(K+2,J)=J+1
        END DO
        IM1=IM
        DO I=1,IM
        IDIJ(1,I,J)=IM1
        IDIJ(2,I,J)=I
        IDIJ(3,I,J)=IM1
        IDIJ(4,I,J)=I
        IM1=I
        END DO
        END DO

        RETURN
        END SUBROUTINE GEOM_B

        END MODULE GEOM

      • Steven Mosher

        wait AK..maybe Flynn watched this cartoon to get his science

      • Steven Mosher

        OMG

        Reagan and the republicans didnt know the earth was a oblate spheriod

        LOOK !

      • Steven Mosher

        No Wonder star wars never could work

        Reagan though the earth looked like this!!!

        Flynn’s a genius !!!!

      • Steven Mosher

        Oh crap…. he thought America looked like this!!!

      • Steven Mosher

        Its settled. Republicans like Reagan didnt understand economics or taxes

        Look at the Y axis Here !!

        No units ! OMG

      • Steven Mosher

        OMG more voodoo economics

        Its true republican economic views are broken because of charts like
        This
        Look at the labelling? error bars?

        WTF..

        http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/president-ronald-reagan-holding-a-chart-as-he-tells-the-american-picture-id585371867

      • AK,

        I like the ones which show the whole surface as flat, North to South, East to West, continents, oceans – the lot, all basking under the Sun at one time.

        Here’s one, but I don’t know how to post it without exceeding column width etc. Sorry. Paste and go works on my iPad.

        https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4SilJdafMN3ixUo4ov-jYAQsHAynJkfW_wuTS5_FBQPtDKL4Vhx1AJoLL2g

        Jim D goes into Warmist denial by talking about schematics. Next it’ll be tobacco, evil, filthy, dirty coal, or paeans to the effulgent brilliance of Hansen.

        Anything to avoid facing the silliness of the Warmist dogma.

        On the bright side, I seem to notice an increase in the number of Wavering Warmists. The heating power of CO2 seems to be moving numerically downwards, in fits and starts. Lysenkoism and phrenology took a long, long, time to dwindle away, too. Even now, they have their supporters.

        I don’t mind, as long as they don’t expect me to pay for their hobbies!

        Ain’t life grand!

        Cheers.

      • MF, no, somehow I believe you when you say you are confused by these diagrams. It explains a lot of your postings. Get well soon. I won’t mock you like SM is.

      • Mosher’s code is a good example of poor programming practice. These days, we programmers favor descriptive variable names. It helps make code self-documenting. No wonder climate science is in trouble.

      • JimD believes the correlation, such as it is, of CO2 to global temperature proves AGW. If he believes that, he will believe anything.

      • Steven Mosher

        Too funny

        Skeptic one claims climate science believes the earth is flat.
        He is shown GCM code.
        Skeptic two cant bring himself to disagree with skeptic one, even though
        he reads code and understands.
        That folks… is denial.

        Now the really funny thing is that skeptic 2 makes the exact same mistake as skeptic one.

        that mistake would be focusing on tangents.. the color of charts, the style of code.

        this why skeptics lost the debate. They focused on style not substance.

        Luckiliy one skeptic ( nic Lewis) focused on substance, but the clowns
        at climate etc dont have the sense to follow his argument.

        Instead we get ankle biters.

      • Steven Mosher,

        At a wild guess, the amateur who wrote the code snippet might need a little assistance in programming. I’m guessing it’s Fortran, or a proprietary equivalent

        I’m not going to teach him for nothing – he gets paid more than I do. If he’s using a recent version of Fortran, I would suggest that he’s inefficiently using CPU time and memory. Array manipulation can be done far more efficiently than is shown in the snippet

        Apart from the inadequate comments, the obscure and confusing variable names, and the general lack of programming skill evident, the program snippet by itself does not allow me to determine whether the complete program relates to the actual shape of the Earth.

        Without details of some of the variables, and knowledge of the other routines involved, it could be inferred that the Earth was being treated as a sphere, which is a simplification too far.

        If so, a dreadful mistake might be made relating to things like the depth of the atmosphere at the poles compared with that at the equator, and the obvious differences in density, lapse rates and so on, and the obvious effects on Coriolis force calculations.

        For a chaotic system, any results would be useless, obviously. Pretty, but useless.

        As I claim little proficiency in Fortran, you might care to advise me where I’m wrong. On second thoughts, don’t bother. You obviously know less than I do.

        Cheers.

      • > Without details of some of the variables, and knowledge of the other routines involved, it could be inferred that the Earth was being treated as a sphere, which is a simplification too far.

        With even less details and knowledge, more could also have been inferred.

      • John Carpenter

        This thread is a great example of how Flynn is the king of deny, divert and confuse. By his own logic he must be a warmist.

      • This thread is a great example of how Flynn is the king of deny, divert and confuse. By his own logic he must be a warmist.

        Yup. A warmist flying a false flag. Trying to make casual visitors think all skeptics are as nutty as he is.

      • Steven Mosher

        It’s too funny..

        Flynn: warmists think the earth is flat. Mosher tell Gavin.
        Mosher: Here’s gavins fortran, not a flat earth.
        Flynn: is that Fortran? I don’t understand it, but i can tell you its poorly written and not documented… and Chaos, chaos…

        Translation..Flynn claims that Ronald Reagan was a flat earther

        This image proves it

        Flynn for the win.

  10. “Can #offsets & #biofuels make future international #aviation growth ‘carbon-neutral’? [link]”

    “The biofuels analysis, conducted by Rob Bailis, a senior scientist at SEI-US in Boston, found considerable uncertainties – particularly because the alternative jet fuels industry is in its infancy….”

    Well b*gger me sideways with a camel. Some economists are actually coming close to realising that the green machine has absolutely no concept of energy, chemistry, science, engineering, finance, economics, or whatever, you name it. At all.

    If you go to the WWF for your views on the real world, then you will just get Erich von Daniken.

  11. Jim D,

    You wrote-

    “MF, no, somehow I believe you when you say you are confused by these diagrams. It explains a lot of your postings. Get well soon. I won’t mock you like SM is.”

    You are listening to an echo of your own fantasy, rather than anything I said.

    Wayward Woeful Wandering Warmists reject reality, and retreat into their fantasy, where Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, and others instruct their acolytes in the inchoate mysteries of Climatological Cargo Cult Scientism.

    Real science it ain’t. Keep avoiding. You’ll get into less trouble that way.

    Cheers.

  12. The Energy Sector: A Prime Target for Cyber Attacks

    Distorted accounting is a major tactic employed to make intermittent power sources appear competitive with traditional base load power. For example, costs incurred while filling in for wind and solar output swings are charged to fossil fuel and nuclear plants instead of being charged to the wind and solar accounts.

    Along these lines, intermittent advocates now break out grid “improvements” as a charge that is independent of their primary cause: the need to make constant gyrations and adjustments in order to accommodate intermittent sources. Once again, most of these charges should be made against those intermittent sources in order to properly understand the true cost to society of intermittent power.

    Looking at demand control, it is not impossible to have home-based battery chargers, HVAC thermostats, and water heater controls commanded by a combination of embedded, in-home, and remote computers. But there are about 130 million housing units just in the US. Assume only four control units per home and you have over 500 million such controls subject to cyber attack. Safeguarding these will be a huge ongoing cost, once again largely driven by the implementation of intermittent sources.

  13. Bilderberg group. The most powerful. The elite. They have armed guards, so I guess they believe in guns after all.

  14. This is a fascinating article.

    Oil money flows for black and Latino Democrats
    https://calmatters.org/articles/oil-money-flows-for-black-and-latino-democrats/

    It is an example of the elite-network politics Peter Skerry wrote of in Mexican Americans: The Ambivalent Minority.

    As the article points out, the environmental movement in California is made up of people who are predominately

    1) White, and
    2) Affluent

    The environmental movement has almost no rank and file members who are working-class, black or Hispanic. But it has deep pockets.

    Skerry describes elite-network politics as a scheme by which wealthy Anglo elites buy politicians in largely Mexican-American districts. Skerry called these districts “rotten buroughs.”

    Rotten buroughs are populated by a constiuency which is transient, compliant and unattentive, and with many immigrants who can’t even vote. But due to the Voting Rights Act, these non-voting immigrants are counted in the population statistics used to draw up district boundaries. The net cumulative effect is that politicians from these rotten buroughs are not accountable to the people who live in them, people who either can’t vote or don’t vote.

    In elite-network politics, the Mexican-American politicians are lavishly funded by White Anglo elites from outside the district. The elite-network Mexican-American politicians do not put the economic or cultural interests of the peope who live in the districts they “represent” first, but those of their elite Anglo benefactors.

    The environmental movement is now learning that two can play the game of elite-network politics. The oil companies have deep pockets too, and it is the oil companies which represent the economic interests of the people who live in these rotten buroughs.

    • The picture is not complete, however, without pointing out another type of politics Skerry defines — protest politics.

      This it the domain of the La Raza and Chicano groups that are also lavishly funded by wealthy Anglo elites: the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the MacArthor Foundation, etc.

      The La Raza and Chicano politicians, like the eltie-network politicans, also lack a constiuency in the larger Mexican-American community. The wellspring of these protest politicians is the rarified academic and cultural milieu of California’s elite universities, far from the largely working-class rotten buroughs.

      Protest politicans cooperate in a symbiotic relationship with the elite-network politicians. They create the appearance that the elite-network politicans have a popular constituency in the Mexican-American community. But as Skerry points out, neither the elite-netwok nor protest politicians have any constituency in the Mexican-American community to speak of.

      And both protest and elite-network politicians represent the interests and values of their wealthy benefactors, not the interests and values of the largely working-class denizens of the rotten Mexican-American buroughs.

  15. Crude oil has been hovering around $50. Took a tumble Friday. However, I think this shows how sensitive production is to price. A $5-10 increase in price caused more drilling activity. The US will keep a lid on oil prices for some time to come as long as OPEC is in shambles.

    Production up.

    Rig count up.

    • jim2,

      I think that’s right. I would estimate the current cost to produce a barrel of shale oil in many areas to be in the $60 to $70 range, and there is no shortage of those areas.

      So I predict the cost of that marginal barrel of oil is going to be in the $60 to $70 range for quite a few years to come.

      • Right, Glenn. But there is more to it. Some wells, for example in the Permian Basin, are profitable at $30. From there, there are wells that become profitable as the price increases from $30. So at each price level, some supply will become available.

  16. Curious George

    Some people never learn. “Star wars never could work” – but it did. It brought down the Soviet Union with zero fatalities. That’s a strange way to handle the most successful military program ever.

    • So my brother’s US Army unit positioned to take the first blow across the iron curtain had nothing to do with it, or my cousin’s unit on the parallel in Korea, or my b-n-law’s two tours in SE Asia? All credit for the Cold War goes to Raygun? Horsechit.

      • Curious George

        I don’t discount brave soldiers, but the military had been stationed there for 35 years. Reagan announced the program in 1983, and the East Bloc crumbled in 1989. Some people never learn.

      • [We] stole from ourselves, took and gave bribes, lied in the reports, in newspapers, from high podiums, wallowed in our lies, hung medals on one another. And all of this — from top to bottom and from bottom to top. …

        You’re right. So pin your medal on Raygun. Make a movie of it. Write a nice little newspaper story. Give him all the credit and never discount the 30-plus years of human effort, including that of some Russians, that actually led to the change. You’re a great learner.

      • JCH,

        I don’t have to reference the experience of siblings, cousins, in-laws, kids, etc (though I have plenty of them serving or who have served). I spent my time manning the frontlines, even going head to head with the Russians. And you are only partially right. Reagan basically dared the Soviet Union to match him in defense spending. A 600 ship navy, intermediate range Pershings and cruise missiles in Europe, new tanks, infantry carriers and helicopters, etc. When he committed to ABM he broke the Soviet’s back. They could not keep up, leaving them with the choice of letting the US develop a system which would give it an overwhelming advantage in a nuclear exchange or explore arms talks.

      • When he committed to ABM he broke the Soviet’s back. They could not keep up, leaving them with the choice of letting the US develop a system which would give it an overwhelming advantage in a nuclear exchange or explore arms talks.

        At the same time, they were quietly letting smugglers sell American computer technology to the Soviets, while waving their arms and loudly yelling about stopping the tech flow.

        This had the effect of forcing the Soviets to face the fact that to match US weapons, they needed computer technology they couldn’t manufacture themselves, and could be cut off from their source any time the US chose to.

        Lots of pressure to develop a technology they couldn’t. Computer factories weren’t just a matter of stealing some blueprints.

    • Some people never learn. “Star wars never could work” – but it did.

      I guess you have a very good understanding of sarcasm.

  17. The Andean/Saharan ice age, which occurred at about 10 times the current CO2 level, ruled out atmospheric CO2 as a significant factor in climate change.

    Emergent structures analysis http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com demonstrates that climate change since before 1900 can be explained (97% match with measurements) by an approximation of ocean cycles combined with the influence quantified by a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies.

    If average global temperature does not significantly decline before 2020 an as yet unidentified (and uncorrelated with sunspots) factor is preventing it.

    • Dan Pangburn: If average global temperature does not significantly decline before 2020 an as yet unidentified (and uncorrelated with sunspots) factor is preventing it.

      Such an eventuality would count in favor of the CO2 hypothesis, hardly an unidentified factor. But it is good that your model has made a prediction.

  18. Looking at the article (Chatera and Loewenstein, “The under-appreciated drive for sense-making”), I have a feeling that even when hungry, thirsty and sex-deprived, we all have a taste for, ‘sense making.’ What we see given the history and the facts, is that global warming is nothing more than a hoax and a scare tactic. That explains why AGW alarmism is a Western phenomena that pits the Left against the right concerning the validity of the Left’s explanations about a simple fact of life, climate change– an explanation that can never be verified by science.

  19. Here’s one the techno-triumphalists and techno-utopians ought to like.

    As Silicon Valley lays plans to colonize Mars, researchers offer a blueprint for governing it
    http://qz.com/702624/as-silicon-valley-lays-plans-to-colonize-mars-researchers-offer-a-blueprint-for-governing-it/?utm_content=buffer02ddf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    NASA has been tasked with landing humans on Mars by the 2030s. The nonprofit Mars One foundation claims it’s preparing to blast off hardware for human habitation of the Red Planet by 2024. And Elon Musk, the founder and CEO of SpaceX, has made it his mission to turn Mars into humanity’s second home to save our species from possible extinction.

    No political system exists to manage these new arrivals—and if humans indeed colonize Mars in the 21st century, we’re going to need one soon….

    Musk’s vision for governance on Mars is steeped in the libertarian-leaning ideals of Silicon Valley.

    At a recent Recode event, he described a system of “direct democracy,” rather than a reliance on elected officials to represent the masses. Musk would let people vote directly on most (if not all) issues before the government. Laws would be subject to expiration dates and popular recall by 40% of the population, ensuring it’s “easier to remove a law than to create one.” Musk believes the colonization of another planet will give humanity an opportunity to reboot its mode of governance, much as the US Constitution did in 1788, making a sharp break with outdated institutions and ideas born in an earlier era.

    • Does Musk’s vision for governance include millionaires receiving tax credits to drive full-size slot cars to the golf course and topping off the batteries with energy from legacy facilities like the Hoover Dam?

    • Mars our second home? Not going to happen….much easier and cheaper to put colonies in space stations as suggested by Gerald O’Neill et al 40 years ago. So far we have the International Space Station, and centuries from now possibly much larger versions. Also solar power plants or large mirror arrays in earth orbit were suggested over 30 years ago to satisfy all our energy needs…..not much progress there. I also recall reviewing a proposal for America to build a fleet of larger and faster supersonic transport aircraft after Britain and France built the Concorde. Many thought such development inevitable; you can’t stop progress, etc. But the economic feasibility depended on very low fuel prices, which I thought highly unlikely, and the now very old Concorde fleet was all that were built.

  20. Global warming has been the Left’s reflexive response to free enterprise capitalism much like gun control has been the Left’s reflexive response to radical Islamic-inspired terrorism in America.

  21. I liked the piece about the effects of the collateral damage of apocalyptic storytelling.

    Funny how the very people who are first pull out the “Think of the children” card are the ones who rarely think of the effect of their scare stories on the very children we are supposed to be thinking of.

  22. Climate Signals and “Demystifying Climate Models”: Two Great New Resources
    https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/climate-signals-and-demystifying-climate-models-two-great-new-r

    Whether it be in media coverage or in statements by politicians, the connections between our warming planet and extreme weather events are too often ignored or downplayed (or sometimes overplayed)….

    Where can you quickly find the context to put a breaking weather event into a solid climate perspective…?

    Two excellent resources are now available to meet both of these needs.

    Debuting in beta form last month, the Climate Signals website–created by the nonprofit organization Climate Nexus–offers a quick and handy way to explore the climate change elements that are most pertinent to a given extreme event.

    The site’s main page allows you to click on a U.S. map that shows ongoing, recent, and significant past events, including heat waves, floods, and other weather disasters as well as ecosystem shocks such as wildfire and high-latitude ice loss….

    Each event also features a schematic “tree” that shows the chain of physical and social processes running from greenhouse gases to the event….

    There is a “dashed line” branch used for links that are not yet firmly supported by observations but are consistent with model projections.

    As those of you who follow wunderground climate change blogger Dr. Ricky Rood know, Ricky has bravely forayed into the world of long-form publication with his first-ever book: Demystifying Climate Models: A Users Guide to Earth System Models….

    The book is full of enlightening examples of the strengths and weaknesses of climate models.

  23. As people may know, I do not believe that Mr. Lang has a fundamentally sound understanding of engineering economics — as taught in every major engineering school and practiced (integrated planning models e.g., GE MAPS) by electric utilities (except maybe in California).

    In today’s CE blog by posting the below graph, Mr. Lang (from Australia) also now shows a poor knowledge of U.S. Tax Law:

    What the above chart doesn’t clearly explain is that several categories exist: (1) New Wind & Solar; (2) Old Nuclear; (3) New Nuclear.

    Wind and Solar currently have either a Production Tax Credit (PTC) or an Investment Tax Credit (ITC) — which is reflected in the above chart.

    But in the 70’s and 80’s Old Nuclear had an ITC, which is usually fully taken at commercial operation. Thus, if we showed the above chart for Old Nuclear during the 70’s and 80’s, the subsidy shown would be much higher (an apples to apples comparison to current Renewables when they are placed in service).

    Currently, New Nuclear has a tax credit very similar to the wind energy tax credit. Also, New Nuclear has subsidies of capping construction cost (Energy Policy Act) and DOE Loan Guarantees (the same program providing subsidies to Solyndra).

    So to make Apples to Apples comparisons we need to compare what New Nuclear subsidies will be when they come on-line.

    We can do this by going to Georgia Power reports to their PSC on Vogtle nuclear units 3 & 4, currently under construction:

    https://www.georgiapower.com/docs/about-energy/9th-10th-VCM-Report.pdf

    https://www.georgiapower.com/docs/about-energy/14th-VCM-Filed-Report-R2.pdf?hp=lnau_box3

    As these reports show, the tax credit and loan guarantees values are estimated to be over $1 billion — and would have a subsidy of approximately $147 MWh.

    As I constantly state — (A) I support new nuclear and Georgia Power’s Vogtle 3 & 4; (B) I strongly support Michael Shellenberger’s effort to keep old nuclear units operating; (C) I adamantly believe that engineering economics must be followed on all new capacity additions — where if Renewables penetration is only 1%, then so be it.

    I do not buy in into the Conspiracy Theories or the very flawed understanding of engineering economics I see all the time here at CE.

  24. Having a little fun. In Mr. Lang’s above graph he cited — the term megawhatt is used. What’s a megawhatt?

    Goggle tells us that a megawhatt is a cartoon character which causes trouble where ever they go. Seems very appropriate.: http://ben10.wikia.com/wiki/Nosedeenian

  25. What many here at CE don’t understand or refuse to even try to understand — Not all MWh are the same:

    http://image.slidesharecdn.com/gpcenergyoverviewforthelovettschool-100429093211-phpapp02/95/georgia-power-co-energy-overview-for-the-lovett-school-14-728.jpg?cb=1272533606

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/afb0ccc5-b5e1-4c69-bb29-4b2e4e47651d/load-curve-for-victorian-electricity-grid.png.aspx

    The Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) metric that is frequently cited here at CE always has to assume a capacity factor. Sources like the DOE use very high capacity factors for nuclear (ie. ~90%) — assuming they will be providing base load.

    But, if a Utility had a static base/intermediate load; had invested heavily in flexible new combined cycle natural gas units to meet this load (e.g. with retiring un-economic coal units); and was experiencing growth in peaking load — they would never consider building a nuclear power plant. The Nuclear LCOE at say a 20% capacity factor would be astronomical. It’s not a right load fit.

    Peaking technologies are typically combustion turbines, solar, off-shore wind and “demand side management” (New York is making the news a lot on this recently). These are the apples to apples comparisons that a utility typically would be looking at, using integrated grid planning software.

    FACT: In the U.S., solar’s penetration level is about one-half of 1%. As every electric utility and their PSC or ISO are saying — solar is currently typically meeting peaking load requirements, replacing very high cost combustion turbines that have low capacity factors.

    FACT: No load is “more” important that other loads. Peaking loads are just as important as Base Loads.