EV’s Fossil Fuel Economy No Better than ICE Vehicles

June 17th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

…But the price per mile of EVs energy use is cheaper for the time being ($2 per gallon of gas equivalent)

Photo credit: Insideevs.com.

Most of the electricity generated in the U.S. continues to come from fossil fuels (61% in 2021). This is not likely to change much in the future as electricity demand is increasing faster than renewables (20% of total in 2020 and 20.1% of total in 2021) can close the gap versus fossil fuels. Given that fact, it is interesting to ask the question:

Which uses fossil fuels more efficiently, an EV or ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicle?

Most of what you will read about EVs versus ICE vehicles discuss how EVs are more efficient at converting the energy they carry into motion (e.g. here, and here , and here, and here, etc.) but this is only part of the equation. The generation, transmission, and battery storage of electricity is very inefficient compared to the refining and transport of gasoline, and those inefficiencies each year add up to more than all of the gasoline consumed in the U.S.

EV Energy Usage per Mile

The average energy consumption of an EV vehicle is about 0.35 kWh per mile. At the U.S. average electricity price of $0.145 per kWh in June 2022, and assuming the 2021 average new car fuel economy of 39 mpg, this makes the ICE-equivalent fuel price of an EV $1.98 per gallon of gasoline. With the U.S. average price of gas now over $5.00 a gallon, this by itself (ignoring the many other considerations, discussed below) makes the EV attractive for month-to-month savings on fuel purchases.

But since most of this electricity still comes from fossil fuels, we must factor in the efficiency with which electricity is generated and transmitted and stored in the EV’s battery. This is how we can answer the question, Which uses fossil fuels more efficiently, an EV or ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicle?

The generation of electricity is pretty inefficient with efficiencies ranging 33% from coal and 42% from natural gas. As we continue to transition away from coal to natural gas, I will use the 42% number. Next, at least 6.5% is lost in transmission and distribution. Finally, 12% of the electricity is lost in charging of the EV battery. Taken together, these losses add up to the 0.35 kWh per mile energy efficiency of an EV increasing to 1.0 kWh per mile in terms of fossil energy being used.

ICE Energy Usage per Mile

How does the internal combustion engine stack up against the EV in terms of efficiency of fossil fueled energy use?

A gallon of gas contains 33.7 kWh of energy. But like the generation of electricity, it takes energy to extract that gallon of gas from petroleum. However, the refining process is very energy efficient (about 90%), so it takes (33.7/0.9=) 37.44 kWh of energy to obtain that 33.7 kWh of energy is a gallon of gas. At the 39 mpg gas mileage of 2021 cars, this gives an energy economy number of 0.96 kWh per mile driven, which is just below the 1.0 kWh fossil fuel energy usage of an EV. With advertised fuel economy of 48 to 60 mpg, hybrid vehicles (which are gasoline powered) would thus have an advantage over EVs.

Other Considerations

Of course, the main reason EVs are being pushed on the American people (through subsidies and stringent CAFE standards) is the reduction in CO2 emissions that will occur, assuming more of our electricity comes from non-fossil fuel sources in the future. I personally have no interest in owning one because I want the flexibility of travelling long distances in a single day.

There is also the issue of the large amount of additional natural resources, and associated pollution, required to make millions of EV batteries.

Furthermore, the electrical grid will need to be expanded to provide the increase in electricity needed. This greater electricity demand, along with the high cost of wind and solar energy, might well make the fuel cost advantage of the EV disappear in the coming years.

Finally, a portion of the true price of a new EV is hidden through subsides (which the taxpayer pays for) and high CAFE fuel economy regulations, which require auto manufacturers not meeting the standard to pay companies like Tesla, a cost which is passed on to the consumer through higher prices on ICE cars and (especially) trucks.


604 Responses to “EV’s Fossil Fuel Economy No Better than ICE Vehicles”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. WizGeek says:

    Volvo’s “all things considered” report, page 26, indicates their XC40 Recharge with “Global Electricity Mix” (slightly better than US) has a break-even point with their C40 ICE at 110,000km; this being a best case scenario assuming no EV battery replacement.

    Report: h tt ps(colon) / / http://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-assets/intl/applications/dotcom/pdf/c40/volvo-c40-recharge-lca-report.pdf

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      Is that the price break-even point?

      • WizGeek says:

        Carbon Footprint Break-even point.

      • ZaniyahAmelie says:

        Make money on-line from home any money quite $18000 to $21000. begin getting paid monthly op Thousands bucks on-line.n1 I even have received $26000 during this month by simply operational online from point my time.bg~50 one and every one merely do this job by.
        just Open This Website..> http://smartcash244.blogspot.com/

      • Brooklyn says:


      • Brooklyn says:

        I’m earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning 25k dollars only within four weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join. Check further details by
        reaching this site..

      • Brooklyn says:

        I’m earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning 25k dollars only within four weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join. Check further details by
        reaching this site..> http://lifechange.gq

      • Alexandre Casal says:

        I live in Portugal, land of very badly designed roads. Driving a vehicle one encounters poorly paved roads with a lot of curves and inclines that often are more than 8%. Some roads even have two different types of asphalt so that when you brake usually the car skids off to one side of the road.
        The fuel prices are around 8,8 US Dollars a gallon.
        My car spends 20 cents a mile on fuel.
        Taxes are over 40% on our income so a new 50.000$ car will cost 25 years to pay.
        I am old so buying a new car is out of my pocket.
        A new electric car will cost the 10% more than a new model of my old diesel car.
        Because the electric car has no clutch or oil to change and does not need to use the brakes it is cheaper to run.
        I could make my own electricity but the government has put caps on how much electricity I can produce and has taxes on solar panels, not for every body but for those who are not friendly to the tax collector so it depends.
        Still from the pollution perspective the electric car has no friction parts aside the brakes and does not use them often so it makes a lot less dust a lot less heat has almost no noise the cities will a better place to live.
        New batteries will be shreddable with no waste of material.
        Electricity/Pollution will still be mostly produced by burning coal or gas but it is easier to control on one site than having all those ICE engines spreading pollution.
        Perhaps a nuclear solution will arrive in time.
        And for those who have old cars like me now we are not allowed to drive them in to some cities.

      • ‘Because the electric car has no clutch or oil to change and does not need to use the brakes it is cheaper to run.”


        “Still from the pollution perspective the electric car has no friction parts aside the brakes and does not use them often so it makes a lot less dust”

        EV drivers still have to use the brakes.
        Because electric cars are heavier than ICE cars, their tires wear out faster, creating more particulate matter from tire wear.
        That IS real pollution.

      • Robert Maginnis says:

        Richard, have you heard of regenerative breaking?

    • Nate says:

      Average car (not truck) mpg in US.


      Just shy of 30 mpg. so this is 0.033 Gal/mi, or 1.2 kWh/mile

      So the assumption of 39 mpg is way beyond reality.

      I have a plug-in hybrid. It gets ~ 10 miles per 3.0 KWh of charge.

      So this is 0.3 kWh/mile, and this includes battery losses.

      61% of this is 0.183 kWh/mile, and @ 40% generator efficiency this is 0.46 kWh/mile of fossil fuel burning.

      I will neglect transmission losses because there will be some for both electricity and gasoline, and I will leave out refinery energy.

      @ 40% generation efficiency, this amounts to 0.75 kWh of power plant energy.

      So we have 1.2kWh/mile of FF for ICE, vs 0.75 kWh/mile of FF energy for EV.

      • Nate says:

        “Most of the electricity generated in the U.S. continues to come from fossil fuels (61% in 2021). This is not likely to change much in the future”

        This is misleading.


        This shows that FF generation as a percentage of total electric generation has come steadily down from 69% in 2012, to 61% in 2021.

        These are the percentages by year.

        2012 0.685569691
        2013 0.675354725
        2014 0.671930247
        2015 0.66884789
        2016 0.651145928
        2017 0.628661615
        2018 0.635982009
        2019 0.625434517
        2020 0.605599512
        2021 0.608419308

      • Newman says:

        Solar and wind make about 12% of power generation adding hydro makes it look better than it is

      • Mark Wapples says:

        I live in the UK and for economy reasons I drive a Deisel mondeo and currently average 56 miles per gallon. Cannot remember if US gallon is bigger or smaller. Cost new 10 years ago was 24000 pounds.currently can get equivalent at similar price.
        Equivalent sized car from tesla costs 70000 pounds.
        Irrelevant argument is 46000 pounds is equivalent 3670000 miles of fuel at todays high cost.

        I cannot see me driving that amount of mileage so it is uneconomical for me to change.

        Rough calculation based on 50 percent gas mix using Roy’s figures is CO2 is over 100000 miles before it comes C02 neutral. But I think the industry is not telling the whole truth on battery Production C02 figures.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        mark…US gallon is 1/5th smaller than Imperial gallon.

      • Anglia says:

        nice one man

      • Nate says:

        “@ 40% generation efficiency, this amounts to 0.75 kWh of power plant energy.”

        Looks like i did this twice by mistake.

        Net is 0.46 kwh/mile FF burning for EV compared to 1.2 kwh/mi FF for ICE.

      • Brooklyn says:


      • KB says:

        (1) When you say it gets 10 miles per kWh OF CHARGE, that neglects the transmission, distribution and battery charger loss.
        Those losses can be substantial, so the electricity generated at the station will be (say) 20% greater than the indicated battery charge.

        (2) It’s very debatable if you should use that 61% “energy mix” figure in the calculation. That is because at any given moment, renewable generation is favoured over fossil fuel generation, so that renewables are always delivering their maximum generation that is available to them at that moment. Any ADDITIONAL appliance (such as an EV) plugged into the mains supply is then using 100% fossil fuel !

      • Nate says:

        “(1) When you say it gets 10 miles per kWh OF CHARGE, that neglects the transmission, distribution and battery charger loss.”

        No. Battery losses are included because the only the output work from a charge is mentioned.

        Transmission and distribution are neglected for BOTH EV and ICE. For ICE we have to transport oil to refineries, refine it, and transport gasoline to pumps

        Include all if you like.

      • Nate says:

        “available to them at that moment. Any ADDITIONAL appliance (such as an EV) plugged into the mains supply is then using 100% fossil fuel !”

        Thats a stretch. Show some research on that. For home overnight charging demand is at its lowest.

      • Mark B says:

        KB says: Its very debatable if you should use that 61% energy mix figure in the calculation. — argument about peaking —

        One of the advantages of having large percentage of energy storage devices (e.g. an EV) on the grid is that, via variable rate systems, the grid operator can incentivize the consumption of energy during periods where there is an overabundance.

        In a grid with nuclear plants, overnight charging might be incentivized to add base load during what is historically a low demand period. In a grid with an abundance of solar, daytime charging might be incentivized. In both instances, there is a strong win-win potential for both the grid operator and the consumer which is enabled by significant load from EVs.

    • Brooklyn says:


    • Ken says:

      Where are you finding this $2 gasoline?

  2. Bindidon says:

    I’m not a fan of how this EV stuff develops e.g. in Germoney.

    Pushing EV vehicles on the private sector will soon lead to a situation in which

    – rich people and big companies soon will buy big EVs through subsides
    – poor people will have no longer a car
    – small companies and the agricultural sector will stay on their old fossile fueled vehicles – with the help of well organized loopholes (btw, what they all do here since years and years).

    Thus, politicians focusing on ‘less CO2’ will be quite happy, but

    – a vast majority of emissions (SOx, NOx, catalytic converters) will remain
    – as written by Mr Spencer above, battery production will create new problems.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      I totally agree. It is the same as for solar panels here in the US. Mostly the rich can afford panels on their homes and we poorer folk pay for their subsidies.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      I travel a lot on the interstates. You don’t see that many Teslas on the interstates. You see them in Urban areas with plenty of charging stations and short distances. You would have to be a glutton for punishment to take a Tesla on a long trip. A ten-hour trip turns into a 20-hour trip.

      • John says:

        I’ve noticed that. Most EV’s are second or third cars. Toys for the wealthy mostly.

    • Eben says:

      How come you don’t convert your Trabant to electric if worry about warming so much you hypocrite

    • Nate says:

      Do only rich people own a car?

      I got some quotes recently. The cost is comparable to car. The solar companies offer loans and financial structuring so that you pay the same or less than your current electric bill, but fixed, going forward, until the loan is paid off. Then you make money.

      IOW, unlike a new car, there is NO added monthly cost for most people.

  3. Charles Lominac II says:

    I don’t disagree with your analysis when the fuel source of the electricity is coal or natural gas, that said the cost is close. The one huge advantage to using electricity to power an automobile is a strategic one, and that advantage is energy source diversity. Electricity can be generated from coal, natural gas, hydro-electric, nuclear, solar, and windwhatever. It can be generated by a centralized source like a power plant, or through distributed means like a home solar power station. Its also possible to use the energy stored in an EV (or PHEV) battery to power your home in the event the power goes out due to a storm. Point being, there are advantages to consider.

    The problem we face now with $5.00/gallon gas is a structural onethere isnt an easy substitute for gasoline and demand is pretty much constant over the near term. When oil becomes scarce on the world market, be it the result of war, OPEC reducing production, or policy against new drilling; the price increases and there isnt much you can do short term as a consumer its ECON 101 supply and demand. If the price stays high long enough, consumers will decrease demand by purchasing more fuel efficient cars, driving less, etc.but that demand reduction takes time and impacts standard of living short term.

    I dont own an EV either for the reasons you state, but the technology is still in its infancy. I also dont advocate for a second that we eliminate ICE powered vehicles let the market decide. However, PHEVs do make a lot of sense and offer the best of both worlds. The advantage of diversity in the generation of electricity does help keep the cost more stable and predictable. A PHEV with a 50 mile all electric range before the ICE cuts on to power the vehicle can lower the gasoline consumption of the typical American driver by 70% or more, and that reduction in demand would go a long way in helping bring down the price of gasoline. Thats technology that exists today…my 2 cents.

    • Roy W Spencer says:

      I agree, in the long term, EVs have a role to play. But government distorting the markets ends up being counterproductive. Also, buyers of EVs need to be made aware that a couple of the reasons they are being told EVs are “good” are bogus.

      • Jack Bean says:

        The only role they play is being complicit in daylight robbery. They are not greener or environmentally better. They should pay additional road tax for the weight of the vehicle leads to more rapid destruction/damage of the road surface and that at the moment other ICEE lighter vehicles are therefore subsidizing EV road users.

        Someone earlier, Robert Maginnis, mentioned regenerative braking, hardy an argument as the vehicle battles to generate speed that would allow for enough velocity to make regeneration useful or a factor. It is not the same concept of VSD’s and injection of excess regeneration into the grid. The EV is a closed system.

    • Ken says:

      1st, I would suggest the EV technology is not in its infancy.

      Batteries have been around for a long time. Advances in battery technology are like solar panels: any future advances are likely going to be rather small.

      2nd, Sure, electricity can be generated from coal, natural gas, hydro-electric, nuclear, solar, and wind whatever. The fact is that the 61% fossil fuel stated in the article isn’t getting smaller.

      Here in my province of British Columbia, almost all of our electricity is from Hydro. About a third of the energy used in BC is from electricity. Another third is from gasoline. By extension, if everyone started driving an electric car, that would require doubling electrical generation just in this province.

      3rd, Site C dam is currently under construction in Northern BC. It took some 35 years of political wrangling before construction finally started.

      Doubling electrical generation in BC would require another 15 x Site C dams or 3 x nuclear power plants (nuclear is currently not legal in BC). The low hanging fruit for large scale hydro is saturated; another Site C scale project is not going to happen.

      4th, I don’t know what the political climate is like in your neighborhood but here in Canada its at least 20 years to get a large energy project approved. Most investors are looking for much greener pastures.

      5th, Even the existing infrastructure is not safe. In my community there is a gas turbine that sits idle most of the time. Its capable of providing 2/3rds of the power on Vancouver Island. Yet the province is trying to close it permanently in order to meet greenhouse gas emissions.

      The ‘stupid’ about where the electricity is going to come from to power everyone’s EV is a huge problem.

      Lastly, In the meanwhile it is manifestly unfair that our taxes subsidize people who can afford to buy an EV while most of us cannot afford to buy one.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Less than 1% of the 250 million cars, SUVs and light-duty trucks on the road in the United States are electric.

        Getting drivers to switch from gas-powered to electric vehicles (EVs) is essential for the U.S. to be carbon-neutral by 2050.

        However, changing the composition of vehicles on the road will be a slow process because only about 17 million new cars are sold each year.”

        It’s not essential, it’s decoration.
        What is “essential” feeding power crazed politicians-
        these soulless creatures are in hell.

      • Charles Lominac II says:

        More food for though and discussion.

        According to EIA data, between 2017-2019, US demand for motor vehicle gasoline was ~24.3 million gallons per day.


        The average fuel economy in the US in 2019 was 24.9 MPG , so that equates to approximately 605 million motor vehicle miles driven per day in the US on average.


        If we outlawed ICE engines and went 100% EV, lets assume a vehicle like the Tesla Model Y would represent the average electric vehicle that would be sold in the States, since its an SUV and we love SUVs. The Model Y is rated at 28 kWh/100 miles (0.28 kWh/mile)


        So to travel those 605 million miles/day in EVs like the model Y, will consume about ~170,000,000 kWh or 170 gigawatt hours (gWh) per day on average. However as Dr Spencer mentions in his post, that doesnt take into account power distribution and battery charging losses.

        EIA estimates that electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) losses are about 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed in the United States in 2015 through 2019 (i.e., the US power grid is 95% efficient).

        According Car and Driver, Tesla data shows it takes 87.868 kWh to add 77.702 kWh to the battery of the Long Range version of the Model Y — that equates to an 88% charging efficiency.


        So using 88% charging efficiency as a baseline, a power grid that is 95% efficient, and assuming this back of the envelope estimate is in the ballpark; those 170 gWh of battery power required in the US per day would need ~203 gWh (170 gWh/(.88 * .95) of additional generating power per day on averageover and above what is currently being consumed today.

        That will require significant capital investment in the power grid. This does not include the recharging infrastructure that would have to be built not everyone has a home with a garage. That said, if there is a business case and money to be made, money wont be an issue.

        Personally Im not against EVs, they do have their advantages and I might actually buy one as a commuter vehicle in the future. However they are not a panacea that will solve world peace and hunger. They come with a cost too. Let the market decide.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “About a third of the energy used in BC is from electricity. Another third is from gasoline. By extension, if everyone started driving an electric car, that would require doubling electrical generation just in this province.”

        You only require ~ 1.15x as much, not 2x as much electricity!

        There are two problems.
        1) I assume you mean 1/3 is from PETROLEUM in general. A little over 1/2 of petroleum in Canada is used for transportation [i don’t have data for individual provinces]. So you only need to replace ~ 18% of the energy (while the other ~ 15% continues to be used for industrial purposes). And EVs are about 4x as efficient, so that 18% drops to 4% or 5%.

        So electricity needs to increase from ~ 33% to about 37% or 38%, which is about 1.15x. Or about 2-3 more sites.
        (All of this is approximate, based on your numbers and general facts about energy and efficiency).

        [There is a handy resource for energy sources by type and energy uses by sector which is produced by Lawrence Livermore National Lab. I encourage anyone interested in the topic to check it out. They don’t have each province, but they do have Canada as a whole. https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy%5D

      • Ken says:

        No I don’t mean 1/3 from petroleum in general. I mean gasoline that is used in cars.

        Here are some better numbers. Notice there are a lot of ‘rules of thumb’; no one really knows: https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/bc-energy-site-c-dam-hydro_b_7969110

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Thanks for the added info. But it still seems to back up my estimates. (The following uses ‘rules of thumb’ and ‘guesstimates’ and data from your link + a few other sources. So the results are just ‘ballpark estimates’.)

        Site C is expected to produce about 5 TWh each year.
        Fossil fuels provide about 78 TWh worth of energy for ICE vehicles.
        *IF* we needed to replace all this at 1:1, then that is 78/5 = 16 dams (basically the same as the 15 estimate in the article).

        But this misses an important factor! EV are about 4x better at turning energy into motion than ICE, so we only need to supply about 78/4 = 20 TWh of electricity to replace 80 TWh of fossil fuels. And that is 4 Site C dams (a bit above my 2-3 estimate).

        2 or 3 or 4 dams is still a lot, but that is well below 15 or 16 dams.

      • Martin says:

        good point Ken…. EVs are not in their infancy…. totally agree as they have been around as a tech for over a hundred years…. natural gas as used to generate energy even less…. in fact every single energy technology is constantly going through tech efficiency growths…. if we let the free market actually work and not allow the biased and agenda driven government to harm the poor and middle class then we will continue to get to where we should be. thanks to innovation (and not ignorant gvmt) we actually have some better battery solutions on the near term market….. that is the free market at work… not the ignorant socialist mandates… those destroy society. proven in every single example of a country trying it… too bad the US is so infected by that mentality…but then again so so many free souls are drawn to the US for its freedom from the socialists

      • Nate says:


        “if we let the free market actually work and not allow the biased and agenda driven government to harm the poor and middle class then we will continue to get to where we should be. thanks to innovation (and not ignorant”

        I agree we should let the market innovate. But the innovations you mention have been happening with the incentives in place.

        Awhile back there was a tax credit for hybrid cars, when the first hybrids were expensive. Then the credit went away, while the price came down, and millions bought hybrid cars. Because they are good.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        In a free market, you don’t have to convince buyers that something is a good deal. Buyers figure it out pretty quickly.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Another food for thought, Toyota is coming out with an 80mpg ICE vehicle.

      • ZaniyahAmelie says:

        Make money on-line from home any money quite $18000 to $21000. begin getting paid monthly op Thousands bucks on-line.n1 I even have received $26000 during this month by simply operational online from point my time.bg~51 one and every one merely do this job by.
        just Open This Website..> http://smartcash244.blogspot.com

    • Nate says:

      ” in the long term, EVs have a role to play. But government distorting the markets ends up being counterproductive. Also,”

      Could have been said about EV with LED lighting 10 y ago.

      Most people are happy with their no longer expensive, money saving, LED lighting.

      Wasnt counterproductive.

      Same can be said for hybrid cars 20 y ago.

  4. Martin23233 says:

    Great detail and facts… really looks like ‘they’ are intentionally trying to hurt the middle class and poor with their false flag attack on energy. Please keep it up.

  5. gbaikie says:

    What if you had mobile recharging stations?
    I what mean is instead electric cars running off a battery, they mostly get electrical energy via electrical grid.
    Or roads provide the electricity to electrical vehicle with mobile recharging station that dock to a car and recharge it as it drives.
    So get on freeway, and mobile recharging station catches up with a car and it plug in to car {or a truck}.

    So one could have power lines like old electrical buses use to have, and mobile recharge station is similar to electric bus but it’s small
    and is it mobile recharge station which docks charges a moving vehicle. And instead wires over road, wires are in the road.

    To make simpler, the mobile recharge station could have a “bike lane”
    which runs parallel to car/truck driving lane. And make more complicated, the mobile recharge station could also carry bicycles allowing crazy bicycle drivers to drive on freeways.

  6. Willard says:

    Back in my days, 100% was bigger than 61%.

  7. gbaikie says:

    Joe Biden is a weak president {which is great] and he is brain dead, but he could help dem party and be a great president.

    In my opinion George Bush could have been great president, if he was successful with Iraq war or if his Africa thing worked, or if he got us to the Moon. George failed at all of these, he made an effort in all of these 3, but it didn’t really work. Or didn’t go to moon, look at Iraq, and look at Africa. Of course another thing George was involved with India and India nuclear power program. Or it was a good direction, but was very successful. If Bush was involved in South Korea success with their nuclear program- that was example of something actually working. But it seems it due to just due Korea effort. The point is George didn’t appear to be successful and one could call it, bad luck.
    Anyhow, I think if Joe gets us to the Moon, he will be a great president. And Joe could do it, easily. Or for George to do it, would be quite challenging.
    The only good thing Joe has done is lower expectation, or his plan is to go to the Moon after his first term is done, and he unlikely to get a second term. So Joe could “appear” to do the “impossible” of doing something faster than “the plan”.

    Joe has got SLS, Starship, and maybe Blue Origin could make it’s large rocket. George had nothing- not even Falcon-9 or Falcon Heavy.
    And Joe doesn’t have any problem in this in regard to Congress supporting it. Joe is Casey at bat, just need single- though home run would be better.
    I thought George could manage to get one of three, and it would have made a great president [and he wasn’t}.
    But one could ask what else could Joe do other than land woman on the Moon. Ukraine? Middle East peace plan? What?
    I am interested is what anyone else could suggest that will make Joe a successful president. Or would continuing course be good? {because it’s amusing??]


    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
    “There is also the issue of the large amount of additional natural resources, and associated pollution, required to make millions of EV batteries.”

    It takes about six times more of the specialty materials to produce an EV than it takes to build an ICE vehicle (upper part of Figure 1 https://ibb.co/rQp8vGf).

    The sheer tonnage of earth that must be moved and processed to produce these refined minerals will have an environmental impact. Copper ores for example, typically contain only about 0.5% (by weight) of the element itself. So, roughly 200 tons of ore need to be dug up, moved, crushed, and refined to produce 1 ton of copper. Furthermore, the cost of the upstream environmental footprint must also include the overburden – that is, the necessary removal of even more tons of rocks and dirt to access a single ton of the buried mineral-bearing ore.

    • Entropic man says:

      Ever noticed the overburden cost of open cast coal mining?

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        I’m a Petroleum Engineer. I don’t like open pit coal mining. I much prefer coal bed methane production.

      • gbaikie says:

        Why don’t you like open pit coal mining?

        The coal will burn at some point in time- assuming Earth has an oxygen atmosphere.
        One can say it’s a very low risk in short term- say 1000 years.
        But we can’t do anything [apparently and according to experts] about natural burning coal regions.

        I think we mine natural burning coal- even if costs are higher,
        Also think any coal mine which comes it’s end of “useful life” should be made, so it can’t catch fire, later.

        Because there are coal mines which have caught fire, later. And apparently “nothing can be done, about it”.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        “Why don’t you like open pit coal mining?”

        I had to think about this question.

        I drive past the Woydak coal mine several times every year on my way to the mountains, and my reaction is always the same.

        First I’m in awe of the engineering prowess involved in removing a whole mountain in the span of three or four (human) generations. Then my heart weeps at the fact that the land our forebears saw when they first came out west is no longer the same. Then I see the 150 car trains, loaded with Wyoming coal leaving for 50-60 markets across the country, and that brings me joy!

        By the time I reach my destination I’ve forgotten all about the strip mines and my only concern is getting as far up in the mountains, away from all civilization as I can. Ten days of hiking, camping and fishing cures all ills.

        So the answer to your question is NIMBY.

      • gbaikie says:

        That what I would say when the Comet Death arrives.

  9. Entropic man says:

    You haven’t mentioned the $20/tom social cost of CO2 saved by replacing 40% of fossil fuel generation with renewables and nuclear.


  10. Tim Folkerts says:

    Roy, I see several problems with this analysis.

    1) “The average energy consumption of an EV vehicle is about 0.35 kWh per mile”
    The top 10 selling EVs in 2021 averaged ~ 0.28 kWh/mile, not the much worse 0.35 kWh/mile you quoted (which was some average over the past 2 decades)!
    This gives a ~20% boost for EVs.

    2) “assuming the 2021 average new car fuel economy of 39 mpg”
    39 mpg seems rather optimistic for new cars. Not one of the 25 most popular vehicles on this list have a combined efficiency of 39 mpg. Even when you get rid of the pick-ups and SUVs (not comparable to the EVs on the list) the mileage still seems to be closer to 30 than 39 mpg.
    Another ~20% boost to EVs.

    3 “But like the generation of electricity, it takes energy to extract …
    You considered the distribution loses for electricity, but left these out for gasoline. The liquid needs to get from the refineries to the gas stations. This can be a long haul by pipeline and then by semi to the gas stations. I don’t have a good sense as to how much energy that takes, but it could easily be a few percent.

    Together, these put your net results off for EV vs ICE by over 40%.

    4) “At the U.S. average electricity price of $0.145 per kWh”
    Commercial costs for electricity (eg for a commercial charging station) are lower (but overhead for the stations would push it back up a bit). Also, EVs at home could charge during off-peak hours, potentially saving a bit of money. (And also evening out the load a bit, which is good for electric utilities.)

    5) “along with the high cost of wind and solar energy”
    Most sources I have seen have wind and solar comparable to other sources.
    “The key insight of the 2020 edition of Projected Costs of Generating Electricity is that the levelised costs of electricity generation of low-carbon generation technologies are falling and are increasingly below the costs of conventional fossil fuel generation. ”

    There is one significant additional “Other Consideration” you overlooked — gas taxes. There is a tax of around $0.50/gal in the US on gasoline. There is not an equivalent tax of ~ $0.02 per mile for electric vehicles. This is one other subsidy that ICE cars pay relative to EVs

    • sod says:


    • Martin says:

      Tim…I suppose you do see the problem with your reply :

      I see several problems with this analysis.

      1) The average energy consumption of an EV vehicle is about 0.35 kWh per mile
      The top 10 selling EVs in 2021 averaged ~ 0.28 kWh/mile, not the much worse 0.35 kWh/mile you quoted (which was some average over the past 2 decades)!
      This gives a ~20% boost for EVs.

      Why did you not cherry pick the ‘top 2 selling ‘? you wish to choose your top percent…and you ignored Roy’s total average. Roy’s figures stand undisputed. if you want to argue that you don’t want to agree with the total average ,and you want to inject only the best selling / efficient ev’s then sure that is a different story… but that is not what roy was stating and it is disingenuous for you claim such. roys figures stand. yours are different and sure legit too…as ev’s are leaning towards better efficiencies…. thankfully to the free market and not gvmt.

  11. gbaikie says:

    You are on the Moon in a spacesuit. Spacesuit needs way to keep you cool and you doing like Apollo- by evaporating water:
    “Astronauts commonly wear a liquid cooling and ventilation garment in order to maintain a comfortable core body temperature during extra-vehicular activity (EVA). The LCVG accomplishes this task by circulating cool water through a network of flexible tubes in direct contact with the astronaut’s skin. The water draws heat away from the body, resulting in a lower core temperature. The water then returns to the primary life support system (PLSS), where it is cooled in a heat exchanger before being recirculated.

    In an independent space suit, the heat is ultimately transferred to a thin sheet of ice (formed by a separate feed water source). Due to the extremely low pressure in space, the heated ice sublimates directly to water vapor, which is then vented away from the suit.”

    Next, on the Moon and sun is at zenith. All surface around is about 120 C. Your suit might need to cool you more.

    Next, have a 10 foot by 10 foot square insulated roof supported with 4 post 10 feet high. And it been in sunlight for tens of hours and it is casting 10 foot square shadow on the lunar surface below it.
    And we could imagine the `10 foot square shadow is cooler then all the lunar surface exposed to 1360 watts per meter of sunlight.

    If walk into shade caused by the roof, what is the difference of cooling that spacesuit has to do?

    Now, suppose one had curtains, which were a thin 10 by 10 foot sheet of highly reflective Mylar. And if pull down curtains so covering all wall space, what is the different of cooling that spacesuit has to do?
    So at noon, walk under roof, and put down the curtains, you in a dark room.
    Also say had card table and put a warmed small lunar rock on the table, wait 12 hours, what is temperature of rock.
    And if instead the curtains were up, put small rock on card table in the shade of the roof, wait 12 hours, what is temperature of rock?

  12. Roy W Spencer says:

    It’s not clear to me there is any social cost of carbon. Except maybe to politicians and environmental groups.

    • Entropic man says:

      Sea level rise?

      • Entropic man says:

        Two heat domes in two years. I wonder how that affects productivity.

      • Ken says:

        You still have to show carbon dioxide emissions cause sea level to rise.

        Sea level has been rising 1.8 mm per year since about 1850 when records began and at the end of the little ice age.

        Heat dome is an extreme weather event.

        Here is record of one in 1938: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/scv/scv871.pdf

      • Ken says:

        Heat dome is part of climate here. They don’t happen every year but they do happen and there is no way to attribute them to Carbon dioxide emissions.

      • gbaikie says:

        There has been very little sea level rise.

        And there was some sea level falling in the Little Ice Age.

        Peak sea level rise was about 8000 years ago and our ocean has cooling for over 5000 years.
        We are last past the maximum heat of the Holocene.
        Some think this interglacial period will longer than
        earlier interglacial periods, but they only say this because
        they imagine higher CO2 will extend the interglacial period.

        Global surface air temperature is about 15 C and could have been
        much colder than this in the Little Ice Age.
        I don’t think we will returning to the colder period of
        LIA, but it seems we are going to return to the pause.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Earlier this month, the town of Edgartown, Massachusetts received an application for an underground propane tank installation at Obamas estate, consisting of two 1,000 gallon-tanks and one 500-gallon tank, to be used for residential purposes.

        Weve never had a private propane tank come to us, said a member of the towns review board. Typical residential storage for back-up generators is 100 to 500 gallons.

        At a time when his successors economic war on Russia is wreaking havoc on the world and the U.S. economy teeters on the edge of an abyss, Obamas 2,500-gallon scheme suggests he wants his 6,900-square-foot, seven-bedroom house to be ready for many weeks of energy independence at a time. ”

        [Obama continues to lack faith in Joe Biden.]

      • Clint R says:

        The masses must suffer for the comfort of the elites.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        OK, Eman, is the Persian Gulf connected to the world’s oceans?

      • Martin says:

        sea level rise has been going on for many many centuries regardless of any co2 level…and hence any human cause. Is sea level rise of concern? yeah.. but not so much as it is so slow and mitigations are being placed in areas of most concern

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Here are a few ‘social costs’ of carbon-based fuels.

      SOOT: fine particulates from burning fossil fuels adversely affects health.

      ACID RAIN: SO2 and NOx from burning fossil fuels acidifies precipitation.

      LANDSCAPE DAMAGE: Strip mining, mountaintop removal, and drilling for oil and gas all cause significant damage.

      Are there also external costs for other sources of energy? Sure. But — leaving aside climate change, sea-level rise, etc. — burning fossil fuels has definite negative impacts.

      • gbaikie says:

        China burns 4 billion tonnes of Coal and you can see it in the skies of China.
        Will this be the reason, that China will lose 1/2 it’s population within 50 years?

      • Ken says:

        Here are a few social costs of EVs

        The Myra Falls Mine, located in Strathcona Provincial Park, is now owned by Trafigura. Trafigura is a global private company that trades in oil and other commodities. Its a large enough zinc miner to control the price of zinc. Owners live in places like Malta. The zinc goes to a smelter in Switzerland. The only benefit to Canada go to the people who have jobs at the mine.

        Of course we all benefit from zinc products.

        The mine has been in operation since mid 1960s. Every time there is an expansion to the mine infrastructure we are told its going to have a minimal impact in the Park.

        The dike around the tailings pile will likely fail in the event of the big earthquake that, according to the seismic folks, can be expected at any moment.

        The tailings pile keeps growing despite the mine backfilling excavations with the paste that results from crushing the rock.

        The heart of BC’s first Provincial Park looks like a moonscape. Its a massive impact on the 1000 hectares comprising the mine. The ‘social cost’ of preventing acid runoff will be with us literally forever.

        The mine is recently promoting itself as ‘green’ because its main product is zinc. Zinc is an essential product for EV car components.

        By comparison, any place I’ve seen an oil well its typically got a pumpjack which barely registers on the landscape.

        I would suggest your plaint about of the ‘social cost’ of carbon as a reason for promoting EV cars is rather poorly considered.

      • Ken says:

        I like Roger Bezdek presentation where he discusses Cost vs Benefit of fossil fuels.


        He says its 200:1

        Usually any project that gets cost vs benefit greater than 2:1 is considered favorable.

      • Fossil fuels are used for thousands of products.
        They are still needed in large quantities even if never burned.
        But in fact, CO2 emissions will increase at an unprecedented
        rate for the mining and manufacturing required for Nut Zero.
        Or did that fact escape you?

    • stephen p anderson says:

      The banks are still offering mortgages to beachfront homes. They know more about risk than anyone.

      • Entropic man says:

        Banks are run by Republicans. They share the Republican blindness where climate change and sea level are concerned.

        Their climate sceptic bias means that they don’t recognise the risk.

      • Entropic man says:

        Some players are already taking sea level into account.


      • stephen p anderson says:

        So JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are run by Republicans? Interesting. Also, did you read the article? The man’s flooding issues have nothing to do with Climate Change.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Sometimes I wonder if you know anything truthful. I’m positive you must know something truthful about Peat Bogs.

      • Entropic man says:

        Are JP Morgan loyal Democrats?

        Their record is of support for Republicans.


        On sea level rise Miami has three problems.

        1) Hurricane energy is increasing and they are more likely to be slow moving. This leads to higher storm surges, higher precipitation and higher flood levels.

        2) The land is subsiding.

        3) Sea level is rising.

        2) and 3) make storm surges higher. Even under normal conditions the highest tides lead to water coming up through cracks in the limestone underlying the city and this is getting steadily worse.

        Depending on how much sea level rise you expect, the forecast local sea level rise by 2100 varies from an optimistic 1m to a pessimistic 4m.


      • Ken says:

        quote 1) Hurricane energy is increasing and they are more likely to be slow moving. This leads to higher storm surges, higher precipitation and higher flood levels. quote

        Evidence is required. You have none.

        Subsidence in Miami is being caused by the weight of buildings on swamp land.

        The only true factor out of our control is sea level rise of 1.8 mm per year. If you can’t manage that into your city planning then you deserve to drown.

        Interesting is the archeological findings off the coast of several locations where entire cities are found in deep water. https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/drowned-cities-myths-secrets-of-the-deep/

        I would like to explore the archeological coastline as it was at the start of the Holocene. 120 meters deep. I’m sure there would be interesting things to find.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Jamie Dimon has been more of a centrist over the years. I’m glad he quasi-supported Trump. Most of Wall Street vote Democrat. Most of the investment banking vote Democrat.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        I guess you think Bloomberg and CNBC are Republicans?

      • Willard says:

        Insurance and location premium are too different beasts altogether:

        The homeowner’s insurance on a beach house is likely to be several times more expensive than the coverage for a primary home. This cost difference is mainly due to often mandatory flood insurance.3 Insurance charges spiked early in the 21st century, particularly on the East Coast, which suffered widespread hurricane damage.


        Places that risk being underwater tend not to be insurable anymore.

      • Entropic man says:

        I don’t usually bother giving evidence any more. Evidence never gets past a denialist’s cognitive dissonance. On this occasion I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

        For example, you quote sea level rise of 1.8mm/year when two separate datasets show an average rise since 1979 over 3.0mm/year and a recent average exceeding 4mm/year.



      • Your hero “stop the seas from rising” Obama bought two oceanfront mansions

      • stephen p anderson says:

        I posted this question up higher. Is the Persian Gulf connected to the world’s oceans?

      • Martin says:

        Yep… funny how the climate alarmists tend to ignore their own agenda….. when this happens it basically cuts their cult down at their knees…. with Obama buying ocean /beach front living …. kill joy Kerry flying everywhere he can with wine and caviar on private jets just so he can spew his ego and co2 everywhere he wants to…he thinkshe is elite but he is a jack arse.

    • sod says:

      the current extreme weather events all over the world are a cost of carbon

  13. P Mears says:

    It looks like this calculation is missing the losses from conversion of the gasoline or electricity into torque.

    The 33.7 kWh per gallon source doesn’t appear to say anything about that factor. The first few search results I found put that efficiency of ICEs around 30%. I assume the electric to torque conversion is much higher, which would make a huge difference for this comparison.

  14. It proved to be Very helpful blog! Thanks!

  15. oncasinosite says:

    Thank you for the efforts for writing this article. Its great.

  16. I have read this excellent post. This is a great job.

  17. dk_ says:

    Good analysis.

    Cost of ownership and lifecycle costs are somewhat different, however. e.g. tire wear and replacement is just about double, since EV weight is usually more than double comparable vehicle size. Repair costs, other than battery replacement, are often ten to fifteen times as high as ICE vehicle. Battery replacement cost is a write-off: so far subsidized so as to be more expensive than scrapping and replacing the vehicle. Recycling of lithium batteries while possible, is still not economically viable, and lithium pollution is still not tracked by any environmental agency.

    As to user convenience, one might wonder how many ICE vehicle owners would put up with a refueling time that runs about 10% greater than the available running time provided. Or how many might consider a non-refundable, fast-refueling subscription service that is only available, at limited times, at less than 1% of the potential charging locations.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “since EV weight is usually more than double comparable vehicle size. “

      Ford Focus EV: 3600 lb ICE: 3000 lb
      Ford F-150 EV: 6200-6600 ICE: 4400 lb

      So ‘comparable’ vehicles are 1.2x – 1.5x as heavy, not ‘more than 2x’.

      “Repair costs, other than battery replacement, are often ten to fifteen times as high as ICE vehicle. “

      “A recent report found that EV owners spend 3 cents per mile on maintenance, while cars with an internal combustion engine cost 6 cents per mile to maintain.”

      Other sites have different numbers, giving the edge one way or the other. But definitely NOT 10x – 15x.

      • dk_ says:

        I was going by reported Tesla owners costs vs vehicles of the same passenger and cargo capacity. Tire life for the Tesla is reported as half that of the same tire make and model vs comparable ICE vehicles — perhaps there is a cause other than weight. Insurance costs of Tesla repair and supply issues with repair parts are different from the numbers you report.

  18. Tim S says:

    A price analysis is different from a pure energy analysis if the intent is to measure the “carbon foot print” I have significant knowledge in this area. First, new coal plants are rare. Most new fossil generation is natural gas turbines at 43% maximum thermodynamic efficiency. Some “peaker plants” that only run when demand is high are less efficient. More important is the fact that natural gas has an energy cost to purify the raw gas when it comes out of the ground and an energy cost to compress it to high pressure for transmission. I wish I had those numbers. I just know they exist, they are significant, and it is a complex analysis because there are different sources with different gas purity figures. Finally, crude oil has an energy cost to transport by ship and much less to transport by pipeline for domestic sources. Crude is cheaper by pipeline because is has higher physical density than natural gas and compressors require a lot of horsepower. I do not have good numbers to share, but I know these factors have significance and know it is complex.

  19. Andrew says:

    I would rather live in a world with all of the alleged negative effects of manmade CO2 accompanied by the societal freedoms of twenty years ago than live in a world that has successfully avoided all of the alleged negative effects of manmade CO2 accompanied by the autocratic policies we are imposing today.

  20. alan moran says:

    Just for completion of the analysis, to arive at the cost in kWh we need additional steps:

    1. add in the cost of distributing the gasoline and the electricity (not just the 6.5 per cent line losses)
    2. as you indicated, we also need to factor in the cost of the expansion/strengthening of the electricity network.

    To get to a dollar analysis, we also need to subtract the various taxes on electricity and gasoline; the latter is much higher in other countries than the US.

    Odd (or perhaps not) that there are few systematic comparisons being undertaken officially.

    • gbaikie says:

      If cut government in half, and improved technology in decade or two- including machine learning, it could done a lot cheaper.
      Being in hurry, for no reason, adds a lot the costs.
      We have more important issues, like having school choice. Choice in which school and choice in the type of education people want.
      Any many other things are more important.

    • Entropic man says:

      I note that the environmental damage claims after the Deepwater Horizon spill alone cost BP $65 billion,


      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        In Memoriam

        “At the time of the Macondo blowout, BP’s corporate culture remained one that was embedded in risk-taking and cost-cutting – it was like that in 2005 (Texas City), in 2006 (Alaska North Slope Spill), and in 2010 (“The Spill”). Perhaps there is no clear-cut “evidence” that someone in BP or in the other organizations in the Macondo well project made a conscious decision to put costs before safety; nevertheless, that misses the point. It is the underlying “unconscious mind” that governs the actions of an organization and its personnel. Cultural influences that permeate an organization and an industry and manifest in actions that can either promote and nurture a high reliability organization with high reliability systems, or actions reflective of complacency, excessive risk-taking, and a loss of situational awareness.”

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      You should have included the Piper Alpha disaster also. That way you’d have had an even number of disasters with one thing in common, human error.

      But I think the point you’re wanting to make is that, the environmental cost of strip mining for energy transition minerals equates to the environmental cost of oil and gas production. These examples only confirm that humans are fallible, even oilmen.

      If humanity’s thirst for oil and gas wasn’t insatiable, we’d have a chance at getting off this ever accelerating treadmill. At current consumption rates of around 1,000 barrels per second we can barely keep up!

      • Entropic man says:

        There’s an old rhetorical trick of emphasising the undesirable aspects of your opponent’s activities while ignoring the faults on your own side.

        The denialist do it a lot, especially here.

        Matthew 7:3

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        You’re going to better explain what point you’re trying to make then. Your examples:

        Valdez= inebriated captain.
        Torrey Canyon= captain took it upon himself to find a short cut.
        Macondo= finish the well as fast as possible to earn performance incentives regardless of safety protocols.

        “…emphasising the undesirable aspects of your opponent’s activities…”

        Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.
        Joseph Goebbels

      • ZaniyahAmelie says:


      • Entropic man says:

        “Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.
        Joseph Goebbels”


        Accuse the electric car industry of strip mining zinc while the fossil fuel industry strip mine coal.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Eman has a poster of Goebbels on his wall.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        It’s a shortcoming of Cornucopians that they don’t see themselves as part of the problem, and believe that magical solutions are there just waiting to be pulled off the shelf.

        The reality is that, approaching 8 billion, humans have become a parasite that is making Earth ill. Rising temperature is the most obvious symptom. Until we cull the numbers down to a sustainable level, around 2 billion, Earth will continue to run a fever as her way to fight the infection.

      • gbaikie says:

        Isn’t the main problem, the US has military industrial complex- and you are being brainwashed?

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        gbaikie at 10:26 AM


      • gbaikie says:

        India has 1/3 the land of China or US and has more population than China and has average temperature of 25 C.
        China average temperature is 8 C, and it’s population is going to 1/2 because their demographics.
        Europe is similar with average temperature of 9 C.
        The continent of Africa is 3 times land area of China and about the same population and it is hottest continent, and highest population growths.
        US population would be shrinking if not for emigration- about 1/2 of it “illegal emigration”.
        US average temp is about 12 C.
        One might invade Russia, but it’s just too cold.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        gbaikie at 10:42 AM

        Sorry I asked.

      • gbaikie says:

        Trump didn’t start a war.

      • gbaikie says:

        What country needs to cut the most amount of population- and who decides?

      • gbaikie says:

        Both China and Russia are losing population. Be happy.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        In Stampp’s The Peculiar Institution (Vintage, 1989),

        the quote Ninty degrees in the shade was too real to be ignored when discussing the chief agency which made the South distinctive.

        With the climate, there is nothing new under the Sun.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        gbaikie at 10:45 AM

        He was Putin’s Manchurian candidate; his job was to facilitate his master’s wars.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        P.s. Who can forget the 2018 RussiaUnited States summit.

      • gbaikie says:

        Everyone knows Gaia wanted plastic, who wouldn’t?
        When did human become parasite, in your opinion?
        Was in the time, were most humans died young and they were all poor?
        And kings and queens were pigs with lipstick?
        Where is this golden age, other than the present?
        And did this imagined golden age, not have owned slaves?

        Was there any time, that the news was not fake?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        So, not believing your BS is denialism? You’re arrogant as hell.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        That’s directed at Eman.

      • Entropic man says:

        Not believing the published science is denialism.

        I will not take accusations of arrogance from a denialist.

      • Clint R says:

        Ent is always ready and willing to pervert reality to support his cult beliefs.

        That’s why he claims passenger jets fly backwards.

        He’s loyal to his “church”….

      • stephen p anderson says:

        It’s a good thing Einstein and Newton ignored the published science.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        How could you teach science all those years and not know anything about science? Oh wait, you taught high school. It was your job to spread the propaganda.

      • Entropic man says:

        Me Anderson

        You just insulted every high school science teacher on the planet. That is arrogance, especially since you weren’t even capable of seeing the flaws in Berry’s papers. Any high school science teacher would spot them immediately.

        You also reject an entire body of published scientific knowledge as propoganda. That is hubris.

      • Entropic man says:

        “Its a good thing Einstein and Newton ignored the published science. ”

        Did they?

        Newton said that he saw further because he stood on the shoulders of giants.

        Einstein’s relativity started with his studies of the well established photoelectric effect.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        No, I accept, for instance, the Journal of Physical Chemistry or the Journal of the ACS. But, when leftists like you abscond science for your own end, I reject it and you.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        The photoelectric effect wasn’t understood until Einstein published his paper. Who were the giants whom Newton referred to? Others like him. Not established science.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Hubris? You go onto Berry’s site and insult him? He’s an intellectual giant and you’re a dimwit.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “disasters with one thing in common, human error.”

        That is overly simplistic. In these sort of business setting, “human error” is often more correctly described as “systemic error.”

        For example, you attribute Exxon Valdez simply to an “inebriated captian”. But …
        In a 1990 trial he was charged with criminal mischief, reckless endangerment, and piloting a vessel while intoxicated, but was cleared of the three charges. He was convicted of misdemeanor negligent discharge of oil. 21 witnesses testified that he did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol around the time of the accident.

        Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master (ship’s captain) and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this practice was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.[13]
        The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.[13]
        Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the Bligh Reef by detecting the radar reflector placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping ships on course. This cause was brought forward by Greg Palast and is not presented in the official accident report.[14]

        I suspect that similar overwork, lack of proper equipment, lack of proper procedures, and profit-over-safety conditions were at play in pretty much every recent large-scale disaster (and many small disasters as well).

      • Clint R says:

        Sacrificing safety to improve the bottom line is common. That’s why the need for regulations.

        But, there’s really no excuse for a government agency to be corrupt. NASA has a long history of irresponsible management. I don’t recall any NASA managers ever being tried for criminal negligence.

  21. ZaniyahAmelie says:

    Make money on-line from home any money quite $18000 to $21000. begin getting paid monthly op Thousands bucks on-line.n1 I even have received $26000 during this month by simply operational online from point my time.bg~53 one and every one merely do this job by.
    just Open This Website..> http://smartcash244.blogspot.com

  22. gbaikie says:

    I been thinking of ocean settlement, again.
    My latest thought was to make them mobile- ie boats/ships.
    Though general idea is they would not travel fast. Or towns that can move but they move slow. Why they move is another issue. Or town generally shouldn’t move but it would be better if they could move.
    But after wasting some time, I realized original way I made breakwaters, would allow it. But did add another factor, using waste glass. I think other the mass of water, the most mass of breakwater could be waste glass.
    Thing about breakwater is it has to massive or it should not move much from energy of the waves. And it should be very cheap.
    Anyhow, I use waste glass and expect it to be twice the cost of concrete and evenually could be cheaper than concrete- assuming there not shortage of waste glass. I consider that waste glass doesn’t need to be particularly pure glass- and it’s color doesn’t matter. And doesn’t need to fully melted- of partial melted and compressed. And might held into a shape because of waste plastics- so 90% or more waste glass. And it would be on the bottom of breakwater and allows breakwater to float higher, for moving purpose. Or breakwater while moving doesn’t stop waves very well. So only move in better weather.
    Or could move with a current or move very slowly, but if want to move faster than say 1 mph, then in conditions of less wave, raise breakwater higher. Though idea is one would not go faster than 2 mph in best of circumstances. Or it is weeks to get anywhere.

    • Ken says:

      ocean settlement has same problem as Mars. Its a lethal environment where one stupid mistake will kill you.

      You might be able to sustain a small crew of well trained people in such an environment for a short period but its not possible to colonize these places without unacceptable and unsustainable mortality rates.

      • gbaikie says:

        My idea is stop all ocean waves and make it as dangerous living in city of Venice, Italy [or safer]. Your house would float, but when go out house, you on floating decks. On land you can live on second floor, and have balcony, if climb over railing you could get hurt. So your entire yard can be floating deck. Your yard could have dock and/or small beach, which can be dangerous to small children- so have gate. Other side yard can sidewalk/bike path. Either side is neighbor’s yards- what do with their yard is their business. There are no cars. And lots aren’t very big. But some people could have large lots of open water, some people would have private beach and/or dock. There would be public beaches and public docks. Also public baseball parks or other grassy parks.
        And I think one have public freshwater lakes. And public ocean surfing and scuba parks and fishing areas.
        And shops and stuff. And I think about 8000 people would be max population and they are all in walking distance to each other. Or use bike to get their faster.
        So could be around 6000 people or max capacity. It’s like a suburb, and you use your boat, or take a ferry to dry land. And you couple miles from dry land.
        So this is like being part of a town or city on land or like a residential suburb.
        If talking settlement far from land- then had to have to be a more “complete town/city”. But one would have have emergency medical services which are fast and local healthcare service which less of emergency service type thing. So for emergency have helicoper which can get to a roof of major hospital. But also have small airport which has emergency helicopters, but also small planes.
        Anyhow main issue not having ocean waves. And have area of good surfing. Have access to big waves for surfing and also have no waves
        for living. So say small lot is about $1000. And twice big $2000.
        And make houses cheap- smaller cheaper, bigger more expensive. And private dock/beach, maybe $2000 if small.
        House can moved by going under the town or not. Or if have dock area, house could be towed. How many lots have private docks, depends whether people want to have them, considering there are public beaches and docks. And lot near fresh lakes could/should be more pricey.

      • Ken says:

        Have you ever been on blue water ocean?

        Given what you have written I would suppose you have not.

      • gbaikie says:

        Are you claiming that rockets can’t be launched from “blue water oceans”?

        I am pretty certain they have by Sea Launch:


        I am aware that in open ocean there can be large waves?
        Yes I am.
        My interest in ocean settlements is related to the necessity of launching rockets from the ocean if humans are to become a spacefaring civilization.
        And if we become a spacefaring civilization launching rockets from the ocean, this would cause ocean settlements.
        So I find it interesting question, how will we make ocean settlements.
        And key factor to me, is making floating breakwaters.
        My latest idea, which I like is because it seems like the cheapest way to do it.
        And I think 1 km of surfing area costing about 10 million dollar is
        And possible it could work in blue water oceans, but I thinking it’s more economic to have ocean settlement in coastal waters.

      • Ken says:

        I would suggest you do a recce. Get someone to take you from Vancouver to Hawaii (via Mexico) by sailboat. Let us know what you think after that.

      • gbaikie says:

        Even with submarines, they say it can be bad:

        Profile photo for Michael Cochrane
        Michael Cochrane
        Former Naval Officer 1120 Submarines at United States Navy (USN) (19811986)Author has 320 answers and 587.3K answer views4y
        Originally Answered: How deep must you go in a submarine to avoid bad storm on the sea?

        Like the other writers, based on my experience 300400 feet is a good depth where you wont feel any wave action in heavy weather. Most of the time 150 feet is quite smooth even in normal stormy conditions. Was in the North Atlantic one time where we had been on the surface for about 8 hours while we operated with another sub. We were taking as much as 45+ degree rolls (the round hull does nothing to mitigate rolling). The crew was relieved when we could finally submerge and was great once we got below 300 feet. Most of the crew was sea sick during this episode. Of course, 12 hours later we had to come up to periscope depth and the storm was no better. I was the officer of the deck. As we got up to 150 feet to clear baffles and the boat was rolling pretty good. I checked with sonar if they could tell the direction of the waves to try and have a somewhat smoother time of it at periscope depth. Shortly after that the surface wave action sucked the boat to the surface. This is called broaching. Since a sub relies on being stealthy, this totally ruins it. Although we had good neutral buoyancy, we had not taken on extra water in variable ballast to counteract the potential effect of wave action. The captain stormed into the Control Room yelling at the crew to get the boat back down. …

      • gbaikie says:

        Somewhat related to topic is RP FLIP:

        I had bookmark of video of handling large waves, but lost hard drive
        and bookmark [it’s somewhere out there]. Anyhow they had some damage but changed their procedures.
        “The subject matters studied by FLIP include sounds of marine life, heat flow between sea and atmosphere, the formation of storms, the impact of earthquakes, and circulation of water in the ocean bed. RP works in deep (more than 2000 fathoms) as well as shallow waters and isnt ruffled even by an 80-foot wave. A 30- foot wave causes a meagre 3 feet up-down in the vertical lab.”

  23. Dave Hogan says:

    The EV performance stats are not for Buffalo in the winter. Add wipers, defrost, cabin heat, and probably reduced battery capability. To be fair, ICE performance also suffers in winter but the EV will take a hit in range/charge. Southern Tier of NYS is 6-7000 Heating Degree day country.
    I had trouble getting solar panel KWH/sq-ft/year. People like to talk AZ numbers.

  24. Tim S says:

    For those who do not know, operating an oil refinery is an exercise in risk management. A matrix is used to analyze risk by severity and likelihood. and develop risk ranking scores. The PSM legislation (29 CFR 1910.119) that passed in the 1990s formalizes this process. Local governments and some states such as California have laws that rigorously enforce this standard.

  25. gbaikie says:

    I was wondering about land use being used up by solar panel.
    It’s a lot where I live, but I didn’t get answer. Instead got what countries have largest installed capacity of solar energy:
    Top five countries with the largest installed solar power capacity
    By NS Energy Staff Writer 13 Jul 2021
    “Top five countries for solar power capacity in 2019
    1. China 205 GW ”
    Wiki says:
    “At the end of 2020, China’s total installed photovoltaic capacity was 253 GW, accounting for one-third of the world’s total installed photovoltaic capacity (760.4 GW). Most of China’s solar power is generated within its western provinces and is transferred to other regions of the country. ”
    2. United States 76 GW
    3. Japan 63.2 GW
    4. Germany 49.2 GW
    5. India 38 GW
    All of which is fairly useless information. One aspect is global solar map:

    • gbaikie says:

      Both India and western part of China don’t get much sunlight, though Germany is even worse.
      A large part of Mexico according map gets a fair amount of solar energy.
      But back to wiki:
      “Solar water heating is also extensively implemented, with a total installed capacity of 290 GWth at the end of 2014, representing about 70% of world’s total installed solar thermal capacity.”
      That interesting but no numbers for 2020?
      Solar thermal capacity is probably not taking up much land area, if for no other reason, it’s about 6 times more efficient.
      Anyhow, in 2020: “Solar power contributes to a small portion of China’s total energy use, accounting for 3.5% of China’s total energy capacity in 2020.”
      Anyhow, in southern China the amount solar energy is less than England [which is worse than Germany] according to map.
      Assie land gets a lot of solar energy, and I think get a lot solar thermal energy.

    • Ken says:

      All those solar panels. Its going to be fun the next time Tambora blows.

  26. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 551.4 km/sec
    density: 8.96 protons/cm3
    Daily Sun: 19 Jun 22
    Sunspot number: 145
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 14.25×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +1.6% Elevated
    48-hr change: -0.6%
    That pretty good levels to go to Mars, but
    it looks like in few days the sunspots are going lower quite a bit
    and will see if radiation goes back up. But in terms of being closer to Mars, it would lower, as it faces different part of sun [or at least, most of the time]

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 493.3 km/sec
      density: 4.66 protons/cm3
      Daily Sun: 20 Jun 22
      Sunspot number: 120
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 14.27×10^10 W Neutral
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: +1.9% Elevated
      48-hr change: -0.3%

      Neutron counts low, should get a bit lower and not lower than
      1%. It will take a few more days for sunspots to lower more.
      Have big sunspot which not reach middle of sun yet. Maybe it will get
      bigger [or smaller].

      “BIG SUNSPOT ALERT: Yesterday, sunspot AR3038 was big. Today, it’s enormous. The fast-growing sunspot has doubled in size in only 24 hours: movie. AR3038 has an unstable ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic field that habors energy for M-class solar flares, and it is directly facing Earth. “

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 508.9 km/sec
        density: 7.56 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 21 Jun 22
        Sunspot number: 112
        {{there is spot rotating towards us, but more
        spots are rotating away from us. Big spot is still big}}
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 14.13×10^10 W Neutral
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: +3.2% Elevated
        48-hr change: +1.6%

        It when up a lot, no idea why. I assume it will drop as fast
        as it rose. But +3.2 is still Solar Max type conditions- sort
        of. Also thermosphere isn’t very energized considering it’s
        in a Solar Max condition. Or it’s not causing space debris [or satellites] to fall out of orbit.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 418.3 km/sec
        density: 18.11 protons/cm3
        [Note: Daily sun images are temporarily out of date because of a power outage at Stanford University where SDO images are processed.]
        Daily Sun: 21 Jun 22
        Sunspot number: 80
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 14.14×10^10 W Neutral
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: +3.7% Elevated
        48-hr change: +1.9%

        Seems like similar to solar cycle 24- double peak.
        And seems could get more spotless in a while {a week?}.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 505.3 km/sec
        density: 7.93 protons/cm3

        Daily Sun: 25 Jun 22
        Sunspot number: 31
        [The big one: “The magnetic field of sunspot AR3038 has decayed. It no longer poses a threat for strong solar flares.”]
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 13.84×10^10 W Neutral
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: +3.8% Elevated

        And will repeat what said above:
        Seems like similar to solar cycle 24- double peak.
        And seems could get more spotless in a while {a week?}.

        And add appears like not Solar Max conditions, but expecting it to double peak- within 2 weeks, or should begin to appear more like
        a solar max

  27. gbaikie says:

    Mysterious ‘blue blobs’ reveal a new kind of star system
    by Mikayla Mace Kelle for UA News
    Tucson AZ (SPX) Jun 16, 2022

    ” There are two main ways gas can be stripped from a galaxy. The first is tidal stripping, which occurs when two big galaxies pass by each other and gravitationally tear away gas and stars.

    The other is what’s known as ram pressure stripping.

    “This is like if you belly flop into a swimming pool,” Jones said. “When a galaxy belly flops into a cluster that is full of hot gas, then its gas gets forced out behind it. That’s the mechanism that we think we’re seeing here to create these objects.”

    The team prefers the ram pressure stripping explanation because in order for the blue blobs to have become as isolated as they are, they must have been moving very quickly, and the speed of tidal stripping is low compared to ram pressure stripping.”

  28. gbaikie says:

    Webb set to begin science operations
    by Staff Writers
    Tucson AZ (SPX) Jun 16, 2022

    “The launch went as smoothly as a rocket launch can go. One of the first things my colleagues at NASA noticed was that the telescope had more remaining fuel onboard than predicted to make future adjustments to its orbit. This will allow Webb to operate for much longer than the mission’s initial 10-year goal.”

    After mission goal are space pirates allowed to take it.
    It’s somewhat close to Mars, dock ion rocket to it, and take it to Mars L-2.
    Now, Mars probably has more dust to impact it, but it would be a secondhand space telescope at that point in time.

  29. gbaikie says:

    Pentagon Explores Using SpaceX for Rocket-Deployed Quick Reaction Force
    –What are they going to do, stop the next Benghazi by sending people into space? said William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute who focuses on the U.S. arms industry and defense budget. It doesnt seem to make a lot of sense. Hartung questioned the extent to which a rocket-based quick reaction force would be meaningful even if it were possible. If a mobs attacking an embassy and they dial up their handy SpaceX spaceship, its still going to take a while to get there. Its almost like someone thinks it would be really neat to do stuff through space but havent thought through the practical ramifications. Hartung also pointed to the Pentagons track record of space-based fantasy weapons like Star Wars missile defense, elaborate projects that soak up massive budgets but amount to nothing.–

    I think missing the point, it does not cost military anything. Other than thinking ahead and being ready to use it. Or the Military would be one of many cosumers.
    Of course don’t know how well Starship will actually work, but possible it’s cheaper than by airplane. If some airplane company was making a different airplane- military should look at ways it could use the airplane. Also of course, Military will use Starship just like it uses Falcon heavy- Starship is just bigger.

    • gbaikie says:

      Now, something that would cost money, would be something like an ocean spaceport.
      Or roughly something like an aircraft carrier, but different.

  30. stephen p anderson says:

    2000 Mules

    Senator Elizabeth Warren wants to restrict the sale of geotracking data.

    • RLH says:

      2000 Mules

      Hot news:

      Geotracking data (GPS) is only accurate up to 10 meters in flat open country – less in towns because of multipath – and if the path to the satellite(s) is subject to rain/moisture – signal delay.

  31. WizGeek says:

    For those who insist on hijacking this thread and posting off-topic replies; please be respectful, go elsewhere, and start your own threads–maybe Reddit, Quora, Imgur, or Discourse?

  32. The list price of a 2021 Tesla Model 3 Long Range: $51,990
    This is a small car and a very expensive car too.

    With front-wheel drive and in LE trim, the 2022 Camry LE has a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) of $25,395, plus a destination charge. This is a much larger car than the Tesla 3, and will have lower insurance costs too.

  33. CuriousObserver says:

    The whole EV craze is also focused on the wrong thing. It’s better to improve low-efficiency vehicles than it is to make higher efficiency cars. We don’t intuitively understand this because mpg is deceptive.

    Improving a 14 mpg truck to 20 mpg truck looks like a smaller improvement than improving a 28 mpg sedan to 56 mpg (less than 50% increase compared to 100% increase). But if you convert the numbers to gas used per 1,000 miles, you’ll see focusing on raising the bottom mpg cars rather than raising the top produces better results.

    A 14 mpg truck uses 71 gallons per 1,000 miles while a 20 mpg truck uses 50 gallons per 1,000, a 21 gallon improvement. In contrast, doubling the 28 mpg car goes from 36 gallons per 1,000 to 18 gallons per 1,000, which is only an 18 gallon improvement.

    If you want to reduce emissions, stop selling rich people higher-mpg cars to replace their high-mpg cars. Instead, make it possible for the working class to trade in their old, low-mpg clunkers for newer models with improved but still mediocre mpg ratings. You know, like a refundable tax credit for trading in a pre-2010 car rather than a tax-credit for buying an EV.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Just bring back the old national speed limit of 55 mph. It was created to mitigate the energy crisis in the early 1970s.

      A national speed limit of 55mph would save 1 billion barrels of oil per year if you can get all the crazies out there to obey it.

      • gbaikie says:

        Gas engine are more efficient or more hp per fuel used at certain
        rpm. Or depends on engine and transmission gears.
        Though air drag is more significant with the larger trucks as is the road friction due to heavier cargo and many wheels.
        Or a car can be more efficient traveling at higher speeds than 55 mph.

      • Ken says:

        55 MPH is a killer speed. People get bored and stop paying attention to their driving.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        I’m gonna call bullshit on that. But I’ll check the statistics since I don’t have any personal experience with boredom behind the wheel.

        The trick to highway driving is to make it so it becomes second nature. That way you free up your mind for more complex cognitive tasks so your brain doesn’t waste all that precious time. The human brain can process about 126 bits of information per second; it’d be a shame to waste all that processing capacity being bored.

      • Ken says:

        Driving is a full time job.

        I nearly got into a head on collision on a residential back street with some poor mother’s son who was in a conversation on a cellphone.

        You might be able to entertain yourself with your complex thought processes for an hour. All day long distance driving would be taxing.

        Here is some data:

        quote As we found by examining 2017 crash data, the highest volume of fatal accidents occurred on roads with 55 mile-per-hour speed limits, for a total of 2,003 speed-related fatalities. In all, speeding accounted for more than one in four deadly collisions that occurred on roads where drivers should be traveling at or under 55 mph. unquote

        (Source: https://driving-tests.org/speeding-problems-on-americas-roads/)

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        You’re making a big leap going from the text in your link to your assertion that “People get bored and stop paying attention to their driving.”

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “55 MPH is a killer speed. ”

        There are two major problems with this statement.

        1) The conclusion should be “55 MPH is a killer speed LIMIT”. The this is a speed limit that people frequently DISOBEY. So they are NOT cruising along bored at 55 MPH.

        2) There is nothing in the article about how many miles were DRIVEN at that speed limit. In fact, a HUGE number roads (including many busy ones, and many rural, poorly lit/maintained roads) have a limit of 55 MPH. If 55 MPH limits did NOT have the most speeding deaths, I would be amazed.

    • E. Swanson says:

      CO, good point. Dr. Spencer specified a fleet average MPG of 39, having neglected the MPG of light trucks and SUV’s, some which are also considered light trucks. Given that the number one selling vehicle in the US is the Ford F-150 PU, a fair comparison would be to include those light trucks. Indeed, the share of even heavier vehicles would also be important to include, as many of these used for local operation would be good applications for EV’s.

      Not to forget that FORD no longer markets “cars” in the U.S., even though they continue to do so in other countries. Ford has been selling hybrid crossovers and now markets the Mustang EV, appealing to the muscle crowd just as TESLA did with their first offering. Dodge in recent years also stopped selling smaller cars, focusing on high powered “performance” vehicles.

      Part of the problem is that consumers have short memories and the price of oil was relatively low after 2014. Thus the new car buyer stopped looking at the EPA mileage numbers and bought less efficient vehicles. Real world MPG’s are strongly influenced by air drag, especially at freeway speeds, which are not well represented in the EPA data. The air drag for PU’s and typical high roof line crossovers will be greater than a typical sedan with a smaller motor or hybrid drive train.

      The basic engineering to achieve greater MPG from IC’s or longer range from EV’s is well known, but the industry responds to the market, not science. Given that half of the new cars can be expected to be on the road for 10 years, the demand for oil based fuel will not decline quickly unless government steps in and mandates lower speed limits, such as the 55 mph limit from the 70’s. In addition, stronger enforcement of existing speed limits would also help, since only people driving 10 to 15 mph above the posted speed might be ticketed. There’s no easy solution, especially given today’s political situation in which a large fraction of the public mistrusts Washington.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Here’s a commentary regarding the present car market, comparing the cost of operation for some cars over a 5 year period. Nowhere is the cost of fuel or MPG mentioned. But, there’s a LINK to another comparison from KBB as the source for the article, which does provide more details for a wider selection of models within several sectors of available vehicles. The MPG comparison gets buried by the fact that the largest 5 year “cost” of owning a new car is depreciation, with fuel being secondary.

        One should be aware that the EPA MPG data is derived from emissions dynometer test data and freeway speeds are not well represented in these tests. Since electric vehicles don’t emit exhaust gasses, the EPA has defined a simulated MPG equivalent to that of a fossil fueled car. Needless to say, your experience may vary…

  34. Dale Mullen says:

    Although there may be a difference between our two countries, Canada vs. the US, there may be something else which is being left out of the equation.
    Here in Canada, a great deal of tax is added to the price of our fuel, including taxes to help pay for our roads, bridges, and so forth plus our ever increasing carbon tax.
    Often this additional cost is not added into the costs of providing electricity for electric vehicles.
    Similarly, the costs of upgrading the electrical transmission structure and the provision of charging stations, needed to service the EV market is often not borne by the EV owner but rather by the taxpayers, many of whom do not own and/or cannot afford an EV.
    To compare apples to apples, it seems these additional charges levied on the fossil fuel vehicles and fuel, needs to be taken into consideration also, when making a fuel cost comparison.

  35. gbaikie says:

    NASA spacecraft observes Asteroid Bennu’s boulder ‘Body Armor’
    by Staff Writers
    Littleton CO (SPX) Jun 19, 2022

    — Bennu’s larger craters follow this pattern, with the numbers of craters decreasing as their size increases. However, for craters smaller than about 6.6 to 9.8 feet (around 2 – 3 meters) in diameter, the trend is backwards, with the number of craters decreasing as their size decreases. This indicates something unusual is happening on Bennu’s surface.

    The researchers think that Bennu’s profusion of boulders acts as a shield, preventing many small meteoroids from forming craters. Instead, these impacts are more likely to break apart the boulders or chip and fracture them.–

    It seems to fit my assumptions. Though it’s a bit dangerous when things fit assumptions.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    As someone with expertise and experience in the electrical industry, I am beginning to see chinks in the EV. It’s in the batteries.

    At first, I thought the battery power from the vehicle would come from standard lead-acid technology, using a bank lead-acid cells. But, no, they are actually using lithium rechargeable batteries which typically have a 3.7 volt output and limited current. To get the required current to drive the wheel, you need hundreds of these cells in parallel with each other and likely also in a complex series/parallel arrangement.

    The problem here is the failure of individual cells in the matrix. Also, lithium-ion batteries can never be allowed to discharge completely or they can be destroyed.

    One major issue I see is the mixing up of cathode and anode from the conventional usage of those words. In an Li+ battery, the cathode is now called the positive terminal and the negative is the anode. I am sure they are not so stupid as to mark them that way in the real world since electrons must flow negative to positive, which is cathode to anode.

    They are claiming essentially that the terminal to which the lithium-ions is attracted is the anode. That is incorrect. The terminal from which the electrons move is the cathode. A battery is about electrons and the external electron currents the battery causes and the internal movement of lithium atoms has nothing to do with anything.

    The anode of any battery is the positive terminal and the cathode the negative terminal. Start mixing that terminology and you could have disaster with a lithium-ion battery.

    Here we have Britannica completely contradicting itself…


    “1)anode, the terminal or electrode from which electrons leave a system. In a battery or other source of direct current the anode is the negative terminal, but in a passive load it is the positive terminal. For example, in an electron tube electrons from the cathode travel across the tube toward the anode, and in an electroplating cell negative ions are deposited at the anode.

    2)electrode, electric conductor, usually metal, used as either of the two terminals of an electrically conducting medium; it conducts current into and out of the medium, which may be an electrolytic solution as in a storage battery, or a solid, gas, or vacuum. The electrode from which electrons emerge is called the cathode and is designated as negative; the electrode that receives electrons is called the anode and is designated as positive. In an electron tube, the anode is called the plate, and conducting elements that regulate the electron flow inside the tube are also called electrodes”.

    Sheer insanity!!! I think this serious confusion comes from electrical engineering theory taught at universities. They are still teaching that current flows from positive to negative, even though they freely admit electrons flow from negative to positive. It has gotten so bad they are confusing electrons with the positive test charges they invented to satisfy the +ve to -ve theory.

    • Clint R says:

      The confusion arises depending on if you are viewing from inside the battery, or outside.

      External to the battery, the electrons are leaving the “negative” terminal and entering the “positive” terminal.

      Internal to the battery, the electrons are entering the “negative” terminal and leaving the “positive” terminal.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        clint…I have been thinking about that. Internally, from a chemistry POV, +ve ions move through the electrolyte toward the cathode. Lithium is a +ve ion in a lithium-ion battery, hence it is a cation and moves to the anode, which is aluminum coated with carbon.

        In an electrolyte, a cation is a positively charged ion and an anion is a negatively-charged ion. So, cations are attracted to the cathode and anions to the anode. Internally, the anode is the positive terminal wrt the electrolyte and the -vely charged anion migrate to it.

        Externally, on a battery, the positively charged anode (internally), connects to the negative terminal of the battery. Therefore, electrons leave the internal anode electrode. That’s where my confusion came in. I’m trying to work out the chemistry which is blocked by ferrous oxide (rust).

        We have a similar problem in the electrical field between generators and motors. Many people writing exams on the subject screw themselves by failing to note the major difference. A generator is driven and produces electrical current whereas a motor is driven by electrical current and drives something.

        This is critical when applying the left-hand rule and right hand rule to problems given in electrical exams. The rules are crucial, based on the direction of current flow and magnetic polarity for determining the direction a conductor will move. So, the right hand rule is used for motors and the left hand rule for generators. Get them mixed up on an exam, which is a serious problem for students, and you lose big-time marks.

        I can see the same issues with battery internals.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “At first, I thought the battery power from the vehicle would come from standard lead-acid technology”

      Terrible idea. The energy density is the problem. Li-ion technology gets about 7x as much power per kg of battery. Since weight is *already* a concern, using lead-acid would be completely untenable. Instead of a battery pack weighing ~ 1000 lb (500 kg) for a car, if would weigh about 7000 lb! (3500 kg). That would never work for a car.

      Pb-acid: 3540 Wh/kg
      Li-Ion: 250- 340 Wh/kg

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        That is “35 to 40” for Pb acid and “250-340” for Li Ion.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I get your point, Tim, re weight/charge ratio, that was not my point. I thought the battery itself would be a unit similar to a lead acid battery but it’s actually a bunch of cells similar to those used in a cordless drill, connected in a series/parallel arrangement.

        If you have worked with cordless drill batteries, all it takes in one battery cell dying to kill the pack. I am sure they have accounted for that in car packs but still, if key cells fail, that’s it for your car pack. It’s off to the shop for an expensive replacement. Some lithium-ion batteries actually terminate themselves if the pressure inside the battery gets too high.

        No one in a shop is going to take a pack apart and replace a cell. It can be done but it’s far too dangerous, especially with lithium. The batteries are joined by thin strips of metal that are quickly spot welded to the battery terminals, to keep the amount of heat entering battery to a minimum.

        Of course, not having access to a spot welder, most people simply use a soldering iron. This is where things can get dangerous. A larger metal surface like the negative terminal on a battery requires considerable heat to melt the solder and allow it to flow. Therefore, a larger wattage soldering iron is required, hence a larger transfer of heat. With lithium batteries, they could blow up in your face, or start on fire on the bench.

        I don’t know why so many lithium battery packs are exploding and catching on fire but it’s gotten so bad that certain EV car model owners are advised not to park them in a garage, but leave them outside.

        Then there’s the amount of lithium, cobalt, and nickel used in lithium-ion battery. There are several pounds of each element in one battery pack to run an EV.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        The technology and manufacturing of batteries is certainly not simple. There is a lot of money going into batteries and I am sure things will continue to improve, but it is definitely an issue for EV cars (safety, expense, environmental impact, and more).

        Lead acid batteries are indeed ‘batteries’ = cells (6 of them) wired in series. and each cell typically contains lead plates in parallel. So it is not all that different from drill batteries or EV car batteries in that respect. EV batteries just have many more cells in series and much higher storage.

      • Charles Lominac says:

        I should have written EV battery technology is still in its infancy. There are other technologies being explored/developed that dont involve lithium. Which ones will win and make it to market?

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    What??? WordPress are anti-Canadian??? Can’t even use the term e.h?.

  38. CuriousObserver says:

    We call that Tax Freedom Day in the U.S., which is based on the median taxpayer. Although it is usually around Tax Day in mid-April, not July.

  39. gbaikie says:

    Try again:

    Starship hull is made of about .004 meter [4 mm] thick hull of stainless steel- some might call it a balloon design- it’s structural
    stregnth requires pressure.

    I have been considering a different type floating breakwaters and any breakwater has to be much bigger thing than a Starship.

    Let’s look at a section of breakwater which is 1 km long, 1000 meters, or 10 starship in line adds up 1.2 km or 3900 feet.
    And let’s make main part of it 9 meter [about 30 feet] in diameter and instead of stainless steel, make it of titanium with .004 meter [4 mm} thick wall.
    And we put ends on pipe and fill it will 10 psi of air. Which would float quite well.
    And then, let’s fill it with fresh water until the top of pipe was
    floating 1.5 meter [about 5 feet] above the waterline. Or 7.5 meters [about 24 feet] of it, was under the waterline.
    Per 1 meter length the 9 meter diameter pipe would have volume of 4.5 x 4.5 x pi = 63.6171975 cubic meter or about 63.6 metric tonnes of water- and times 1000 is about 63,600 tons of water. And this is main part of floating breakwater.
    Next, going to add two more things.
    First, to help explain it, start 9 meter diameter pipe floating 1/2 way up in the water- 4.5 meter of it above waterline.
    Then one either side of it going to a pipe which is 3 meter is diameter, which capped and floating also 1/2 way above the waterline.
    Then structurally attach the two 3 meter diameter pipe to the 9 meter diameter pipe.
    And then by adding more water to three pipes sink it, so the 9 meter diameter pipe is 1.5 meter above waterline and the top of 3 meter diameter pipes are 1.5 meter [about 5 feet] below the waterline.
    So, there is .5 meter space between pipes and 3 + 9 + 3 + 1 = 16 meters [about 52 feet] wide.
    But part above waterline, is somewhere around 5 meters wide.
    And 3 meter diameter are doing around 1/2 of the flotation or they pushing or keeping the 9 meter diameter pipe up. And there is about 20 psi of air in all the pipes.
    Or they are “high” pressure balloons.
    Or normal large balloons don’t have this much air pressure, but these are made of strong “thick” metal, as compare to balloons which can float in air.
    Titanium is expensive metal and it doesn’t corrode in seawater [unlike stainless steel or any other metal].

    [This design is related to a desire to be able to move ocean settlements. And I think one could surf over this breakwater- but it would need further modification to make it a better thing to surf over.]

    • gbaikie says:

      Try again.
      Part I snipped {from beginning of post] was this:

      Wiki: “When stacked and fueled, Starship is about 5,000 t (11,000,000 lb) by mass, 9 m (30 ft) wide, and 120 m (390 ft) high. It is taller than the Saturn V by 9 m (30 ft), a rocket that was used for the NASA Apollo program of the 1960s and 1970s.” –

  40. gbaikie says:

    –Claim: Climate Science can Change Minds, but Skeptics Undo Progress
    3 hours ago
    Eric Worrall

    Essay by Eric Worrall

    According to Associate Professor Thomas Wood, the impact of climate education is so fragile, exposure to climate skeptic voices rapidly undoes progress in changing minds and attitudes. —

    I think people will agree with almost anything, particularly when it cost them anything.
    And polls show most people would not paid anything for climate change.

    And climate change is all about causing global poverty and reducing amount people in the world.

    There is also other problems, like climate science has not made any progress in decades of time.
    Which I think NASA has similar problem.
    Also it seems most people imagine NASA cost a lot money per year.
    Anyhow, it seems SpaceX is going to help NASA appear to doing a lot than it’s been doing. Lot people {space cadets] are excited about how Starship will change things.
    I want to see the test launch before I get too excited about it’s potential, and it might take another month or two.

    • Ken says:

      Actually its access to cheap reliable plentiful energy from fossil fuels that reduces poverty.

      Since unlocking fossil fuel technologies, billions have been lifted out of the grinding poverty that has been the norm for most of human history.

    • gbaikie says:

      Oh posted this:
      “gbaikie says:
      June 21, 2022 at 4:35 pm

      What would Earths average temperature be, if it had 2 atm of pressure rather than 1 atm of pressure?
      Or what if Earth had .6 atm of pressure?
      Earth surface would be dimmer with 2 atm of pressure and solar panels would work even worse as compared to 1 atm of atmosphere.
      With .6 atmosphere solar panels work a lot better and Earth would be less dim. And more sunlight would reach the polar regions.”

      And someone replied:
      @gbaikie Got it. Actually with 2 atm of pressure itd be hotter than heck….

      I wasn’t thinking it would get as hot as heck.
      I think 2 atm would give a more uniform global air temp.
      And I say a more uniform air temperature is global warming.
      But I also think 15 C is cold air, 15 C air at 2 atm, is colder air.

      I was asking cause I wanted answers. So someone thinks it would be hotter. What do others, think?

  41. gbaikie says:

    2 atm vs 1 atm.
    The biggest known global climate effect is somehow connected to the
    Milankovitch cycles.
    The Milankovitch cycles are connected to transforming Earth from frozen hellscape to tropical paradise.
    No one seems interested. But everyone is agreeing that this is the case.
    What is thought that might be related to Milankovitch cycles is more sunlight getting to regions closer to polar regions.

    And 2 atm will cause far less sunlight reaching near the polar regions. And if had .6 atm, far more sunlight would reaching surface near polar regions.
    But as said more atmosphere will cause a more uniform atmospheric temperature.
    Or said different the 1 atm atmosphere holds as much heat as 2.5 meter of ocean surface water. 2 atm holds as much as 5 meter of ocean surface water.
    On to other matters, as I have said Mars has better solar energy than Earth, and this because Mars atmosphere is close to being vacuum.
    As far as normal vacuums, it’s a vacuum. But our Moon has a better vacuum. Our Moon has better vacuum than Earth low orbit. And some might regard the peak of Mt Everest as vacuum.
    Anyhow if Earth had 2 atm atmosphere, solar panels would be far more useless. Whereas if Earth had .6 atm, one might argue solar panels were worth the effort.

    • Ken says:

      Vacuum is too thin to breathe. Who cares about solar power when you are dead?

      • gbaikie says:

        Not sure who cares when you are dead.
        I could become reckless, or chill out- I don’t know.

        I have question, would Earth be a better planet if it’s ocean average temperature was 4 C, rather than being about 3.5 C.

        It seems the story about Earth climate is rather a weird one.
        So most of the time [at least in terms of within last 2.5 million years of our 33.9 million year ice house global climate, which is called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age; was quite cold and with times ice sheets over continents like North America. And generally very dry and lots of deserts, cold, and extreme weather and etc. But during relatively short period of +/- 10,000 years, the continental ice sheets {excluding Antarctica’s ice sheet} melts rapidly with tens of meters of rising sea levels. And these periods are called interglacial periods. And when rapid warming is happening it results in deserts greening and tropical like condition which are far from tropics- like for example in the current country of Germany. And during last interglacial period it claimed the average ocean warmed to 4 C or warmer.
        Anyhow, cut to chase, what suppose to bad about times when ocean was 4 C or more?

      • Entropic man says:

        ” I have question, would Earth be a better planet if its ocean average temperature was 4 C, rather than being about 3.5 C.”

        What do you mean by better?

        The ocean stratifies with the bottom water at maximum density. To raise the average bulk temperature by 0.5C would require the surface temperature to increase by perhaps 5C.

        The last time we were 5C warmer the sea level was 65m higher.

        Would a New Yorker regard that as “better”?

        I doubt doubling the surface pressure to 2 atm would make a lot of difference. The planetary energy budget would still stabilise at 240W/m2 in and 240W/m^2 out.

        Short wave opacity won’t change since the atmosphere is already transparent at visible wavelengths.

        Oh yes, you would have twice as many CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. That is equivalent to doubling the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, reducing longwave OLR and would raise surface temperatures by 3C.

      • Ken says:

        CO2 spectrum is saturated. If you double CO2 in the atmosphere you won’t get 3C warmer surface temperatures.

      • Entropic man says:


        “CO2 spectrum is saturated. ”

        Only at the spot frequency of 15 micrometres, where the amount of emission to space is 50% of the emission from below and the other 50% becomes DWLR.

        Research band spreading.

        The absorp*tion spectrum of CO2 in air extends in a band from 13 micrometres to 17 micrometres, with the % absorp*tion decreasing as you move further from 15 micrometres.

        Increasing CO2 concentration makes the band wider and increases absorp*tion closer to 50% across the band.

        If you define saturation as “no further increase in absorp*tion or temperature with increasing CO2 concentration” you are mistaken.

      • Ken says:

        “If you define saturation as no further increase in absorp*tion or temperature with increasing CO2 concentration you are mistaken.”

        Yeah, but its not 3C surface warming. More on the order of 0.5C and that over a period of 200 years.

        You won’t get significant warming of surface without significant warming of ocean. You’d need at least the 4C ocean temperature touted by gbaikie before you’d get 3C surface warming.

      • gbaikie says:

        ” The last time we were 5C warmer the sea level was 65m higher.

        Would a New Yorker regard that as better?”

        Last time the average temperature was 4 C or higher was the last interglacial period, the Eemian. Wiki:
        “Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today,”

        But in my opinion, the Holocene thermal maximum, had ocean around
        4 C [but not likely warmer than 4 C, or not like Eemian thermal maximum which is said to be 4 C or warmer. Or I think Eemian was significantly warmer- and all graphs indicate this. But Eemian was shorter time period of being at this peak thermal maximum, as compared to Holocene.

        And I believe most would say .5 C added would cause .5 to 1 meter to sea level rise. And I think the variation depends on how fast the ocean warms to 4 C.
        Though I am talking about a fast increase in temperature, otherwise I would talking 1000 year timeframes. And I regard talking about any much beyond 100 years as a bit silly. But I am being a bit silly as I am talking about a few centuries. Though other people imagine this possible in less than 100 years, which is very fast.

      • Entropic man says:

        Ken mentioned PV=nRT.

        Compare two atmospheres at 1atm and 2atm, at equilibrium.

        At 1 atm PV=nRT

        At 2 atm (2P)V=(2n)RT

        At 2atm pressure and number of molecules have doubled, but V and T remain the same.

      • gbaikie says:

        “What do you mean by better?”
        Russia doesn’t need Black Sea as warm water port.
        Canada’s Hudson Bay could be more useful.

        -The ocean stratifies with the bottom water at maximum density. To raise the average bulk temperature by 0.5C would require the surface temperature to increase by perhaps 5C.”

        Ocean surface is about 17 C. 17 + 5 = 22 C. I think closer to 21 C or less.
        But 60% ocean surface is about 11 C, and it could increase to
        16 C, or one could have 5 C added to 60% of earth oceans.

        And warmer ocean would not have much effect the tropical ocean which is 40% of ocean and it’s surface averages around 26 C – and has around this surface temperature for millions of years.

      • gbaikie says:

        — Entropic man says:
        June 22, 2022 at 7:42 AM

        I doubt doubling the surface pressure to 2 atm would make a lot of difference. The planetary energy budget would still stabilise at 240W/m2 in and 240W/m^2 out.–

        Well it seems Earth with 2 atm, would reflect more sunlight.
        Without even considering more clouds. And there should be, more clouds.

        But it seems solar power on Earth surface, would get a lot less energy from the sun [without any doubt- even if 2 atm caused less clouds].
        But as said, 2 atm should cause a more uniform global air surface temperature. And reason we are in an Ice Age is due to lack of uniformity in global air surface temperature.
        Or said differently nights should cool close to 1/2 rate as they do currently.
        And it seems likely the tropics would be cooler- which is sort of a warming effect. Tropical ocean gets less sunlight and it could pump more heat to rest of world. Reducing clouds in tropics, could make up for loss of sunlight reaching ocean.
        Anyhow, I not sure. And not climate scientist- and I wonder how models would deal with it.

  42. Ken says:

    65m would make my property ‘waterfront’.

    I would regard that as better.

    Too the weather would be warmer. If you consider it is too cold to go out without at least a jacket for 8 months of the year, warmer would be better.

    People seem to thrive in places where the temperature is warm enough to get two crops in per year. Half the population of the earth lives in such a place.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      People in warmer climates also have to put up with major insect infestations and wild animals like crocodiles, lions, tigers, cobras, rhinos, and hippos.

      We have the technology to rid ourselves of mosquitoes and flies but the eco-weenies whine about upsetting the balance of nature. We hardly ever see mosquitoes around Vancouver these days because they sprayed all the swamps and water areas decades ago.

  43. Jeff Labute says:

    In order to support EVs, a whole new industry powered by oil and gas is needed to create chargers, inverters, and all other miscellaneous necessities to keep them running. Micromanaging every watt is a goal of the greens.

    With the current state of lithium batteries, chargers are needed everywhere. If EV adoption was 100%, then I would guess every household would have a charger or two, apartment blocks, every long-term parking spot at every airport, malls, hotels, restaurants, public areas, schools. They would multiply everywhere and number in the billions world-wide. The yearly replacement rate would keep the gears of industry running.

    • Entropic man says:

      The problem with a fossil fuel based civilization is that it collapses when the fossil fuels run out.

      Think of EVs and renewable energy generation as part of the long term development required if we are to survive as a post-fossil fuels civilization.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        We will never run out of fossil fuels. At some point, they might become cost-prohibitive and alternative fuels will be more cost-effective. We should let the free markets make those decisions and not be distorted by Masterminds.

      • Entropic man says:

        We are currently consuming 30 billion barrels of oil a year with 1.7 trillion barrels in reserve.

        At the current consumption rate we will run out in 56 years. Then we perforce change over to EV s and renewables.

        Would it be better to start preparing now or wait until the crisis hits?

      • Clint R says:

        Ent, you don’t know we will run out of oil in 56 years! You’re just making stuff up again.

        Quit that!

        56 years ago, we were going to run out of oil. We keep finding more and more.

        For some reason, you cult idiots want to live in fear.


      • stephen p anderson says:

        You don’t understand economics any better than you understand science. If fossil fuels become scarce, they become more expensive to the point they become prohibitive so we switch to a different energy source. That’s how free markets work. So, we will never run out of fossil fuels. Also, we can make fossil fuels.

      • gbaikie says:

        Also money made now is better than money made a month later.
        Being poor now, worse than poor in future.
        Unless money used to smoke crack, better to smoke crack when old-
        and very bored.
        Or better for government to build infrastructure, now, than delay it
        into future.
        Time is money.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Last I heard we had enough for 200+ years, and that’s identified sources. The Tar Sands go right over the north of Canada into Russia, mostly untapped.

      • Jeff Labute says:

        Sure, for reason that fossil fuels will not last forever, we have a window of opportunity to make EVs better than they are today, rather than mandating everyone have one in the next 10 years out of catastrophic fear.

        Al-ion batteries promise 60x faster charging, cheaper, higher capacity, and increased safety. This would also eliminate the need for a tremendous number of chargers.

        I’m all for EVs, and they are almost there. I am waiting for better pricing that’ll happen by virtue of better batteries.

      • gbaikie says:

        It seems the future of flying cars will arrive eventually and same thing applies for sub-orbital travel.
        And cities will move into virtual spaces.
        Nothing last forever and there is a lot fossil fuel- particularly if ocean methane is counted as a fossil fuel.

        In short periods of say 50 years, where will we be?
        We don’t know if Russia will start a nuclear war, Russian talking heads are saying WWIII has already started. But they seem quite clueless.

        Let’s just assume, Starship works almost as well as Elon Musk wants it to work. And NASA finishes exploring lunar polar region in 7 years and sending people to Mars in 2030. And Moon is mined starting in 2032. And neither Russia or China or US has not started any wars.
        It seems before 2030 we could have 100,000 satellites in Low Earth orbit- and Starship could have put up 1/2 of them.
        And say by 2040, there is more than 100,000 people living in Ocean settlements [and they will of course have satellite internet with access to virtual cities]. And by 2050 there about 1 million people living on Ocean and on Mars. And we mining space rocks.
        By 2060, Earth getting significant amount energy from space power satellites and tens of millions of people living in Venus orbit- and by 2070, billion people living in Venus orbit.
        Or 50 years in the future.
        And not shortage of fossil fuel on Earth. Though could be serious shortage of people living on the Earth’s surface.

      • RLH says:

        “before 2030 we could have 100,000 satellites in Low Earth orbit”

        and putting up more of them is becoming more and more difficult.

      • gbaikie says:

        Well, in a month or two, Starship will have test launch. Then it might take a year to make it, operational. But before it’s operational, Starship might add 500 satellite to orbit.
        And once operational, you could improvement in number of launches per year, so 10,000 in first year of starship being operational, and maybe 20,000 added in next year.
        After 100 launches one can think about Starship being or becoming manned rated. If 1 or more fail out of 100, maybe not.
        But 1 in 100 failing is good enough to launch satellite, but manned rated gives other things Starship can do.
        Before 100 launches SpaceX is trillion dollar company [though it might already be trillion company- can’t remember}. When it’s launching 100 within one year, it certain will be +1 trillion dollar company. Probably Musk want starship launching 100 times a year in 2023. He building Starship engines every month, how soon the engines are landed safely and reused is a big question mark. And can he ramp up to 2 or more batches of engines per month is another factor. And also has increase batches satellites made per month.
        Or doing every thing much faster by factor of 10, already, can do 100 and 1000 times faster then ever done before.
        It’s like the doubling of computing power per year, when will stop- I don’t think it’s stopped yet, but I am not computer nerd.

    • Ken says:

      I want a fusion powered car. Tokamak reactor for instance.

      Think about it: never runs out of fuel.

      • RLH says:


        “The fusion reaction in the ITER Tokamak will be powered with deuterium and tritium”

      • Swenson says:

        Tritium, of course, can be produced by the tokamak!

        How stupid are you? Did you have to work hard to become so ignorant?

        Do let me know.

      • RLH says:

        “Tritium, of course, can be produced by the tokamak!”

        Extracting in a pure enough form to use again in the reaction is still undergoing research. A lot of it.

      • Swenson says:

        So you don’t disagree that your pointless sarcasm was just pointless sarcasm?

        You are not just an idiot, you are a disingenuous and stupid idiot.

        Go on, try and sound intelligent by repeating common knowledge. You do realise that fusion power is still not commercially available, do you? I suppose you think that the fact that further research is needed would escape anybody who does not possess your brilliance?


      • RLH says:

        You reply about tritium being capable of being produced in a reactor is typical of people reading just part of a headline.

      • RLH says:

        ….Your reply….

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        The biggest problem they had in WW II for nuclear enenrgy was finding enough deuterium. It’s not that easy to make. I don’t know how easy it is today but the process for making it is complex.

      • Entropic man says:

        You don’t make deuterium. You separate water molecules contains deuterium from seawater.

        Research “heavy water”.

      • Clint R says:

        The problem with fusion is not the supply of fuel. The problem is the extreme temperatures and pressures needed for the process. The oceans contain plenty of deuterium.

        Fortunately, deuterium is common. About 1 out of every 5,000 hydrogen atoms in seawater is in the form of deuterium. This means our oceans contain many tons of deuterium. When fusion power becomes a reality, just one gallon of seawater could produce as much energy as 300 gallons of gasoline.

        Tritium is a radioactive isotope that decays relatively quickly (it has a 12-year half-life) and is rare in nature. Fortunately, exposing the more abundant element of lithium to energetic neutrons can generate tritium. A working fusion power plant would need enriched lithium to breed the tritium it needs to close the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle. Current R&D efforts are focused on advanced designs of tritium breeding blankets using lithium originally obtained from Earth based sources.


  44. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    “Bitter but necessary:” Germany replaces Russian gas with coal.
    June 22, 2022

    Germany will burn more coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, amid concerns about possible power shortages caused by a cut in supplies from Russia, its economy minister has said.

    Robert Habeck said Germany must limit the use of gas to generate electricity, after Russian oil major Gazprom announced it would slash supplies through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, apparently for technical reasons.

    The situation forces the government to burn more coal, which emits twice as much climate heating carbon dioxide as gas, for a “transitional period,” said Habeck.

    “That’s bitter, but it’s simply necessary in this situation to lower gas usage,” said Habeck, from the environmentalist Green party.

    The government is also offering businesses incentives to limit gas use, planning to divert the spare fuel to fill up storage facilities ahead of next winter – the “top priority.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      So much for wind and solar power, good old coal has them both beat.

      • therealplastic says:

        I’m glad that you, a dinosaur promoting dinosaur-era fuels, will also one day be extinct, so intelligent people can live in a better world.

  45. Ken says:

    The problem is CO2 spectrum is saturated. It is wrong to state ‘climate heating carbon dioxide’.

    • Entropic man says:

      Kindly explain

      1)how carbon dioxide reduces the amount of energy leaving the atmosphere to space without causing the surface temperature to equilibrate at a higher temperature than would occur if the CO2 were absent.

      2) how an increase in CO2 would not produce a corresponding increase in surface temperature.

      Explain your reasoning.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic …the onus is on you, as a pseudo-scientist and alarmist to prove how it can. I have already shown ways it cannot affect the surface temperature.

        For one, CO2 affects only about 5% of surface radiation at best. For another, CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere cannot possibly affect the rate of surface cooling via heat dissipation.

        Heat dissipation at the surface is governed by Newtons Law of Cooling. The law requires a temperature gradient between the surface and its environment and the greater the difference the faster the cooling.

        As it stands, the atmosphere and surface are in thermal equilibrium for the most part. However, as the surface heats the air, it rises, and cooler air from aloft descends, creating a temperature gradient. Since 99% of air is nitrogen and oxygen, and only 0.04% CO2, it makes scientific sense that any contribution to temperature differential will be 90% due to N2/O2.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “For one, CO2 affects only about 5% of surface radiation at best. “

        CO2 *affects* about 20% of the thermal IR from the surface, absorbing that 20% upward IR. CO2 the emits about half as strongly to space, so CO2 has a net effect of reducing outgoing emissions to space by about 10%. This is for clear skies; the results are reduced a bit with clouds, but 5% would be a low estimate.

        And even so, a 5% reduction for escaping radiation equates to about 15 W/m^2. No one would agree that 15 W/m^2 “cannot affect surface temperature”.

        “For another, CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere cannot possibly affect the rate of surface cooling via heat dissipation.”
        As before, no one would agree that 15 W/m^2 “cannot affect surface temperature”.

        “Heat dissipation at the surface is governed by Newtons Law of Cooling. “
        Only approximately.

        This empirical law works well for conduction; and it works well for small temperature differences. But it is an empirical law, and it is well-know that it does NOT work well for radiation.

        “The law requires a temperature gradient between the surface and its environment and the greater the difference the faster the cooling.

        As it stands, the atmosphere and surface are in thermal equilibrium for the most part. “
        And here is your largest oversight. The surface’s “environment is not simply the first few meters of air. The surface also interacts with higher layers of air, with clouds, and with outer space via radiation.

        What CO2 does is to change ‘the environment’ for the surface for radiation in a band near 15 um.
        * WITHOUT CO2, the ‘environment’ is 2.7K outer space.
        * WITH CO2, the ‘environment’ is the (approximately) surface temperature air.
        And exactly as you noted, with a greater difference in temperature (without CO2) the earth cools faster and more effectively. With a smaller difference in temperature (with CO2) the earth cools slower and less effectively.

        Congratulations. I had never used that paradigm to describe the greenhouse effect, but you provided and excellent description!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…”The surfaces environment is not simply the first few meters of air. The surface also interacts with higher layers of air, with clouds, and with outer space via radiation”.


        As Far as heat transfer is concerned only the molecules of air touching the surface matter. Heat is transferred by conduction to those molecules and they transfer heat to higher altitudes by convection.

        Radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a highly inefficient way of transferring heat. It’s a two-part process where heat is converted to EM, then EM back to heat in trace gases. As R.W. Wood pointed out, the EM intensity is lost within a few feet due to inverse-square losses.

        I have pointed out before how that works so dramatically. Trun on a 1500 watt ring on an electric stove till it is bright red in colour. If you hold your hand close to the ring you can feel the effect of radiation to an extent but your are also feeling super-heated air molecules. Pull you hand back 4 feet and you feel neither. EM intensity from the Earth’s surface would be negligible in 10 feet.

        Personally, I think the process of heat dissipation at the surface is far more complex. I don’t accept that incoming solar must be matched by outgoing IR. The Earth’s current average temperature is a result of the Sun heating the Earth
        over millions of years as well as heat from the Earth’s core heating the ocean bases and the land. The current average temperature is being maintained by previously heated land and oceans, therefore all the Sun has to do is supply enough heat to offset losses.

        If heat in did equal heat out, the planet would be a lot colder than it is today.

        Much of the incoming solar is dissipated naturally within the system by heated air molecules rising and expanding in thinner air. As the air parcels rise, they lose pressure naturally and that translated to a loss of heat with no radiation.

        Your figure of 20% for surface IR absorp-tion by CO2 was pulled from a hat. There is no scientific evidence to prove that. I don’t think CO2 contributes enough heat to the system to warm an ants bum.

      • Clint R says:

        Tim, you’re still confused about radiative physics. Your statement makes no sense: “No one would agree that 15 W/m^2 cannot affect surface temperature”.”

        You still don’t seem to understand that flux is NOT additive/average-able/divisible. Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes do NOT add to a 630 W/m^2 flux. You’re still trying to boil water with ice cubes. You can’t get away from your cult beliefs.

      • Swenson says:

        You are an idiot, Folkerts.

        The atmosphere reduces the rate at which the surface heats, and also restricts the maximum temperature which can occur due to the unconcentrated rays of the sun.

        The atmosphere reduces the rate at which the surface cools, and also restricts the minimum temperature which can occur in the absence of sunlight.

        All your semantic dancing, and your stupid ignorance about basic physics cannot change reality.

        Carry on being a fool. It suits you,

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Gordon says: “As Far as heat transfer is concerned only the molecules of air touching the surface matter. “

        “Radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a highly inefficient way of transferring heat.”
        See? You realize that radiation matters in addition to conduction to the surface molecules!

        Radiation can be QUITE effective at ‘terrestrial temperatures’. A surface at ‘terrestrial temperatures’ located in space radiates 100’s of W/m^2 to space.

        “Its a two-part process where heat is converted to EM, then EM back to heat in trace gases. “
        However you want to describe the process, only some of the EM heats gases. A good bit is absorbed by clouds (much higher than ‘few meters’); a good bit leaves the earth entirely.

        “the EM intensity is lost within a few feet due to inverse-square losses.”
        No! For radiation from a large sphere (like the earth), the inverse-square law is measured FROM THE CENTER of the sphere. ‘A few feet’ (1 m) above the surface, the radiation drops off to 99.99997% of the original due to inverse-square.

        “I have pointed out before how that works so dramatically. … Pull you hand back 4 feet and you feel neither. “
        No! You have been incorrect every time you have tried. It is the same error you were claiming in the previous quote.

        The proper analogy would be a sea of red-hot lava (not a single small burner on a stove). I assure you, the radiation would not be ‘negligible in 10 ft’. You would get roasted just as effectively 1 ft or 10 ft or 100 ft away from a sea of lava.

        “Your figure of 20% for surface IR absorp-tion by CO2 was pulled from a hat. ”
        Says the man who’s 5% number was ‘pulled from a hat’!

        And actually my number was pulled from a fairly sophisticated spectrum calculator. I didn’t bother to get exact number (since it depends on temperature, humidity, and other factors).

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Gordon says: “Personally, I think the process of heat dissipation at the surface is far more complex. I dont accept that incoming solar must be matched by outgoing IR. The Earths current average temperature is a result of the Sun heating the Earth over millions of years as well as heat from the Earths core heating the ocean bases and the land. The current average temperature is being maintained by previously heated land and oceans, therefore all the Sun has to do is supply enough heat to offset losses.”

        Personally, I agree with much of this.
        * It *is* a complex process.

        * Solar radiation does NOT have to be matched by outgoing IR.
        (When there is net warming, there is more in than out; when there is net cooling, more out than in).

        * Earth’s temperature DOES depend on conditions in the past.
        But the the oceans were presumably even colder 20,000 years ago when most of the earth was covered with ice. So the current temperatures are held LOW by the ‘cold’ stored in the oceans. The current brief ~10,000 year warm period is being tempered (not boosted) by the oceans.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo rants with his usual delusional physics, writing:

        … as the surface heats the air, it rises, and cooler air from aloft descends, creating a temperature gradient.

        Gordo’s continued ignorance shows itself again. The convection in the tropopause is the result of warm, moist air with less density being lifted upwards by the hydrostatic forcing from cooler, drier air in the area. That air cools as it is lifted and the water vapor condenses, warming the air, which promotes further lift. Ultimately, at the tropopause, the lifting stops and the air mixes with the surrounding cooler air which causes the now denser air to sink.

        But, Gordo can’t understand that the air above the tropopause actually warms as altitude increases in the stratosphere. He offers no basis from physics for this warming. Also, he can’t explain what cools the air at the tropopause such that it can sink. According to
        Gordo, this part of the convection loop does not happen, the thermal energy simply “dissipating” somehow.

        Gordo, the fact is that the upper air looses thermal energy (“cools”) as the result of outgoing emissions by CO2 and other gasses. If Gordo can’t take the time to learn some meteorology, he should stop trolling.

      • Clint R says:

        Ent, go back and find the example of “bricks in a box”. Adding more photons does NOT always mean an increase in temperature.

        You don’t understand any of this.

      • gbaikie says:

        The slower energy leaves “system” the warmer the night.
        But doesn’t mean day is warmer.
        The maximum amount if sunlight reach a spot of Earth, is a tiny comparable spot than entire Earth surface.
        One thing related to this is that water vapor can disperse heat quickly.

      • Swenson says:


        You are right. Additionally, the slower the energy from the sun reaches the surface, the less warm it gets.

        Just as observation, theory, and experiment confirms.

        On the other hand, cultist buffoons are free to believe any bizarre nonsense they like.

        Reality marches on.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        From, Swannie, who still believes heat can be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.

      • Ken says:

        Use a sponge to soak up a puddle of water. Still water left? puddle is not saturated

        Get a bigger sponge. No water left. Puddle is saturated.

        Get an even bigger sponge. No net effect; all the water is soaked up even as the sponge could soak up more water. Unfortunately, there is not more water, puddle is saturated. No difference observed in ambient atmosphere compared with previous case.

        Same Same for AGW.

      • Nate says:

        Could happen, Ken, but apparently not there yet in the upper troposphere. As Modtan calculates, adding CO2 still has the predicted effect of reducing outgoing radiation.


      • Swenson says:

        The Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so.

        If MODTRAN says otherwise, it’s obviously wrong.

        Try learning some physics, and get back to me.

      • Nate says:

        Yet it warmed over the last 20,000, and warmed more aver the last 100.

        Oh well, no surprise, Swenson is ignorant again.

      • Swenson says:

        Cherry picking idiot.

        The Earth has cooled. Look up the definition.

  46. gbaikie says:

    Chinese official says its Mars sample mission will beat NASA back to Earth
    “June 21 (UPI) — A senior Chinese space official said on Monday the country is on track to bring back rocks from the surface of Mars two years ahead of the planned joint effort by NASA and the European Space Agency to do the same thing.”

    China going to start another global pandemic

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      They didn’t need to go to all that bother, I have a few spare Mars rocks I could sell them.

  47. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”At 2atm pressure and number of molecules have doubled, but V and T remain the same”.

    You cannot double the pressure, keeping the volume the same and claim the temperature has not doubled.

    n and P in PV = nRT are directly proportional. That’s what pressure is in a container, it is the force exerted on the container walls by each atom or molecule. Ergo, the pressure is the sum of all the atomic forces on the walls.

    We are dealing with a different problem in the atmosphere. n is constant and V is constant over the entire atmosphere. Therefore pressure is created by gravitational force and becomes the sum of the forces each air molecule exerts on a body at a particular altitude. We define the pressure exerted on the surface as 1 atmosphere.

    Since gravity varies with altitude, that stratifies the air into a negative pressure gradient. To account for that we could divide the atmosphere into layers of constant volume. Naturally as altitude increases the number of molecules per unit volume would decrease, and consequently, the pressure.

    So, let’s take one of those layers where we can keep V and n constant throughout the layer. We lump the constants together as (nR/V)..therefore

    P = (nR/V)T

    It’s obvious that P is directly proportional to T and that’s how it works in the atmosphere. At 30,000 feet, near the top of Everest the pressure is 1/3rd the pressure at sea level. Also, the temperature should be 1/3rd the temperature at sea level. There are variables, however, like warming from direct sunlight or weather systems passing through. I am referring only to static conditions.

    At night, even in summer, you’d freeze to death at the top of Everest even on a calm night, if you are inadequately dressed. The top of Everest is not a location you visit in a T-shirt and shorts. Sandals are definitely out.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Since gravity varies with altitude, that stratifies the air into a negative pressure gradient. ”

      Since gravity varies very slightly with troposphere elevation.

    • Entropic man says:

      I just knew someone would bring up this red herring.

      My post referred to equilibrium.

      An analogy. I pump two tyres up to 1atm. The energy put into increasing the pressure ends up as heat, so their temperature goes up.

      I leave them for 24 hours and the extra heat disperses. Their temperature returns to room temperature.

      I pump one tyre up to 2atm. It’s temperature rises while I am pumping but returns to room temperature once I stop pumping.

      When discussing 1atm and 2atm states I was not interested in the transient temperature change as one changed into the other. I was discussing their condition after they had returned to equilibrium with their planetary environment.

      • Entropic man says:

        Returning to the two tyres.Once they have settled back to room temperature the 2atm tyre has twice the pressure P and twice the number of molecules n compared to the 1atm tyre.

        Volume V is constrained by the structure of the tyre and will be the same for both. Temperature T is controlled by the room and will be the same for both.

        Similarly for 1atm and 2atm atmospheres at the Earth’s surface. The 2atm atmosphere will settle to 2P and 2N, but both atmospheres will be subject to Earths energy budget and their temperatures will stabilise at similar values.

      • Ken says:

        Just wait till you try driving anywhere with your tyres at twice the recommended atmosphere.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ent…”The energy put into increasing the pressure ends up as heat, so their temperature goes up”.


        So why does heat form? It’s not the work done pumping a tire that causes the heat, it’s the relationship of pressure, temperature, volume, and the number of atoms/molecules of air in the tire.

        The air molecules are being increased, compressing air into the same volume, almost. When an inflated tire is inflated more, the volume does not change much. If you had a balloon on the other hand, that could expand in proportion to increased pressure, you’d have a different problem.

        You should read up on the Ideal Gas Law, particularly the different laws involved in creating it. It’s quite amazing.

        As you inject more air molecules into the tire, it maintains almost the same volume therefore the air pressure must increase. If the pressure increases, the temperature must increase because there are more molecules colliding with each other and with the sides of the tires.

        With this problem, generated heat can escape through the tire rim and the rubber. The opposite is true as well. With motion, the tires absorb heat via friction and that heat should be transferred to the gas in the tire. Also, on hot summer days, the rims absorb heat and transfer it to the tires increasing the pressure.

        Compare that to descending into the Earth in a vertical mine shaft. Both temperature and pressure increase. Part of the reason for temperature increase is the temperature gradient between the core and the surface. However, pressure will play its part as well. Temperature increases near the surface at a rate of about 1C per 32 metres depth.

        The following article claims the IGL applies only to a gas in a room or open area. I don’t agree in principle because Ideal refers to the specific properties of the gases involved, not the environment. However, the IGL obviously needs to be modified where heat can be transferred into and out of the system, or work done in a system to change pressure and temperature.


  48. gbaikie says:

    Charon’s weather:

    SwRI scientists identify a possible source for Charon’s red cap
    by Staff Writers
    San Antonio TX (SPX) Jun 22, 2022

    –“Our findings indicate that drastic seasonal surges in Charon’s thin atmosphere as well as light breaking down the condensing methane frost are key to understanding the origins of Charon’s red polar zone,” said SwRI’s Dr. Ujjwal Raut,–

    “We think ionizing radiation from the solar wind decomposes the Lyman-alpha-cooked polar frost to synthesize increasingly complex, redder materials responsible for the unique albedo on this enigmatic moon,” Raut said. “Ethane is less volatile than methane and stays frozen to Charon’s surface long after spring sunrise. Exposure to the solar wind may convert ethane into persistent reddish surface deposits contributing to Charon’s red cap.”

    • WizGeek says:

      @GBaikie: How on Earth does this relate to EV vs ICE Efficiency? Why are you so desperate for attention, recognition, and approval?

      • gbaikie says:

        And wouldn’t Twitter be a better place?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wizgeek…it’s very difficult to maintain a decent conversation on EVs over the long term. We tend to wander off into off-topic subjects, usually based on related science, to maintain the interest of those who post regularly.

        Roy has been great in that sense by allowing us a diverse subject content and divergent POVs. Gbaikie does his part by raising interesting asides I have no problem with that personally and if it bugs you, you’ll need to take it up with Roy.

  49. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    MYTH: “The problem is CO2 spectrum is saturated. It is wrong to state ‘climate heating carbon dioxide’.

    REALITY: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

    CO2 (ppm) / Outgoing Flux (W/m^2) / Delta (W/m^2)
    0 / 329.7 /
    10 / 316.83 / -12.87
    100 / 305.21 / -11.62
    421 / 298.27 / -6.94
    1000 / 294.09 / -4.18

    There is a huge change in the outgoing energy flux between the runs with 0 ppm and 10 ppm because you go from having no absorp-tion to having a quite noticeable peak by adding a relatively small amount of CO2, just 10 ppm. Then, as you go up to 100, 421 and 1,000 ppm, the change in energy balance for each new molecule of CO2, or each new ppm of CO2, gets weaker. The energy balance never becomes totally insensitive to further additions of CO2, however.

    • Clint R says:

      TM, here’s some more reality for you:

      * MODTRAN is a computer program. A computer program can be programmed to do anything the programmer wants.

      * With no other changes, the program indicates NO temperature difference when going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. (A slight reduction in temperature would be expected.)

      * An energy balance can NOT be determined from radiative flux. Flux does NOT balance. (See the “Cone in Space” example.)

    • Ken says:

      Using Happer’s information, he says that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 420 to 840 ppm will result in further decrease of 3 Wm-2. Too small to have much if any effect on climate.

      So yeah, never totally insensitive but ‘bang for the buck’ is in the first 300 ppm. If we were deliberately warming the planet we’d stop because it wouldn’t be cost effective after about 300 ppm.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        So here’s what I hear you say:

        1.- You no longer stand by your statement that “It is wrong to state ‘climate heating carbon dioxide.'”

        2.- You now believe the resulting warming is “Too small to have much if any effect on climate.”

        3.- Happer’s 3 W/m^2 compares favorably with MODTRAN’s 3.36 W/m^2 for the same increase in CO2.
        A 3.36 W/m^2 imbalance is equivalent to burning 280,040 barrels of oil per second. I’d take that deal.

      • Clint R says:

        TM, if your “imbalance” is correct, the atmosphere is adding, not burning.

        That’s a lot of oil. Entropic man will be sad to learn we have so much oil….

      • gbaikie says:

        I think everyone agrees that the reason we have low CO2 levels is because Earth has a cold ocean.
        But no one seems to know exactly why our ocean is so cold, but over the last 33.9 million year of this Ice House Climate the ocean has become colder.
        Or the ocean did not get cold 33.9 million year ago and then become warmer, but rather has become colder and colder and the last 2.5 million years is apparently the coldest the ocean has ever been in our present Ice House climate.

        The idea that we become as warm as we were 33.9 million years, and time soon, is foolish.

      • gbaikie says:

        and time soon, I meant, any time soon.

        So we have misinformation that ice sheets can somehow fall into the ocean. Though if this magical thinking were true, all that ice would cool the ocean if it were would raise sea levels very fast.
        These regions are very cold and not warming much. Ice sheet in North America and elsewhere did rapidly melt- but these regions are close to polar regions.
        And it was not higher CO2 levels which melted any ice sheet at any time in the past. Though much later when ice sheet had melted, CO2 levels did rise a bit.

        Now, how ice sheets melt, is they mostly melt on land and then as liquid water flow into the ocean. And this probably mostly about raining. And it rarely rains in Greenland or Antarctica.
        And it seems to me if Greenland was flowing any amount of water- the world needs a lot of freshwater water. And could use hydropower by damming that water.
        But no one planning to capture these resources, because it’s not going to melt. Everyone knows it’s just scam.

      • Ken says:

        Not enough of us know its a scam.

        Even on this thread where you’d expect enlightenment to prevail.

      • gbaikie says:

        –Ken says:
        June 23, 2022 at 3:56 PM

        Not enough of us know its a scam.–

        Well, not many people are going to claim that politicians are truthful.
        Or I think it’s generally accepted that people pick the liars they want.
        {whether their voting system actually works is another matter}
        What going to get with a herd of liars?

        –Even on this thread where youd expect enlightenment to prevail.–

        This thread is about electrical battery powered cars and how much fossil fuels they use vs cars not powered by batteries.

        Obviously Dems could cause more people to buy electrical battery cars. But they want to spend trillions of dollars on other good stuff.
        They would do more but bad politicians stop them, rinse and repeat.
        Oh, we so, have the vapors.

        But if had more natural gas making electricity, it would better emission for battery cars.
        We could also have cars [and trucks] driving on liquid methane or high pressure natural gas. One advantage is don’t pay gasoline tax, but for politicians, that’s not an advantage

      • Ken says:

        ‘Climate Heating Carbon Dioxide’ is about climate change claptrap where the warming is going to result in some nonsense cat ass trophy.

        ‘Too small to have any effect on climate’ means its not significantly heating the climate and certainly not to the point of dogs sleeping with cats.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Colloquialisms not withstanding, 3.36 W/m^2 is a lot of energy spread out over the planet’s 510,072,000,000,000 m^2 surface area. Most of it will go into the oceans and to melt the ice caps.

      • Clint R says:

        TM supplies us with a good example of why children shouldn’t be on the Internet unsupervised. He’s confused by the math. He doesn’t understand that disorganized energy is NOT heat. Like the rest of his cult, he doesn’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics.

        He found the conversion for a barrel of oil to Joules. Then he did the math to find the Joules from his bogus “imbalance”. But, he didn’t complete the work, probably because he saw how ridiculous it is.

        His bogus 3.36 W/m^2 would mean the atmosphere is supplying us with 8,880 billion barrels of oil annually, when we’re only using 30 billion barrels! His irresponsible nonsense has the atmosphere creating more oil than all of the know sources combined.


      • Swenson says:

        Diversionary nonsense promoted by charlatans and fools.

        At night, the surface loses all the energy it absorbed during the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.

        Keep denying reality if you like.

  50. Entropic man says:

    Gordon Robertson

    “entropic the onus is on you, as a pseudo-scientist and alarmist to prove how it can. ”

    Every time I’ve tried in the past, it just bounced off your cognitive dissonance.

    Once more for the lurkers.

    This is the spectrum of the OLR, the longwave radiation leaving Earth to space. The red curve is the emitted energy due to Stefan-Boltzmann emission without an atmosphere. The black curve is the observed emission.
    The blue area under the black curve represents total OLR and the white area between the curves is downwelling radiation, DWLR.

    You can identify saturation, when half of the outgoing radiation becomes DWLR, ie. the OLR is 50% of the SB radiation.

    Look particularly around 700 nm, This wedge out of the OLR is the band across which CO2 absorbs. It is saturated at the centre and tapers out to only H2O absorp*tion at the sides.


    This is the spectrum of the downwelling radiation. Note that at each wavelength and in overall radiation it is SB radiation-OLR, peaking at the 700nm CO2 absorp*tion/emission peak. This is how CO2 returns energy from the upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere and surface.


    • gbaikie says:

      Global climate is about the ocean and not the atmosphere.
      The ice house climate we living in, has nothing to with atmosphere.
      An ice house climate has low CO2 levels, because the ocean is cold.

      Global climate has little to do the sun or the atmosphere, instead it’s geological processes which alter land masses within our ocean- or one say the topographical features of our ocean.
      And there is a general complaint, that our ocean is less explored then our Moon.
      But I would say, the people who have interest in the ocean, are aware of how little in known about the ocean and people who have interest in the Moon, know how little we know about the Moon.
      And both are saying we need more money to find out more.
      And argument for ocean exploration is could could be cheaper than exploring the Moon.
      But I would say ocean exploration vs space exploration is similar to Moon vs Mars. Which is which should explored first- which gets governmental money first.
      I don’t say it much, but I think more money should spend exploring the ocean. But problem is, I think the Moon and Mars will be explored most by the private sector, and NASA has done a poor job of exploring the Moon [or Mars]. Or more money spent by governmental agencies, seems to result in less things done.
      And there is a fair amount “private” type exploration of ocean.

      The most amount warming imagined to be done by CO2 is the idiot idea that more CO2 results in more water vapor.
      And obviously the warmer the surface of Ocean, the more global water vapor. And if you increase the average temperature of the ocean, you increase the average surface temperature of the ocean.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ent…if you look at the top of the notch, coloured red, it claims CO2 absorbs 18 Watts. You notice they provide no value for the total surface emission so we have to go with the blackbody curve with 294 w/m^2.

      It’s obvious that CO2 absorbs only 18/294 = about 6% of surface radiation.

      You need to understand several things…

      1)They have provided a convenient, highly theoretical depiction of the TOA radiation. The WV spectrun overlies the CO2 spectrum and there’s no way to separate CO2 from that spectrum without the generous use of smoke and mirrors.

      2)They are claiming there is 28 w/m^2 of surface radiation at TOA and that CO2 absorbs 18 w/m^2 of that radiation, which is about 64%. That number was drawn out of a hat because no one has ever scientifically measured it. The graphic you offer has no source indicated so we can see how it was created.

      3)Anything from scienceofdoom has to be immediately suspect, they are the worst kind of alarmists. In the graphic they supply, there is once again no accompanying scientific paper for reference. That is typical of extreme alarmists, they steal a diagram and offer their own interpretation.

      In their graphic, and on the first one from your first link, note that the ordinate units are in milliwatts, not watts. Not only are they in mW, they are in mW/m^2/cm. That’s milliwatts per metre squared per centimetre.

      What the heck does that means? On the SOD diagram they actually measure it in steradians then they add the cm^-1 in brackets. A steradian is supposed to be the equivalent of radian measure as applied to a planar circle but projected onto a sphere. How is that related to cms?

      What does this have to do with what we’re talking about, which is surface radiation measured at TOA?

      The truth, according to Gerlich and Tscheuschner is, radiant energy from the surface cannot be measured in that manner. The process is far more complex, involving Feynman diagrams and not simple vectors representing direct lines from surface to TOA.

      In other words, both of your diagrams are bogus.

  51. Clint R says:

    Ent, you’ve got a few mistakes:

    * It is NOT 700 nm, it is 700/cm (wavenumber)

    * That is NOT the “spectrum of the OLR, the longwave radiation leaving Earth to space”. That is a one-time shot, which means nothing.

    * That is NOT the “spectrum of the downwelling radiation”. Again that is a one-time shot.

    Graphs of various spectra mean nothing. We know IR exists. Your mission is to prove how the atmosphere can heat the surface. You can’t do that.

    • Entropic man says:

      You’re right about the wavenumber units, but it doesn’t change the pattern.

      If I had an emission graph taken in the same location at the same time as the Winsconcin DWLR graph you would see the same pattern. Indeed it you took equivalent measurements of emission and DWLR anywhere on Earth you would see the same pattern.

      SB radiation – OLR = DWLR applies to any location.

      The DWLR is absorbed by the atmosphere or surface and becomes sensible heat. That makes them warmer than if the DWLR was absent.

      That’s a big part of the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases convert part of the upward SB radiation into DWLR which warms whatever absorbs that DWLR.

      • Clint R says:

        Still wrong, Ent. Fluxes don’t add/subtract like that. And you still haven’t proved that the atmosphere can heat the surface.

        Just making stuff up, like passenger jets flying backwards, ain’t science.

      • Swenson says:


        Don’t be stupid. At night, the heat of the day flees to space – never to be seen again.

        Only fools or frauds think otherwise.

        Which are you?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        He’s a dimwit propagandist. That’s his story and he’s sticking to it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      clint…” It is NOT 700 nm, it is 700/cm (wavenumber) ”


      For anyone curious, the difference between frequency and wavenumber is that frequency is the number of cycles per second (time-based function) and wavenumber is the number of cycles per centimetre (length-based function). To confuse matters, we now call 1 cycle/per second a Hertz.

      I wish they’d stop naming obvious values like cycle/second after scientists. We used to refer to magnetic lines of force as lines of force. Then they renamed the unit ‘line of force’ as the Tesla or the Gauss. What the heck good does that do when it comes to visualization?

      Wavelength, of course, is the distance between the beginning of a wave cycle at 0 radians and its end at 2 pi radians. It can also be measured peak to peak or between any two equivalent points on a cycle.

      In Clint’s case above, 700 nm is the wavelength, the distance from 0 radians to 2 pi radians of one cycle, and 700/cm is the number of those cycles per cm.

  52. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”You dont make deuterium. You separate water molecules contains deuterium from seawater.

    Research heavy water.”


    H20 = 2H + O = dihydrogen monoxide, aka water.

    deuterium = H + 1 neutron. That is, ordinary hydrogen like you find in water has only 1 proton in its nucleus. Deuterium has 1 proton + 1 neutron,making it an isotope of water. Tritium has 2 neutrons and 1 proton, making it even heavier water.

    The H in water has no neutron in its nucleus and is called protium. How do you get the neutron into the hydrogen atom? That’s the trick.

    Yes, you can make deuterium by adding a neutron to the nucleus of ordinary hydrogen. It’s not like you have a jar of neutrons and tiny tweezers and you insert a neutron into the hydrogen nucleus. Protons and neutrons don’t simply bond together naturally. How they do bond is one of the wonders of the universe.

    Wikipedia in a moment of insanity, claimed there is a natural abundance of deuterium in the ocean. According to the following article…

    “The natural abundance of deuterium in the ocean is approximately 156.25 ppm, which is one atom in 6,400 of hydrogen. In other words, 99.98% of hydrogen in the ocean is protium and only 0.0156% is deuterium (or 0.0312% by mass)”.


    Protium is a reference to ordinary hydrogen with 1 proton and no neutron. A product that is 0.0312% by mass in ocean water is not exactly my idea of an abundant product.

    I would say fish, and salt, are naturally abundant in the ocean but not deuterium.

    The scientists developing nuclear theory during WW II were not stupid. If they could have retrieved deuterium from the ocean easily they’d have done it.

    Norway was the leader in deuterium production and they used a complex system. There was a race between the Nazis and the Allies to get the Norwegian store of deuterium. The Allies eventually blew up the plant to prevent the Nazis getting it then sunk a ferry with a rail tanker holding a large amount of it. That’s after they had absconded with a significant amount of deuterium.

  53. Gordon Robertson says:

    gb…”I found a calculator:

    9.803572201306 m/s/s at 1000 meters
    9.74536824901 m/s/s at 20,000 meters”


    Apply this change in force/acceleration to a molecule like oxygen with a mass of 16 amu. Most significant masses would be accelerated toward the surface but air molecules are so light they become buoyant. There is nothing (that we know of) to buoy them up but there are other inter-atomic forces at work that counter the effect of gravity to a degree.

    There is a table at this site which is helpful.


    At sea level temperature is rated at 59F = 15 C. The pressure is given as approx 14.7 lb/in^2 and acceleration due to gravity as 32.174 feet/sec^2.

    At 30,000 feet (near top of Everest) pressure approx. 3.5 lb/in^2. Temperature is -47.8F (-44.3C) and acceleration = 32.083 feet/sec^2. Pressure at 30,000 feet is about 3.5/14.7 = about 4 times less than at sea level. The temperature is about 59C lower than sea level.

    There is a graphic on the same page showing a linear change of temperature with altitude up to 10,000 feet but it doesn’t seem to allow for variations in the height of the stratosphere.

    On a NASA page they claim the troposphere extends from 5 to 9 miles, which is 26,400 feet to 47,520 feet. That depends on whether you are near the Equator or near the Poles. The diagram on the page at the link does not seem to take that into account. There is no physical reason I can see for temperature to show a linear cooling to 10,000 feet then suddenly stop cooling till 20,000 feet, where it warms again to 30,000 feet and beyond.

    I realize the stratosphere warms due to ozone absorbing UV but not at such a lower region in the stratosphere the base of which can be well above 30,000 feet in some locations on Earth.

    I think they are taking far too much license with the adiabatic lapse rate theory which I regard as nonsense. It completely ignores the linear decrease in pressure from the surface upward, and seems to suggest warming causes cooling.

    • gbaikie says:

      in lower atmosphere each molecule doesn’t go far [nanometer??}
      Whereas in stratosphere [a big zone] they go a meter to maybe 1/4 mile. above that a km to kilometers. Though above stratosphere molecules go much faster and faster they travel the better chance go further before hitting another molecule.
      And in terms molecules traveling they could traveling from zone to zone and faster a molecule goes the further visits or leaves zones.
      Though these molecule aren’t get thru stratosphere as it’s too much traffic as low as stratosphere. Or, that my take on it.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Lookie, Gordo found a graph of the US Standard Atmosphere!

      Gordo should dig a little deeper and he might find that the US Standard Atmosphere is based on a model of temperature vs. pressure height and includes the adiabatic lapse rate in the tropophere. That model starts at a surface temperature of 15 C (288 K), then declines linearly to a tropopause ranging between 12,000 and 20,000 meters. Gordo points to a separate range from NASA of “5 to 9 miles” which is not the tropophere, as Gordo incorrectly states. Gordo fails to understand that the US Standard Atmosphere model is not the same as NASA’s real world based range.

      Gordo concludes with:

      I think they are taking far too much license with the adiabatic lapse rate theory which I regard as nonsense.

      Sorry, Gordo, you can’t just disrespect the entire field of the atmospheric sciences (they?) based on your uneducated mental incantations.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Three main forces are viscosity, hydrogen bonding, and Van Der Waals forces.

  54. gbaikie says:

    I am very good at typing clearly or writing in general, but I want explain why if Global emission remain constant [“high” constant level] we could not not double global CO2 levels by 2100 AD.

    Now, there many reasons. But I am going pick one.
    So, first of all we have a cold ocean. And it seems possible it’s the coldest ocean we have had in tens of millions [or hundreds of millions] years. And as everyone knows, we got lower CO2 levels 33.9 millions of years ago, because our ocean became colder.
    But ocean average temperature, 33.9 million years ago was much warmer than 3.5 C, which our average ocean temperature, now, and roughly for last 5000 years of global cooling. So we at about 3.5 C but not measured accurately- it’s a guess. Just as our cold average air surface temperature of about 15 C, is a guess,
    So our ocean could be 3.4 or 3.6 C and ocean probably went up and down by .1 +/- or more over thousands of years. And it’s claimed in last 50 year ocean warmed by about .05 C and was more than 90% of all global warming.
    Now, climate scientist want to give another number, let’s hear it, but I would say 33.9 million ago ocean average was around 6 C. And withim last 3 million year our ocean got as warm about 5 C or more.

    Or our ocean at about 3.5 C can suck up more CO2 than ocean of 6 C.
    But we probably had more forests 33 million years ago- Eg, instead mostly grassland in Sahara desert during humid periods, the Sahara desert was probably mostly forests. And our biggest forest [the northern forest] was a lot bigger. And forest in Antarctica and 1/3 of land was not deserts, instead forest and maybe grasslands in drier regions. And no reason North America had it’s huge grassland plains- it’s wetter world, should have more trees. Nor was it crushed by a ice sheet, yet.
    I don’t know why they don’t say trees absorbed the CO2, but they say cold ocean does.
    So much for being brief.
    We had increasing higher CO2 emission per year and now it’s flatten,
    roughly I would say, the nature carbon cycle will catch up.
    Also I think natural gas is much better than Coal, and China will switch over to it, and other countries will use more of it.

    • Ken says:

      “I am very good at typing clearly or writing in general”

      No, you’re not.

      Your writing is legible but the language is stilted. One has to read your writing carefully to understand the point you are trying to make. My guess is English isn’t your first language.

      This is not intended as an insult. Not telling you would leave you with the misconception that your written communications are clear and concise.

      • gbaikie says:

        I am not very good at typing…

        Or perhaps the worst. I think partially due to taking typing class [and not doing well] which makes me partially think that I can type. But if using a pen, it’s even worse, so I can’t blame on just typing.
        But I have good news, about 1/2 I type, I don’t post.
        Sometimes because I just change my mind for some reason…

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gb…it’s not about typing, I type with two fingers, one on each hand. It’s about editing, going over what you write, correcting the mistakes and typos. With two-finger typing I make loads of typos. I did take a typing class in high school and got to 35 WPM, but that is long forgotten.

        In first year university English classes we spent a lot of time on structure. That was mainly for essays. I have forgotten most of it but one thing that remains is starting a new paragraph when you change the theme of a paragraph. By theme, I mean what the paragraph is about.

        In an essay, you have a topic, or thesis statement, declared usually in the first paragraph. Paragraphs that follow should support the thesis statement, making different points that support it. When a point changes direction, start a new paragraph.

        You might notice that news articles are often written in short blurbs, making text easier to read. Technically, they would not be a good form of essay, but they focus on pertinent points, giving each point a new paragraph.

        Like Ken, I am not offering criticism but an encouragement to make your writing more readable. I enjoy reading your observations. I can read through your writing and get the gist of what you are trying to say but many people lack the patience to do that. If you break your writing into smaller paragraphs, even if the form is technically wrong, it makes your writing easier to read and comprehend.

        Of course, people will start criticizing your content.

        I might add that when I was in Junior high school, we were required to select a program of study that would presumably affect us the rest of our lives. To enable us, we wrote tests geared at helping us figure it out. I scored high in science and journalism and I followed the science route. Since then, I guess I have been a frustrated journalist.

        Now watch the smart-assed comments that follow. Fortunately, most won’t reach the end of this post since their comprehension flags after a paragraph or two.

      • gbaikie says:

        “With two-finger typing I make loads of typos. I did take a typing class in high school and got to 35 WPM, but that is long forgotten.”
        I believe my best was 25 WPM.
        Of course this was simply copying something. Or whole point was to type faster copying something. When I write, I am chasing all kinds of rabbits. I was slightly better playing Piano. Music and typing were much better, than Spanish class, and I thought knowing Spanish would have been far more useful than either or both. Anyhow can’t speak or read Spanish, And can not presently do anything on Piano. And I have “an indefinite style of typing which involves bad habits”.
        I know enough about the piano, Spanish, and typing to get into trouble, or one finger typing could perhaps be faster and make less errors.
        But as said, it’s not really about typing, I could make same mistakes with a pen. But actually spelling is problem.
        It’s a hot mess.
        And I might it too much, to give it up.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        You keep being gb. Don’t change a thing.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…one thing I notice in your lead-off post in this thread is the lack of spacing between paragraphs. Maybe that is a formatting issue related to your browser, or whatever. Otherwise, your post is laid out pretty well.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      I wonder if the colder ocean explains the lower relative humidity? As temperature and CO2 have increased, humidity has dropped.

  55. stuart lynne says:

    Two other observations. Est additional weight for EV’s appears to be in the 750lb range. That needs to be factored into mileage numbers.

    Second, EVs claim to have lower maintenance costs but need to be replaced entirely when the battery dies. So compare the amortization of a new vehicle over 10-14 years for an EV vs 20-30 for a good ICE.

    For example, I recently (2019) purchased a 2003 4-runner with 210,000 km on it. Expect it to last another ten to fifteen years and get to 350-400,000. My last one got to 300,000 and only replaced because of an accident.

    So amortization of the purchase price is over 2-3 times as long.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      stuart…”Est additional weight for EVs appears to be in the 750lb range. That needs to be factored into mileage numbers”.


      It also factors into how easily you will die in a crash when your vehicle is flattened like a pancake.

  56. Brooklyn says:


  57. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Germany raises national energy alert over Russia’s “economic attack.”

    The German government formally placed its energy market on a “war footing” yesterday over Russia’s sharp reduction of gas supplies, telling households to reduce consumption and warning that industrial output will be hit.

    Announcing stage two of its three-stage alert system – one stop short of a full emergency where the government would take control of energy distribution and ration gas supply – Germany’s vice chancellor Robert Habeck said it was time to get serious about the consequences of supply cuts following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Habeck is quoted saying: “We must not delude ourselves, cutting gas supplies is an economic attack on us by [Russian president Vladimir] Putin…it is clearly Putin’s strategy to create insecurity, drive up prices and divide us as a society.”

    Reuters also quotes Habeck, who announced: “Gas is from now on in short supply in Germany…Even if you don’t feel it yet: We are in a gas crisis.” Habeck called on all consumers – industry, households and public institutions – to reduce their consumption as much as possible “so that we can get through the winter,” notes the outlet.
    European power prices “surged to the highest level since December” on the news.

    Elsewhere, German industry is accelerating efforts to find alternatives to keep factories running and limit the economic cost of gas supply disruption.

    • Clint R says:

      Germany just closed about half of its nuclear plants. Germany must have the same cult idiots as here.

      Reality always wins.

      • gbaikie says:

        Well, they might not have been good nuclear power plants.
        Governments in general making nuclear power plants, is a bit scary.

      • Clint R says:

        They were good nuclear plants, closed by braindead cult idiots.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I am reading a book by a traveler who is going through the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. He is talking to locals at random and discusses their history with him. If what they say is true, we are in for some serious problems in Europe in the near future.

      There are many displaced Russian people in all of these countries as well as Jews. They are being treated as third class citizens, and don’t think Russia is not keeping an eye on such treatment. Now one of those countries has stupidly cut off rail access Russia relies on to reach Baltic ports.

      I don’t recall if it was Estonia or Latvia who tore down a statue dedicated to an unknown Russian soldier. Based on that, Putin has already made life miserable for many people in that area by causing lineups at the border crossings that last several days. That’s just a start, next will come a cut off of their fuel supplies, etc.

      We in the West seems to have a romantic attachment to those small European countries, including the Ukraine, without knowing anything about them. People in the Baltic states willingly helped the Nazis eliminate Jews, taking on the job with glee. Same in the Ukraine.

      One thing revealed in the book is what a shambles has been created by the European Union. I did not get the issues till I realized from first hand accounts how it has affected many Europeans. The biggest issue is wholesale privatization whereby people are being forced off the lands of their birthplace by privateers. Zelensky has specialized in such idiocy in the Ukraine.

  58. gbaikie says:

    Weather is about the atmosphere
    Global Climate is about the ocean temperature

    • gbaikie says:

      This thing is not allowing me to post. And trying to do in bits:

      • gbaikie says:

        We measure air temperature and average it over 30 years.
        Everyone knows we living in ice house climate.
        We are in ice house climate because our ocean is cold.
        Enormous events could happen- super volcano or 1 km diameter
        impacting Earth. And we are still in an ice house climate

  59. gbaikie says:

    UK government is doing right thing, but whether any government do anything remains the question. And you might say UK is decade late or decade early, or at no time could they do it.
    Anyhow, UK making nuclear reactors and they plan to do something with space power satellites.
    Oh, and they focusing on making space ports. And I think South Korea just had first successful rocket to orbit.

    Anyways, what is important is what is happening with SpaceX Starship.
    SpaceX is obviously an incredible company. And that encourages other rocket launch companies, by what it does, is an unknowable/interesting X-factor in all of this.
    One could say, Spacex was what NASA was waiting for, and NASA helped.
    Though internally there was fight within the NASA bureaucracy, and also weirdly, there are still having this fight.
    A lot of things hinge on SpaceX. For example what UK govt wants to do, will depend on it.
    Or without SpaceX, I would say space power satellite can not done this soon.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      You simply can’t clutter our atmosphere with thousands of satellites without a disastrous outcome. I like the concept of SpaceX but they should be more responsible about their satellite launching program.

      • gbaikie says:

        Nothing compared to using anti-satellite weapon on satellite in LEO:

        “The Nov. 15 test involved the intentional destruction of a defunct Russian satellite using a ground-based missile, resulting in the scattering of an estimated 1,500 pieces of debris into orbit.

        COMSPOC identified the ISS as the 20th most imperiled spacecraft in the first 24 hours after the A-235/P-19 Nudol ASAT systems interceptor smashed into Russias Cosmos 1408 satellite, Breaking Defense reported Tuesday.

        Dan Oltrogge, COMSPOCs integrated operations and research director, said the possibility of a catastrophic collision with the ISS will continue to grow over time as debris pieces spiral downward from the impact point into the Earths atmosphere.”

        Or no one thinks it’s possible starlink sats are going to hit ISS- as both are at a known positions.

        “On Monday, the United States became the first country to adopt a voluntary moratorium on the destructive testing of direct-ascent anti-satellite (DA-ASAT) missile systems. These weapons generally involve missiles that launch from the Earths surface to destroy a satellite passing overhead. The testing of these weaponsconducted in recent years by China, India, Russia, and the United Statescreates debris that can remain in low Earth orbit (LEO) for years if not decades, threatening other satellites. Though theres no international legal framework prohibiting these types of tests, other countries should follow the United States in voluntarily refraining from destructive, DA-ASAT testing.”

        ‘Mission Shakti’: India’s first anti-satellite missile system that destroyed a LEO satellite
        TIMESOFINDIA.COM / Updated: Mar 27, 2019, 15:51 IST

        Etc, with China and others in future.

    • Ken says:

      Grammar tip: You can start a sentence with a conjunction but it is not usually a good practice. You have a bad habit of using conjunctions such as ‘or’ in your writing.

  60. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”the US Standard Atmosphere is based on a model of temperature vs. pressure height and includes the adiabatic lapse rate in the tropophere. That model starts at a surface temperature of 15 C (288 K), then declines linearly to a tropopause ranging between 12,000 and 20,000 meters. Gordo points to a separate range from NASA of 5 to 9 miles which is not the tropophere, as Gordo incorrectly states”.


    12,000 meters – 20,000 metres is about 7.5 – 12 miles. NASA claimed 5 – 9 miles, big deal. It depends where the altitude of the troposphere is measured.

    And, yes, I can criticize atmospheric physics if it is wrong. There is no such thing as an adiabatic column of air. Adiabatic means heat cannot leave or enter the column which is a load of malarkey. There is absolutely nothing in the atmosphere can stop heat, as air molecules, leaving or entering the column.

    That’s not what bothers me about the lapse rate theory, however, it’s the stupidity as follows…

    from wiki…

    “The temperature profile of the atmosphere is a result of an interaction between thermal conduction, thermal radiation, and natural convection”.

    This is nonsense. Apparently natural convection can only operate vertically and not laterally. Also, the statement completely ignores pressure and offers no explanation for why the pressure has gotten lower at the same time as the temperature. In other words, it completely ignores the Ideal Gas Law.


    “When a parcel of air expands, it pushes on the air around it, doing thermodynamic work. An expansion or contraction of an air parcel without inward or outward heat transfer is an adiabatic process. Air has low thermal conductivity, and the bodies of air involved are very large, so transfer of heat by conduction is negligibly small. Also, in such expansion and contraction, intra-atmospheric radiative heat transfer is relatively slow and so negligible. Since the upward-moving and expanding parcel does work but gains no heat, it loses internal energy so that its temperature decreases”.


    They have applied an adiabatic process incorrectly to the atmosphere. How the heck do air molecules expand or contract without a temperature change. Expansion means the molecules move laterally as well as vertically, and that motion is heat transfer.

    How does air push on air, for cripes sake? Air has no surface to push against and the distance between molecules is immense compared to the size of the molecule. There is no way work is being done between molecules of air at the concentration of air molecules, especially at higher altitudes.

    In a solid, work is done internally since all the atoms are joined by electron bonds, and they vibrate against each other. That does not happen in air with no container.

    They claim correctly that transfer of heat via conduction is small in air then they ignore the transfer of heat by convection, after admitting transfer by convection is a major component of heat transfer in the atmosphere. They just finished telling us hot air rises by convection but presumably it cannot spread laterally into cooler air masses by the same convection.

    They claim the internal energy of a heated air parcels loses temperature as it expands. They completely miss the point that it is expanding because the pressure has been reduced by a lowered gravitational field.

    Lapse rate theory cannot explain reduced pressure with altitude. In other words, in atmospheric physics, they are taught incorrectly that gravity has nothing to do with pressure and temperature.

    In summary, the lapse rate theory is plain bad science.

    • Swenson says:

      The lapse rate is just the difference in measured temperature at different altitudes, per unit altitude. It is not obvious to some that there is a temperature gradient between the surface (which is above the nominal 3K or so of outer space), and outer space itself.

      And of course, as one moves from the hotter surface to to the near zero at the limits of the atmosphere, the temperature must drop. The rate at which this temperature changes is the lapse rate. Nothing mysterious at all.

      The atmosphere is turbulent and tricky. Temperature inversions tip the lapse rate on its head. The thickness of the troposphere and the temperature of the surface beneath it change constantly. Standard atmospheres are a convenient fiction, subject to actual measurement at any given time.

      Not only that, but the concept of temperature varies with altitude. The thermosphere may achieve temperatures of 2500 C, but you would be unable to even boil an egg using this supposed high temperature heat!

      All in all, just another meaningless diversion designed to impress the uninformed, by those who should know better.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Not only that, but the concept of temperature varies with altitude.”

        No, the concept stays the same. 300 K at 1 atm or pressure or 1000 atm or 0.001 atm means exactly the same thing. All have the same average KE per particle.

      • Swenson says:


        You fool. You obviously don’t understand that a 2500 K atmosphere at the surface is completely different from a 2500 K atmosphere at 0.0001 bar, in its effects.

        You are no doubt stupid enough to believe that temperatures can be measured in watts per unit area!

        Go on, tell me what the “average KE per particle” of ice and liquid water – both emitting the same W/m2 via a Leslie cube. Oh dear, cat got your tongue?

        Go away and learn some physics.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        yes, Tim, but the temperature is not the same at sea level as it is at 30,000 feet, is it? Neither is the pressure. In fact the pressure is about 1/3rd the level at 30,000 feet and so is the temperature.

        You seem to presume there is no relationship between the two, so I take it you don’t think pressure reduces with reduced gravitational force. You probably believe the pseudo-science in the adiabatic lapse rate theory that temperature in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. In other words, heat causes itself to dissipate.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo wrote:

      the statement completely ignores pressure and offers no explanation for why the pressure has gotten lower at the same time as the temperature. In other words, it completely ignores the Ideal Gas Law.

      You might notice from your link to the US Standard Atmosphere that the temperature in the troposphere where natural convection occurs, the temperature declines linearly with altitude. Trouble is, the pressure exhibits a logarithmic decline with altitude. For example, the 500 HPa pressure (half way thru the atmosphere) is roughly 5 KM, while 250 HPa is at roughly 10 KM, etc. In other words, the relationship between pressure and temperature is not linear in the troposphere. Multitudes of measurements within the tropopause support that observation.

      Gordo goes off track again, writing:

      Lapse rate theory cannot explain reduced pressure with altitude. In other words, in atmospheric physics, they are taught incorrectly that gravity has nothing to do with pressure and temperature.

      We live at the bottom of an ocean of air, which is a compressible fluid. The pressure at any level is a function of the depth of that level within that fluid. The pressure is not a linear function of depth, as it is for the almost incompressible fluid called water, but a logarithmic one. Lapse rate computations take that into account as a given, but start at the surface and work upwards.

  61. Gordon Robertson says:

    ent…”Thats a big part of the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases convert part of the upward SB radiation into DWLR which warms whatever absorbs that DWLR”.


    Direct contravention of the 2nd law. DWLR moves from cooler gases in the atmosphere toward a warmer surface that allegedly produced the GHG heat. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler region, by its own means, to a warmer region.

    Furthermore, a recycling of heat from surface to atmosphere to surface, in order to increase the heat level of the surface, is perpetual motion. You cannot transfer heat over a cycle and end up with more heat.

    Clausius developed the 2nd law partly to counter an argument by Carnot that a heat engine had no losses. It is intuitively obvious there has to be losses but Clausius proved it using heat engine theory.

    In the same manner, there are extensive losses of heat at the surface due to radiation. GHGs absorb only about 6% of surface radiation and returns an even smaller portion to the surface via back-radiation. Even if the BR is absorbed, how can it possibly make up for the losses to produce a gain?

    That’s why we have a 2nd law.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “… to counter an argument by Carnot that a heat engine had no losses.”

      Really? I would be fascinated to find a reference to such an idea. Carnot is famous for finding a thermodynamic cycle with the maximum possible efficiency. His famous cycle always has losses of heat to a cold reservoir. This cycle is EXACTLY in line with the 2nd Law.

      • Clint R says:

        Folkerts, if you’re so interested in references, where’s your reference that two 315W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K. It’s been months now, and you haven’t provided one.

        There isn’t one, you phony.

      • Swenson says:


        If you’re so fascinated, why don’t you try to find a reference, instead of being an idiot?

        How much are you prepared to donate to a charity of my choosing if I can quote Carnot’s exact words as he wrote them, saying that no heat was lost in the production of motive power?

        Nothing at all?

        You are a clown. Why don’t you think before hammering away on your keyboard trying to appear intelligent?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Sorry, Tim, Clausius was driven to find a solution to Carnot’s error, hence the 2nd law.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Gordon, you are welcome to simply repeat your claim. That does nothing to strengthen what you said.

        I was simply asking you to support your claim. A claim that seemed dubious given Carnot’s work on the inherent inefficiency of heat engines. Indeed, Carnot did this work decades BEFORE Clausius.
        “The historical origin of the second law of thermodynamics was in Sadi Carnot’s theoretical analysis of the flow of heat in steam engines (1824).” etc

        Carnot’s work was not in error. It simply was not yet a complete statement of the 2nd Law. It seems you have doubled done on your own error.

      • Swenson says:


        I see you are unable or unwilling to find the reference which confirms your stupidity.

        Instead, you exhibit your usual patronising semantic excuses for being an idiot.

        If you think a statement seems dubious, dig up some facts to support yourself.

        Science is based on disproof, you goose. As Einstein said “A thousand experiments cannot prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”

        Go away and learn the scientific method.

  62. Swenson says:

    “Carbonic acid, in fact, is to a great extent the nutriment of plants ; and inasmuch as animals, in the long run, de rive their food from the vegetable world, this very gas, which at first sight might be regarded as a deadly constituent of the atmosphere, is the main sustainer both of vegetable and animal life.”

    Wise words uttered over a century ago by Professor John Tyndall.

    Who here seriously advocates reducing the sustenance required for our ever growing population? Maybe you choose as your hero Svante Arrhenius, the avowed champion of eugenics and “racial hygiene” (also known as “ethnic cleansing”). Maybe you don’t realise that Erroneous Arrhenius hoped that increased CO2 would lead to a more amenable climate, anyway!

    I go with Tyndall. Burn more hydrocarbons, and replace the CO2 and H2O turned into fossil fuels in eons gone by. Show your preference for food over famine!

    Let the climate nutters starve while they freeze in the dark, trying to bend reality to their insane desires.

  63. Gordon Robertson says:

    I have mentioned NOAA’s explanation for heat domes like the one that parked itself over the Pacific NW of North America last June (2021) leading alarmists to claim it as proof of climate change.

    NOAA claims it is related to La Nina.


    • Entropic man says:


      An opportunity for a logical statement.

      The first line comes from RLH, the second line from NASA.

      Global warming causes more La Ninas.

      La Ninas cause heat domes.

      Global warming causes more heat domes.

  64. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”The convection in the tropopause is the result of warm, moist air with less density being lifted upwards by the hydrostatic forcing from cooler, drier air in the area. That air cools as it is lifted and the water vapor condenses, warming the air, which promotes further lift. Ultimately, at the tropopause, the lifting stops and the air mixes with the surrounding cooler air which causes the now denser air to sink”.


    You are saying dry, hot air over the Sahara cannot rise.

    You don’t think the heated air stops rising because it enters lower pressure air at higher altitudes??? Maybe you have not noticed that pressure drops with altitude and it doesn’t care about atmospheric layers.

    There is no particular reason why I chose the next link, it was the first hit on Google.

    “As altitude rises, air pressure drops. In other words, if the indicated altitude is high, the air pressure is low. This happens for two reasons. The first reason is gravity. Earth’s gravity pulls air as close to the surface as possible. The second reason is density. As altitude increases, the amount of gas molecules in the air decreasesthe air becomes less dense than air nearer to sea level. This is what meteorologists and mountaineers mean by “thin air.”


    They don’t seem to get it that the density is lower due to gravity as well. Gravitational force varies with altitude according to the inverse square law. The difference isn’t much but it’s easily enough to affect masses as small as a molecule.

    Gravity does exert more force on air molecules closer to the surface and the air density is high. As gravity weaken, there is less of a force on the air molecules and the density decreases. By 30,000 feet the density is 1/3rd the density at sea level.

    Density is weight per unit volume. As there are less molecules per unit volume, the density drops. So does the pressure.

    So, you have dense, heated air from the surface rising through ever decreasing density levels of air. As it moves through these regions it has to expand into them laterally. That’s heat transfer laterally. Eventually, the heated air will expand so much that it’s molecules will be very thin and the temperature will drop naturally.

    No dissipation required, Swannie, the heat simply disappears…poof!!! Nothing left to radiate to space. Although it is claimed energy can be neither created nor destroyed, that is a bit of a generalization. We have no idea what energy is, only that it can motivate matter to do certain things. If we don’t know what it is, how can be claim it cannot be created or destroyed?

    In electrical theory, we know energy is related to the natural energy of electrical charges on electrons. If we get enough electrons together, they want to spread out due to mutual repulsion. Still, the energy that is in their charge is natural and does not disappear.

    However, the same electrons in air molecules, that heat when they are brought closer together, or acquire it from hotter bodies, can lose the heat by spreading farther apart. They still retain their charges, and the molecules retain their properties, they simply lose heat. Energy is conserved, it’s just not thermal energy.

    Any radiation by CO2 molecules must take place at much lower altitudes where the molecules have significant energy. R. W. Wood reckoned that would happen within a few feet of the surface.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo babbled incoherently:

      No dissipation required, Swannie, the heat simply disappearspoof!!! Nothing left to radiate to space. Although it is claimed energy can be neither created nor destroyed, that is a bit of a generalization.

      Energy is conserved, its just not thermal energy.

      Calling Dr. Clausius, we have a violation of the First Law!

      • Swenson says:

        Your attempted sarcasm may be a fizzer.

        As the Earth cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, where did all that energy go?

        It left the Earth system, you dimwit! Never to be seen again! Disappeared!

        Only stupid and ignorant fools believe that “energy budgets” based on “energy out equals energy in”, in contravention of the principles of known physical laws, have any use in establishing temperatures of any part of the Earth’s surface. Go on, try to calculate the surface temperature where you are right now, based on some “energy budget”. You can’t do it, and neither can anybody else.

        That’s what thermometers are for, and you probably cant even figure out why they don’t measure watts per square meter, or some similar stupid and irrelevant quantity.. Am I right, or am I right?

  65. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    “DE SAUSSURE, FOURIER, M. POUILLET, and Mr. HOPEINS regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate.

    Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate.

    Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air; while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.

    It is not therefore necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere, to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.”

    The Bakerian Lecture.

    Author(s): John Tyndall. February 7, 1861.

    • Clint R says:

      TM, have you figured out where you’re going to store all that 8,880 billion barrels of oil? That’s 8,850 billion barrels more than we can use each year.

      (It’s almost as if you don’t know what you’re talking about, huh?)

  66. Bob S. says:

    Here’s an interesting study comparing the well-to-wheel efficiency of EVs vs ICEs.


  67. gbaikie says:

    “Time: Exploit the Ocean to Build Our Green Future
    Essay by Eric Worrall

    Time Magazine painting a glorious green vision of massive exploitation of unspoilt marine wilderness to build our renewable energy powered future.

    The Ocean Is Climate Changes First Victim and Last Resort


    JUNE 23, 2022 7:00 AM EDT

    Rain forests may be known as the planets lungs, but its when standing before the seas, with their crashing waves and ceaselessly cycling tides, that we feel the earth breathe. The ocean, say scientists, is the source of all life on earth. It is also, say philosophers, the embodiment of lifes greatest terror: the unknown and uncontrollable.”

    Hmm: “say philosophers, the embodiment of lifes greatest terror: the unknown and uncontrollable.”

    Well, unknown and it seems uncontrollable- but, not getting how that is life’s greatest terror.
    Maybe Ken could explain how it’s life’s greatest terror.

    Apparently, Time mag favors ocean settlements.

    • Ken says:

      Try reading Earnest Hemingway ‘Old Man and the Sea’ for some clues.

      Another literary reference:

      Brandy (Youre a Fine Girl) Lyrics

      [Verse 1]
      There’s a port on a western bay
      And it serves a hundred ships a day
      Lonely sailors pass the time away
      And talk about their homes

      [Verse 2]
      And there’s a girl in this harbor town
      And she works layin’ whiskey down
      They say “Brandy, fetch another round”
      She serves them whiskey and wine

      [Chorus 1]
      The sailors say, “Brandy, you’re a fine girl
      (You’re a fine girl)
      What a good wife you would be
      (Such a fine girl)
      Yeah, your eyes could steal a sailor from the sea”

      [Verse 3]
      Brandy wears a braided chain
      Made of finest silver from the north of Spain
      A locket that bears the name
      Of a man that Brandy loved

      [Verse 4]
      He came on a summer’s day
      Bringing gifts from far away
      But he made it clear he couldn’t stay
      No harbor was his home

      [Chorus 2]
      The sailor said, “Brandy, you’re a fine girl
      (You’re a fine girl)
      What a good wife you would be
      (Such a fine girl)
      But my life, my love and my lady is the sea”

      Yeah, Brandy used to watch his eyes
      When he told his sailor’s story
      She could feel the ocean fall and rise
      She saw its raging glory
      But he had always told the truth
      Lord, he was an honest man
      And Brandy does her best to understand

      [Verse 5]
      At night when the bars close down
      Brandy walks through a silent town
      And loves a man who’s not around
      She still can hear him say

      She hears him say, “Brandy, you’re a fine girl
      (You’re a fine girl)
      What a good wife you would be
      (Such a fine girl)
      But my life, my love and my lady is the sea
      It is, yes, it is”

      “Brandy, you’re a fine girl
      (You’re a fine girl)
      What a good wife you would be
      (Such a fine girl)
      But my life, my love and my lady is the sea
      It is, it is, yes, it is”

    • Ken says:

      I recall the lyrics:

      She could feel the ocean ~full of life~
      She saw its raging glory

      The bit in Hemingway quote: The old man respected the sea, unlike some of the younger, richer fishermen. They referred to the sea as a man. “…spoke of her as el mar which is masculine.” (p.30) This was considered improper to the older fishermen, as it was spoken of like a place or a contestant. The old man always referred to the sea as a female, like a mother. “He always thought of the sea as la mar which is what people call her in Spanish when they love her.” (p.29) He saw the sea as a woman, a woman that gave or withheld favors. She was unpredictable because “The moon affects her as it does a woman.”

      I guess you have to spend time in the ocean to understand.

      Please show some respect and refrain from exploiting the ocean for your ‘malo’ delusions of grandeur.

      • gbaikie says:

        Ships have improved a lot in the last 70 years.

      • Ken says:

        The human capacity for not making mistakes has not improved:


        You can find stories of dozens of sinkings every year. The common thread is that someone made an error and the situation escalated.

        And you want to encourage people to live in environments where one ‘stupid’ mistake will kill.

      • gbaikie says:

        “The human capacity for not making mistakes has not improved:”

        That why you build redundant systems.
        And also why you don’t want governments making them- for
        a number of reasons.
        One reason is that governments tend to kill people.
        I would not have much faith in this UN thing:

        Nor this:
        {which might not be governmental- but it is very expensive}.
        But if governments or others want do experimental things, that could
        be helpful.
        But as I said, I think the focus should be making cheap floating breakwaters.

        And I like idea of making surfing areas- which obviously would be in front of any other breakwaters.

        And you could start with making a surfing area. And in good weather
        drag barge out there to help make it better surfing area.
        Then with good surfing, make another breakwater for a floating sandy public beach. And build a town around the beach. But need all infrastructure for a town, water treatment and power and freshwater, and etc.
        So a house could be seaworthy, but not necessarily designed to live in it during Cat 5 storm without any kind breakwater.
        And it might be safer to not live in the house during Cat 5 storm even with breakwaters designed to withstand such storms, but the house should have good chance of not getting much damage from a Cat 5 hurricane.
        Of course another aspect is getting forecasts of Cat 5 hurricane and moving ocean settlement to better location. But it seems, it could be
        a problem to move a massive settlement faster than say, 2 mph.

      • gbaikie says:

        One thing to consider if living in an ocean settlement is the air conditioning of your home.
        Selecting Air Conditioning for Your Boat
        “Why Ventilate

        Proper ventilation is important for the maintenance of your boat and is a necessity for the comfort of you and your crew. A good ventilation system will:

        Reduce moisture and humidity below deck when the boat is left unattended
        Reduce the chances of musty air development caused by trapped moisture and humidity in the boat
        Help electronics and fabrics last longer by maintaining a drier climate
        Reduce the likelihood of osmotic blisters caused by moist air saturation of the hull
        Do You Need Air Conditioning On A Houseboat?
        “Air conditioning is a common luxury that many of us take for granted unless we dont have it! If you are planning on buying or renting a houseboat you are probably wondering if you need air conditioning on your houseboat.”
        “Whether you need to have air conditioning on board your boat or not is dependant on a few different factors:

        Your Location
        Your Comfort
        Water Temperature

        If you in Canada [which it seems like bad place for ocean settlements] warming our house might be more of an issue.
        If living in Campbell River:
        “BC Ferries runs between downtown Campbell River and Quathiaski Cove Ferry Terminal on Quadra Island; Vehicles and Passengers; Distance: 1.8 nautical miles …”
        Or there not much room in between this strait, and have strong current and various kinds of traffic.
        I tend to think an ocean settlement in California is at least 2 to 3 km from the shore. And State of California governs out to 3 miles and would tend to want avoid Federal controlled waters and/or involve distances less far than Channel Islands which are somewhere around 20 miles from Coast. Though Texas or Florida might better, except they seem bad for surfing and have to on have to west coast of Vancouver Island for any kind of surfing.
        But due to politics, it doesn’t likely one will have ocean settlements with US or Canada.

      • Ken says:

        First time I saw this film of a square rigger going around the Horn was in Queen of the North. I don’t know how you could watch any footage like this and still think you could build a settlement at sea.


      • gbaikie says:

        “I dont know how you could watch any footage like this and still think you could build a settlement at sea.”

        Or a land settlement in Florida.

        As said, ocean settlements on Earth, will be caused by exploration of Mars.

        Though you could also wait for New Orleans to continue to sink.
        But it will a long wait, if waiting for sea level rise.

    • Ken says:

      Someone thought ‘green’ energy projects for Tofino (the North End of Pacific Rim National Park) would be a great idea and would act as a tourist attraction. Several schemes to exploit tides currents and waves were proposed.

      None of the proposed schemes considered the importance of the ocean for migrating whales, marine mammals, birds, and fish that rely on the riparian zones for their very survival.

      None of the schemes considered Pacific Rim already is a major tourist attraction because of the whales, marine mammals, birds and fish.

      Stay Out! The ocean isn’t a place for little boy’s delusional dreams.

  68. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Probably nothing…

    Japan records hottest June day amid energy squeeze.

    TOKYO, June 25 (Reuters) – A city in eastern Japan logged the country’s highest temperature for a June day on Saturday, breaking above 40 Celsius, the weather bureau said.

    The heat-wave, which the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) expects to persist throughout the summer, came as the government called on households and businesses to save electricity to avoid possible power crunch until September.

    A weather station recorded a temperature of 40.2C (104.36F) on Saturday afternoon, in Isesaki, a city 85 kilometres (53 miles) northwest of Tokyo, according to JMA.

    Another weather station in central Tokyo logged 35.4C earlier in the day, marking the earliest arrival since records began in 1875 of an above 35C day in the capital, considered extreme heat in Japan.

    On Saturday, JMA and the environment ministry issued a heat stroke alert in six of the country’s 47 prefectures, recommending people to remain indoors and use air conditioners.

    In its latest three-month weather forecast released this week, JMA said this summer will be hotter than regular years in northern, eastern and western Japan, due to factors such as the global warming and La Nina.

    The forecast adds a concern for the country, which faces tighter energy supply due to the slow restart of nuclear power, thermal plant shutdowns and geopolitical risks heightened after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

  69. Swenson says:


    I suppose you have a reason for quoting Tyndall, but I fail to see what you think you are trying to achieve.

    Heres some more Tyndall for you –

    “The effect is much increased by elevation. At 10,000 feet, in December, at 9 a.m., I saw the mercury mount to 132, while the temperature of shaded snow hard by was 22. At 13,100 feet, in January, at 9 a.m., it has stood at 98, with a difference of 68.2, and at 10 a.m. at 114, with a difference of 81.4, whilst the radiating thermometer on the snow had fallen at sunrise to 0.7.
    These enormous differences between the shaded and the unshaded air, and between the air and the snow, are, no doubt, due to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at these elevations. The air is incompetent to check either the solar or the terrestrial radiation, and hence the maximum heat in the sun and the maximum cold in the shade must stand very wide apart. The difference between Calcutta and the plains of India is accounted for in the same way.”

    Tyndall is pointing out that reducing the amount of CO2 and H2O between the sun and the thermometer increases the temperature. Just physics, demonstrated by measurement.

    Stupid and ignorant climate cultists ignore reality, and are incapable of comprehending the words of brilliant natural philosophers like Tyndall, who backed up their speculations with experiment. If experimental results did not agree with speculation, the speculation was obviously wrong, and was revised.

    As Tyndall did, in his published works subsequent to the Bakerian lectures.

    Read them and weep. No global warming. No greenhouse effect. Just experimental results demonstrating the complete opposite – completely ignored by stupid and ignorant cultists such as yourself.

    • gbaikie says:

      A greenhouse global climate has more global water vapor.
      Or it’s average temperature of ocean instead of being 3.5 C is about 10 C.
      In our cold and dry Ice Age, one can have hotter days, though you have more colder, days but it’s a drier world with more extreme weather.
      Earth currently has 1/3rd of it’s land area as deserts.
      In greenhouse globalA climate, there would be far less deserts in the world.
      And wouldn’t have ice sheet covering North America at any time. Though one could have glaciers at high elevation, just as we have glaciers at higher elevation in our tropics.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      Swenson, you boofhead.

      Those are not the words of John Tyndall. He is quoting J. D. Hooker from ‘Himalayan Journal,’ 1st edit. Vol. ii. P. 407.

      In the previous paragraph Tyndall wrote:

      “The radiant power of a vapour is proportional to its absorbent power. Experiments on the dynamic radiation of dried and undried air prove the superiority of the latter as a radiator.”

      Tyndall described the greenhouse effect.

      • Clint R says:

        TM, that Tyndall quote doesn’t mean what you believe it means.

        It’s referring to “absorp.tion” and “emission”. EVERYTHING absorbs and emits photons.

        You don’t understand any of this.

      • Swenson says:


        Tyndall quoted what he agreed with, you donkey. Do you really think he bothers quoting others just for fun?

        Here’s another piece he quotes –

        “M. Martins has recently added to our knowledge by making observations on the heating of the soil at great elevations. He finds on the summit of the Pic du Midi the heat of the soil exposed to the sun, above that of the air, to be twice as great as in the valley at the base of the mountain.”

        Gee, The surface temperature of the soil exposed to the sun increases as the amount of aqueous vapour (laughingly referred to as a “greenhouse gas” by cultists) between the sun and the soil decreases. No greenhouse effect to be seen. Reality’s a bitch, ain’t it?

        Tyndall gives many other examples of observations both personal and recorded by others, to support his hypotheses about the properties of certain gases.

        No greenhouse effect.

        In any case, maybe you don’t realise that Tyndall revised his thinking on many matters after 1861. You should look at his book “Heat – a mode of motion”, 6th Ed., if you have not done so already. Read it in its entirety – most people don’t, and leap to the wrong conclusions, just as you have.

        Or you can believe the faker, fraud, scofflaw, and deadbeat Michael Mann. Or maybe the ignorant pretend scientist Gavin Schmidt. Go ahead – be as delusional as you like. My care factor remains at zero.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        maguff…”Tyndall described the greenhouse effect”.


        No so, he described IR absorbent gases in a tube in a lab.

  70. gbaikie says:

    June 24, 2022
    New study solves long-standing mystery of what may have triggered ice age
    by Daniel Stolte, University of Arizona
    Linked from: https://instapundit.com/

  71. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Every new passenger car sold in the world will be electric by 2040, says Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods
    Jun 25 2022

    Even Exxon Mobil thinks electric vehicles are the future.

    The oil giant is predicting that by 2040, every new passenger car sold in the world will be electric, CEO Darren Woods told CNBC in an interview. In 2021, just 9% of all passenger car sales were electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrids, according to market research company Canalys. That number is up 109% from 2020 says Canalys.

    In light of its modeling, Woods said Exxon Mobil is evaluating how the decline in gasoline sales could impact its business.

    Woods, who spent a part of his career on the chemical side of the company’s operations, says chemicals will be key to keeping the company profitable during the clean energy transition. The plastics that Exxon Mobil produces can be used in the manufacturing of electric vehicles.

    ExxonMobil’s calculations predicted that oil demand in 2040 would be equivalent to what the world needed in 2013 or 2014. Woods explained to CNBC that the company was still profitable at that time.

    Woods seemed unfazed by the prediction, saying “that change will not make or break this business or this industry quite frankly.”


    • gbaikie says:

      The world is not US or even if include China {and Europe}.
      What going to be happening in rest of world by say 2030.
      That Germany seems to think it’s CO2 emission [or direct it takes] matters, globally, is insane. But also almost as crazy to imagine it matter in regards to US, also.

      • gbaikie says:

        ExxonMobil held total assets worth 338.9 billion U.S. dollars in 2021.
        Elon Musk net worth is 234.5 billion USD
        And should be 1 trillion fairly soon.
        And Tesla: “Tesla’s market capitalization currently sits at $735 billion.”
        Which accounts some/most of Musk net worth.
        But SpaceX should be worth more or as much as Tesla, soon.

      • gbaikie says:

        But any city is worth about 1 trillion dollars, and Mars city will worth about 1 trillion dollars.
        And any petty dictator that “owns everything” Ie, Cuban or North Korea is “worth” trillions.
        But companies value depends upon the profits generated and future value of what they will do. And dictator aren’t a growth company they more like the MOB- not really worth much. Or like a garbage dump.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        I like Elon, but I think his net worth has a better chance of being less than one billion than greater than one trillion.

      • gbaikie says:

        Elon Musk decided to pay 11 billion dollars in income taxes, I guess so he could say he paid more than anyone else.

      • gbaikie says:

        Ted Turner who once upon a time was largest land owner of the US said he wanted to give the UN 5 billion dollars. But I don’t know if ever did it.
        Ted Turner imagines the UN does not get enough money.
        Of course people have donated more to various causes more than 11 billion, but not to US government.
        Most would regard it, as a hopeless cause.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        The US government could confiscate all the wealth from all the people in the US and it would only cut the national debt by about 30%.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Also, electric cars will never be the dominant mode of personal transportation.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        It will be hybrid in some form.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Also, the planet’s technology is plateauing. It will be hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of years before we see significant advancement. Probably not until the next interglacial.

      • gbaikie says:

        A fully reusable rocket, has never been done.
        A fully reusable first second rocket, has been done, by one
        person, Elon Musk.
        And Musk hopes to do make a fully reusable rocket.
        NASA dared to dream it, but failed, badly.
        NASA once paid the skunk works, about 1 billion dollars, but
        never even got a test item for the billion dollars. All NASA got
        was report of failure to make the main tank which was going to done
        carbon fiber.
        Musk was thinking of using carbon fiber but after few million wasted, decided against it- and went with stainless steel.

      • gbaikie says:

        Damn: “A fully reusable first second rocket,”
        should have been “a fully reusable first stage rocket”
        And also reusing the second stage fairing- that never been done
        before, either. But some are now trying. And also other will get to point of reusing a first stage rocket.

      • gbaikie says:

        part of what Musk is doing is 3 D printing. A lot or all of his rocket engines are being 3 D printing. New rocket companies are 3 D printed most of rocket. 3 D printing will continue to advance and become every cheaper.
        Or other using 3 D printing will increase the technology until people are 3 D printing their socks- or anything.

        What is odd, is if you could cheaply 3 D print a rocket, it might cheaper not to reuse it. Or a better rocket in future could be 3 D printed rocket which is expended rather than reused. Which one lead to expended single use cars [or something].

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Xerox printers make the best rocket engines.

  72. Clint R says:

    The recent snow storm/system changed Greenland’s SMB from boringly average to way above average.


    Hope the island doesn’t tip over….

    • Ken says:

      Its not way above average.

      • Clint R says:

        50,000 million tonnes above average.

        I guess that’s not much to someone that doesn’t have a clue about any of this.

      • Ken says:

        Perhaps you are looking at a different diagram than at the link?

        Its only marginally above average and well within the grey zone delineating max and min values.

      • Clint R says:

        I just wanted to find out if you knew how to read the chart.

        Obviously this stuff is way over your head.

      • Ken says:

        Obviously you savor the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who are ignorant of only ordinary things.

      • Clint R says:

        It’s snowing again, on the ice sheet. See if you can find an adult to explain the chart to you.

      • Nate says:

        Heee haw..

  73. gbaikie says:

    If you measure the ocean average temperature over a period of 1 second, 1 day, or 1 year. You know Earth’s global average surface temperature.
    If measure global air surface temperature over 17 years, 30 years, or 50 years, you have a fairly good guess about the global average surface temperature.

    • RLH says:

      You will only have an average of the points you measure which is not quite the same thing.

      • gbaikie says:

        Another way saying it, is air surface temperature is proxy for the actual average surface temperature which largely the average temperature of ocean. The heat of Earth’s global climate is the heat of the ocean.
        Also the temperature of ocean surface is or control global average surface temperature. The average global surface temperature is about
        17 C and average global land is about 10 C.
        Average global ocean surface temperature “sets” the average global air temperature. And ocean warms and land cools.
        Also ocean surface temperature is more of weather thing, winds mixes surface ocean temperature- or it chaotic- affected by butterflies flapping their wings. Whereas average ocean is a state which lasts hundreds and thousands of years. Having 1/3 of land being desert {a climate] is related to how cold the ocean is. Being in an interglacial period is dependent on average ocean temperature. And being in ice house or greenhouse global climate depends on the average temperature of the ocean.
        Knowing average ocean temperature allows you to predict global air temperature, whereas global air temperature, doesn’t give any predictive, value.

      • RLH says:

        Go study sampling theorem and the SBL/PBL.

  74. gbaikie says:

    No one can predict the future in 100 year from now.
    We will map our galaxy. But some might say we have done that already, but we haven’t. And will not really “usefully” mapped our galaxy within 100 years. We have not even mapped Earth surface, we just found some 6000 year old site. And no doubt find more ancient site from maps we have.
    Or there is more to mapping then taking pictures.
    I can confidently say that in 100 years, the ocean will not have warmed and cooled much- or global climate will have not changed.
    Towns on Mars are quite likely.
    Mining space rocks rocks, are likely, sample returns are returning, and we going to do more of that. Large pieces of space rocks will be “art”- or no one doing much good art, anyhow {right?}. And all art comes from science or related in some way.
    Have sub orbital travel on Mars and on Earth.
    mars towns would want space power satellites. Or you a whole planet without roads or million of miles of power lines. Why repeat this on Mars. It’s so,, pre-space age. But maybe as piece of art.
    Anyways, lots of stuff.

  75. Gordon Robertson says:

    maguff…”JMA said this summer will be hotter than regular years in northern, eastern and western Japan, due to factors such as the global warming and La Nina”.


    A global warming of 1C over 170 years, especially with reference to a re-warming from the Little Ice Age that accounts for most of it, can hardly raise local temperatures by 10C or more. The heat dome over Japan is purely La Nina.

    Last June, a heat dome caused by LN conditions parked itself over the Pacific NW of North America. Cities just outside the dome were 10C to 20C lower in temperature. How could 1C warming over 170 years suddenly cause such conditions?

    Let’s do science, not speculation.

  76. gbaikie says:


    I haven’t listen to it yet, but it’s already good.

  77. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…” Energy is conserved, its just not thermal energy.

    Calling Dr. Clausius, we have a violation of the First Law!


    Will you try to stop butt kissing to authority and look at the first law? What other energies are represented besides heat and work? Even the nameless energies in internal energy are heat and work.

    The 1st law says nothing about conservation of energy, it’s about conservation of work and heat.

    With heat, as applied to gases, heat becomes the kinetic energy of the gases both internally and externally. Kinetic energy is not an energy per se, it’s a description of the properties of energy. If the energy is moving, it is kinetic energy. Electrons orbiting in various orbits also have KE.

    With atom and molecules, there is motion internally, as electrons transition and move at different velocities in different orbits. Externally, heat describes the energy of the atoms/molecules in motion. The more densely packed the atoms/molecules, the higher the temperature.

    If you lower the density to a point where collisions are essentially non-existent, there is no more heat. However, the energy related to atoms/molecules, does not disappear nor does the atoms/molecules.

    You need to take a course in physics, Swannie, then take the time to understand what you learned. Not all of it is true.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo wrote more stupid stuff:

      If the energy is moving, it is kinetic energy.

      Externally, heat describes the energy of the atoms/molecules in motion. The more densely packed the atoms/molecules, the higher the temperature.

      Kinetic energy is the result of the motion of mass. In solid bodies, the faster the motion, the greater the temperature. As a solid body warms, it expands, as it cools, it contracts. You got it backwards.

      The same is true for an ideal gas at constant pressure. Remember this?

      PV = nRT

      P/nR = T/V ==> constant

  78. scott allen says:

    EV’s are a nice toy for the rich.
    The issue is the electric grid.
    In california they intend to be totally CO2 free, electricity by 2045. The problem they face is they want to be ICE free by 2035. The increase in electricity needed will be in excess of 65% of what is produced now, and with the elimination of coal/gas/nuclear power plants the production with wind/solar will have to go well over 10 times what is produced now.
    Then add the lack of rain fall, by this time next year lakes Mead and Powell will not produce electricity as water levels will fall too low as will the instate production. Shutting down the nuke plants you are make a recipe for a perfect storm, for black outs and a complete shut down of the very fragile grid. If even, just 1 or 2 transmission lines from out of state power sources (Washington/Oregon) through natural or man made disruption, could lead to a total shut down of California power for weeks

    • Nate says:

      “EVs are a nice toy for the rich.”

      Yes, people said the same thing about cell-phones not long ago.

      Before that it was home computers.

      Before that it was color TVs.

      Before that it was BW TVs.


      • stephen p anderson says:

        There weren’t better alternatives for cell phones, color TVs, or home computers. EVs aren’t an improvement.

      • bobdroege says:

        Wait until you experience the torque of an F150 lightning.

        Buy Goodyear and Firestone stock.

      • Entropic man says:

        On Top Gear yesterday I watched a Rivian electric pickup outdrag a sports car.

        Quite a toy.

        When electric model aircraft first appeared in the 1970s they were heavy and underpowered. Now they consistently outperform ICE models in competition.

        Won’t be long before the only people driving ICE cars are the dinosaurs who get off on the noise and smoke. The rest of us will have moved on the greater acceleration and better torque of EVs.

      • Entropic man says:

        From 31 minutes.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ent…”I watched a Rivian electric pickup outdrag a sports car”.


        Today’s sports cars are gutless wonders. I’d like to see the EV take on a Corvette with a 427 Cu in mill.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Try using that torque to tow a camper. You might get 50 miles before having to recharge.

      • bobdroege says:


        The Stingray may have been one of the quickest cars in its day, but it’s an even match for the F-150 lightning.

        “In 1967, the Corvette 427 was one of the quickest production cars C/D had ever tested, topped only by Shelby Cobras. With two aboard (a passenger was needed to click the stopwatches back then), one coupe clocked 4.7 seconds to 60 mph and 13.6 seconds at 105 mph in the quarter-mile.”

        “”This sucker’s quick,” Biden told reporters as he pulled to a stop after a go in the Lightning. But just how quick is quick, Joe? Well, according to Biden’s finely tuned seat-of-his-Presidential-pants stopwatch, the electric F-150 Lighting can go from zero to 60 mph in 4.4 secondswhich would place it ahead of the mighty F-150 Raptor.”

        Or the 2023 Corvette

        “Engine: 6.2 L V8
        0-60 mph: 3.8 to 3.9 seconds
        Curb weight: 3,535 to 3,637 lbs
        MPG: 16 city / 24 highway

        Place your bets!

  79. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Swenson at 5:33 PM

    Let me set you straight before you choke on that cherry pit.

    Tyndall (on page 421) is clearly saying that the difference (Delta-T) between the soil and air temperatures on the summit of the Pic du Midi is twice as great as the difference between the soil and air temperatures in the valley at the base of the mountain.

    Or, in equation form:

    Delta-Tsummit=2x Delta-Tvalley

    The reason is that the dry mountain air traps less heat than air at the lower elevations which has a higher water vapor content. Classic definition of the greenhouse effect.

    I’ll note that you’ve been confused about this for at least 6 years now, since the days when you used to go by Mike Flynn.

    • Swenson says:


      I quoted Tyndall. If you want people to believe that Tyndall really meant something else that suits you better, fine. I am happy to accept what Tyndall said, rather than what you think he should have said.

      There is no heat trapping. Tyndall explains that gases absorb radiation (like all matter), and emit radiation – all the way to absolute zero, if allowed to do so. Unlike climate cultists, Tyndall performed meticulous experiments, and discarded some early hypotheses when they clashed with experimental results.

      As to your attempt to turn greenhouse fantasy into fact, you cannot define the greenhouse effect (classically or otherwise) because it doesn’t exist!

      You may note what what you like. Neither I, nor anybody else, gives a toss. Fair, considering you are nothing but a tosser. Have you figured out why the Earth has actually cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so? Not enough CO2, do you think?


      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Oh my! It seems my comment struck a nerve, it hit a vein! But I digress.

        Here’s more Tyndall for you. This, from page 419, is the text immediately preceding your cherry picked quote of June 25.

        “The following remarkable passage from Hooker’s ‘Himalayan Journals,’ 1st edit. vol. ii. p. 407, also bears upon the present subject:

        ‘From a multitude of desultory observations I conclude that, at 7,400 feet, 125.7 [degrees], or 67 [degrees] above the temperature of the air, is the average effect of the sun’s rays on a black bulb thermometer… These results, though greatly above those obtained at Calcutta [slightly above sea level], are not much, if at all, above what may be observed on the plains of India.'”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        He should have gone to base camp on Everest, around 18,000 feet, at night, and checked the thermometer.

      • Swenson says:


        Your mind reading abilities are as defective as your knowledge. Your sarcasm is misplaced.

        I have no idea what publication you refer to. Tyndall published many, and I have previously stated the title and edition of my reference. You are referring to something else entirely.

        Maybe you think that multiple observations of black bulb thermometers showing increased temperatures as the amount of so-called greenhouse gases between the sun and the thermometer is reduced should be discarded.

        No greenhouse effect at all – rather the complete opposite, as Tyndall demonstrated with his laboratory experiments.

        You can’t quote Tyndall referring to a greenhouse effect, because he didn’t.

        By the way, try not to confuse Tyndall’s speculations – luminiferous ether, meteoric origin of the Suns heat, etc. – with his factual observations and experiments. Speculations remain fantasy unless verified by experiment.

        Carry on being an idiot. If you run out of facts, try diversion, sarcasm, ad-hom attacks, or anything else that just makes you look like a fact-free climate cultist.

        Be my guest.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        I wasn’t sure if you merely misunderstood Tyndall’s quote, or purposefully misstated its context. Your ensuing hissy fit removes all doubt as to the former. My Cajun friends call that the lagniappe.

      • Swenson says:


        Your response is the usual fact free one used by climate cultists who have been caught out displaying their ignorance.

        More ad-hom accusations, bereft of substance.

        Tyndall wrote what he wrote. Others can read his words, and decide for themselves what he meant.

        Maybe you should read the Tyndall book to which I referred previously. Once you have absorbed it, you might well change your cultist views.

        Or maybe not. After all, Gavin Schmidt still seems to think he is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann still thinks he is a Nobel Prize winner. You might suffer from delusional psychosis, for all I know.

        Luckily, facts are facts, and are not subject to what you or I think.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      maguff…”The reason is that the dry mountain air traps less heat than air at the lower elevations which has a higher water vapor content”.


      Don’t be stupid. It’s the elevation with the reduced temperature and pressure that is the issue, not the relative humidity of the air.

  80. Entropic man says:

    The United States is becoming a right-wing theocracy.

    It is also confused.

    Women are not allowed abortions while teenagers are allowed to buy assault rifles and kill children.

    • Ken says:

      So you’re okay with women having abortions and killing unborn children but your not okay with teenagers killing children?

      Double Standard Much?

      Your message gets even more confused when you consider Roe vs Wade isn’t about right wing theocracy; its about Federal Government respecting the Constitution. Its up to the states to decide about whether or not to allow women to have access to a safe abortion or if they have to visit the baby butcher of shady lane.

      So no theocracy; its still a decision in the hands of elected representatives except now its in the hands of state legislators.

      Its not even a right wing issue.

      No wonder you have no clue about climate. You can’t even understand basic legal separations of power or who is opposed to what.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      What do you mean becoming a theocracy, the US has been a theocracy all along? However, much of the dogma of the so-called religious crowd is to pray in church on Sunday then prey on everyone else during the week.

      I have a lot of time for good-hearted, religious people, I’m talking about the hypocrites who profess to be religious then behave in an anti-religious manner.

      There is more hypocrisy in over-turning R v W than social justice. The issue should be put to a national vote, with men excluded from the vote. Men should have no say in what goes on in a woman’s body.

      Having said that, I am aware of related issues. For some women, an abortion means the difference between life and death. For others, it siply means an end to the inconvenience of an impediment to their sex lives.

      I am not speaking out of naivete, as a younger man I had more than my share of recreational sexual encounters. It did not occur to me at any time that I was messing with a natural human inducement to procreate the species. A woman becoming pregnant was regarded as an an undesired outcome, not a natural process that I had been perverting.

      This is a seriously tough issue. On the one hand, I feel women have the right to deal with issues in their own bodies and that it’s not a man’s business to intervene, unless he’s a doctor. On the other hand, all of us are responsible, women don’t get pregnant on their own. The same men who would use a woman for sex are often the same ones who are anti-abortion. They get a woman pregnant and expect to get off scot-free.

      So, if we are going to go the anti-abortion route, men should be held totally responsible for their part in it. It is not just a woman’s obligation to provide birth control, it is a man’s obligation too, even if that means abstaining.

      • Clint R says:

        The best way to bring some reality to the abortion issue is this:

        Put 4 marbles in a hat. Three are white and one is black. Choose one marble each for the father, the mother, the doctor, and the baby. The one that gets the black marble has to die.

        That gives the baby an even chance.

        That would also stop abortions IMMEDIATELY.

        And that’s why cult idiots hate reality.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        The US isn’t a democracy. It is a Republic. A democracy is mob rule.

      • Entropic man says:

        Like the mob that invaded the Capitol?

      • Ken says:

        You’ve been watching too much CNN.

        The so-called insurrection at the Capitol is objectively nothing but a protest that turned into a riot and went a bit too far.

        Insurrection or invasion it was not.

      • Gordon Robertson says:


    • martin23233 says:

      Entripic…. no you have it so so backwards… the US still deems it illegal for teenagers to kill children. and the US still allows for the murder of the unborn… please stop spewing blinded agenda idiocy.

  81. gbaikie says:

    Economic scientists vs Climate scientists.
    They are comparable.
    One could economic scientists are more famous and respected.
    There is an old joke that is often told about economists: Three economists are hunting ducks. The first shoots 20 meters ahead of the ducks, the second shoots 20 meters behind the ducks, and the third says, “Great job! We got them!”
    How 10 Influential Economists Changed America’s History

    Some things all Economists could predict, generally.
    But there are a lot unknown factors [or forces].

    I think all climate scientist would agree [which doesn’t it’s correct] that we have had the quickest increase in global CO2- about 1/2 way to doubling global CO2 levels within less than 100 years.
    Or they might claim that no period of time in the known universe where went halfway to doubling CO2 levels in such a short time period.
    Yet none of them can say how much warming has occur or will occur from such rapid increase in global CO2 levels.
    Now the higher the CO2 levels the harder it is to double. Or if trying to find time when CO2 levels were increasing so fast, you probably look at time when CO2 levels were at about 200 ppm rather 400 ppm or higher- added 200 ppm in some time period is easier than 400 ppm in the same time period.
    And periods with Low CO2 levels are Ice Ages.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Happer and Winjgaarden wrote on paper on the subject just recently.

      • gbaikie says:

        Short search:
        The greenhouse effect, summary of the Happer and Van Wijngaarden paper

        By Andy May

        This post was updated 9/24/2021 to reflect reader comments.

        On topic Andy May…
        “Facts and Theories, Updated
        Posted by Andy May November 10, 2020Posted in Politics and climate change

      • gbaikie says:

        Reading first one:
        “The green curve is the computed spectrum with all the greenhouses gases present, in their current concentrations, except for CO2. The black and red lines are the computed energy flux for CO2 concentrations of 400 ppm and 800 ppm respectively. The area difference between the green line and the black line is representative of the CO2-caused warming from zero CO2 to todays concentration of 400 ppm. The area difference between 400 and 800 ppm, is much smaller and will result in much less warming.”

        Which related to what I said. But more interesting to me is explanation of why/how CO2 cause cooling. A bit later:
        “But at higher altitudes, in the middle stratosphere, temperature begins to warm with altitude. The warming is due to an increase in ozone (O3) as shown by the dotted red line in the right-hand graph of Figure 2. The increase in unattenuated solar ultraviolet light with altitude also has a warming effect. This means as the emission moves higher, more energy is emitted. This results in cooling, and we see this effect at the bottom of the CO2 divot in Figure 1. The red and the black curves reverse their positions and adding CO2 causes cooling. The reason why is illustrated in Figure 2.”

        As general thing I don’t think CO2 causes cooling due to Venus and it’s general lack of emission. Anyhow never seen argument for it- and that is argument relate to it, for it. [And Venus does not have much of Ozone layer].

      • gbaikie says:

        More searching of Happer and Van Wijngaarden :

        Happer and his co-author, William van Wijngaarden, worked “quickly” to put together research that claims that fears of methane emissions as a driver of climate change are overwrought, said van Wijngaarden, a physicist at York University in Canada.

        Sort of interesting, but I think global climate is ocean.
        But methane hysteria is generally interesting.

      • gbaikie says:

        Media Claims CO2 Traps Heat! A Big Lie or A Big Stupid ???

        I think it both- lying as habit and stupid.
        Happer and Winjgaarden are mentioned in above article.
        It does say ocean do trap heat, ie:
        “The oceans trap the most heat for the longest times. Massachusetts institute of technologys esteemed oceanographers, doctors Karl Wunsch and Patrick Heimbach, calculated the amount of heat trapped in todays oceans. They estimated that solar heated waters may be trapped for 100 to 10,000 years before that heat can circulated to the surface and escape back to the atmosphere.”
        And don’t disagree with anything in particular, and thought this was interesting:
        “The wavelengths dominated by CO2 emit more infrared back to space than Antarcticas cold surface could ideally emit. This surprising result happens because the heat trapped by non-greenhouse molecules comprising the warm air that is constantly transported southward to the Antarctic, continues to collide with CO2 which can then radiate heat out to space.”

        Which does make sense. I would say all article makes sense.
        But Ocean is Earth’s surface temperature, but you also greenhouse effect of just the atmosphere adding to it [which mostly involve the gases has most of energy- 99% of atmospheric mass.

        Which get back the question is 2 atm warmer than 1 atm atmosphere.
        One thing about it, is 2 atm atmosphere would have less effect from the Milankovitch cycles. Though it’s possible we wouldn’t have glaciation period- or a more constant and uniform global temperature.
        For example Earth could have average global air temperature of 10 C.
        As I said, 15 C air is cold. 15 C air at 2 atm, is a lot colder. And
        2 atm air at around 10 C is even colder.
        But we could have more rain, cold bloody rain. And not have glaciation periods.
        But good news is without glaciation periods we wouldn’t have our global warming cult, and a global warming concept, would be close word, heaven.

  82. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 485.7 km/sec
    density: 2.72 protons/cm3
    Daily Sun: 27 Jun 22
    Sunspot number: 33
    Spotless Days
    Current Stretch: 0 days
    2022 total: 1 day (<1%)
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 13.80×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +2.9% Elevated
    48-hr change: -0.8%

    Does anyone have any prediction about solar cycle 25 Max?
    Or what about Solar cycle 26 [when will start and how big]

    What global air temperature, What will be?
    Last month is was +.17 C
    It seems we can't break out our short pause in one month, but start going in that direction. But I not predicting this. It seems it will be around +.17 C

  83. gbaikie says:

    Scott Adams saying spacetime does not exist.
    I thought Gordon might like it:
    Though Scott also think evolution will be disproven- and don’t know
    how much of fan, Gordon is of evolution.
    I haven’t been one. I doubt any theory is really safe, it more matter of how useful it is at the moment. And tend to think spacetime and evolution are somewhat useful, still.

    But I am more interested in fast trajectory to Mars. Which doesn’t seem it has anything to do with spacetime. More of anti-hohmann type thing, but I am not really against hohmann transfers, more like, one can get to more than just one of them- and it “should be” done.
    I think you could get to a Venus to Mars hohmann, starting from Earth.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Evolution has essentially falsified itself.

      • Entropic man says:

        The alternative is a supernatural being with a truly revolting sense of humour.

        I would prefer not to believe in a God who you claim invented river blindness.


      • Entropic man says:

        Not to mention the Ichneumonidae.


      • stephen p anderson says:

        So you would believe in a supernatural being if it had made a world where everyone’s and everything’s life was perfect according to your beliefs?

      • gbaikie says:

        Is there a God for every planet?
        If so, I wonder what God Mars is like.
        But the heavens are up, isn’t it a good idea to go up.
        Down doesn’t seem like good direction, but with Mars it might
        be different.
        And if Martian go down, it doesn’t seem they will forget to go up,

      • Entropic man says:

        Not without evidence for the existence of such a being.

        My default position is that the universe functions fine without gods.

      • Entropic man says:

        It raises the question of form. If a God made aliens in his own image before he created humanity, perhaps God’s true form would be 9ft tall and covered with purple hair.

        Would Stephen willingly worship such a God?

      • gbaikie says:

        “It raises the question of form.”

        Perhaps it’s about the limitation of human
        So, in terms human perception, God is invisible.
        And roughly, because humans are blind and can’t see.

        Some claim we can’t see +90% of the universe:
        “The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can’t see, detect or even comprehend.”
        Of course such astronomers could be completely mistaken.

        But also rather something like the stuff most commonly found in this universe, it’s not like anything in this universe.

        Maybe very small, maybe larger than the universe.

        And Humans are blind, and others might be able to see.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        I don’t worship.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        I just don’t believe the tide can randomly scroll a Shakespeare sonnet on the beach. Even in a trillion years.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…”Scott Adams saying spacetime does not exist.
      I thought Gordon might like it:…. dont know
      how much of fan, Gordon is of evolution”.


      I have made it clear in past posts that I think evolution theory is unmitigated rubbish. Same with spacetime theory.

      Scott seems to think his career was ruined by a statement he made about evolution but I find that hard to accept. I find him to be laborious with his delivery, failing to get to the point in a timely fashion. Had he explained his reasoning for his statement re evolution, it could have made a difference, however, the explanation needs to be far more explicit than a few word of negation.

      Basically, modern evolution theory is genetic theory. It bypasses the initial stages of evolution, known as abiogenesis, which is essentially the creation of life from non-living matter. No one has ever proved such a process possible. It was tried in the 1950s and the result was a pool of tar with the conclusion that life could not have been sustained in the environment required to produce the tar.

      As genetic theory, evolution theory becomes restricted to changes in one species only. There is not a shred of evidence that any species has evolved into another species.

      Natural selection is a primitive idea from Darwin which has no basis in science. It explains nothing.

      Two different mathematicians proved evolution unfeasible. One study based on the effect of covalent bonding, which would be required to form the initial chemical bonds producing life, demonstrated that the chances of covalent bonds blindly producing life as we know it, based on chance, would be billions and billions to one against.

      Another study looked at the entropies involved with such reactions and reached a similar conclusion.

      The clincher for me is that DNA, in the nucleus of each cell, which determines genetic makeup and which produces recipes for maintaining life, has codes in it representing each amino acid required for life.

      ***Codes do not occur by chance!!!!****

      There is no doubt in my mind that we are dealing with intelligent design and my opinion is that of someone who is not religious nor who believes anything.

  84. Gordon Robertson says:

    swannie…”Kinetic energy is the result of the motion of mass. In solid bodies, the faster the motion, the greater the temperature. As a solid body warms, it expands, as it cools, it contracts. You got it backwards.

    The same is true for an ideal gas at constant pressure. Remember this?

    PV = nRT

    P/nR = T/V ==> constant”


    Your physics gets worse by the day. Kinetic energy is defined as energy in motion. Potential energy is energy at rest. That applies to any form of energy, heat, electrical, mechanical, chemical, nuclear, etc.

    The point is, KE is a descriptor, not the energy itself. When heat is defined as the KE of atoms it references an energy that causes atoms to move at varies speeds. The energy is invisible and we know nothing about it, however, we define it based on the environment and its effect on the environment.

    With electrical energy, the basis of the energy is electrical charges. Electrons have a negative charge and protons have a positive charge. However, only electrons are free to move since protons are bound to the nucleii of atoms. We call it electrical energy because it is related to charges. Heat as energy is related to the atoms themselves.


    Why are you talking about constant pressure? I am talking about the atmosphere where pressure varies from the surface upwards. As the pressure varies, so does the temperature, in step with the reducing pressure.

    If you divide the atmosphere into thin-enough layers so that n and V are constant, then layer to layer, T varies directly with P.

    As you go higher and higher, T reduces and that indicates a natural reduction in heat. The thermal energy does not have to go anywhere, it simply disappears.

    • RLH says:

      “thermal energy does not have to go anywhere, it simply disappears”

      Energy cannot just disappear. Unless you want to change a lot of physics.

      • Swenson says:


        Unfortunately for you, you don’t understand that the conservation of energy applies only to a closed system, and the only real closed system is the universe (it would seem).

        Energy which leaves the Earth is no longer available for use within the very un closed Earth system. The Earth has cooled, and the energy it lost in the process is gone, gone, gone.

        Semantics won’t help. The physical laws as currently known do not support the stupid notion of a greenhouse effect. Try sensibly defining such a preposterous thing if you don’t believe me. You can’t do it, can you?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Richard…you don’t need to change physics, the Ideal Gas Law demonstrates clearly that T can be reduced as pressure reduces in a constant volume system.

        T is a measure of heat. If n in the IGL -> 0, P and T -> 0.

        We do know that reducing temperatures to 0K dissipates all heat and it is not conserved. It is not converted to another form, it simply disappears.

        The law about conservation of energy is far too generalized and relating it to the first law is ingenuous. The conservation of energy law is based on the notion that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That idea seems to go back to Einstein, a theoretical physicist, who had a penchant for making outlandish statements based on thought experiments. Neither he nor anyone else has proved that the conservation of energy law is a universal law.

        Naturally when someone with the stature of Einstein makes a statement, it tends to gain longevity based on an appeal to authority rather than on the science itself. For example, in his first paper on relativity, Einstein claimed that time is the hands on a clock. That has to go down as one of the most stupid statements ever made by a scientist, yet few scientists have questioned it.

        If time is anything, and it’s not, it is a measure of the position of the Sun in the sky relative to the rotating Earth. The ancient Egyptians developed a sundial as a rudimentary means of telling the relative time of day by casting a shadow from the Sun onto a horizontal surface.

        Since the sundial does not work at night, time becomes more of a positional scheme for keeping tract of the position of the Earth’s rotation relative to the Sun. That’s why we invented the clock, a machine with gears that can track the rotation of the Earth.

        Einstein’s claim that time is the hands on a clock is ridiculous since the clock is a machine that is synchronized to the Earth’s rotation. What E. failed to grasp is that time has no existence, ergo his space-time theory goes out the window.

        That is not just my opinion, read Louis Essen on it. He invented the atomic clock. Unfortunately, Einstein has reached sainthood and is not to be questioned.

        I would say it’s the same for his other theories, like conservation of energy, E = mc^2, and space-time.

        To understand why heat can simply disappear, one has to understand the relationship of P, V, and T in the IGL. As I pointed out, not all energy disappears with it thus local energy in atoms is conserved. You also need to understand the definition of heat from a physical standpoint.

        Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. To me, that’s more than a reasonable definition since heat is always related to atoms, and in a vacuum with no atoms, there can be no heat. At the time he made the statement, it was in a preliminary discussion of the equivalence of heat and work.

        A more general examination would be to consider what energy is and how the different forms of energy are distinguished. The first question has an easy answer, we have no idea what it is. The second question, as to how energy in different forms is distinguished, has more to do with observation and consensus.

        For example, in the early discussions of an introductory course in electronics or physics, we learn how a glass rod can be charged by rubbing it with silk. Apparently the silk removes electrons from the glass leaving it with a positive charge. If we have two pith balls hanging from a string and we touch the charged rod to one ball, they immediately spring apart. Both have acquired a positive charge and positive charges repel.

        This is a demonstration of electrostatic energy but how does it work? Like gravitational force, no one knows precisely. However, we call that energy electrostatic energy as opposed to the energy associated with atoms in general, which we call heat.

        In summary, we must distinguish one form of energy from another and closely examine the properties of each. Since energy can take diverse forms maybe it’s not an entity as much as a specific phenomenon related to certain conditions.

      • RLH says:

        “Einstein claimed that time is the hands on a clock”

        I think he claimed ‘time periods’ not time itself. There is a difference which you always seem to ignore.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        What’s the difference between a time period and time itself?

        More later.

  85. Gordon Robertson says:

    ken…”The so-called insurrection at the Capitol is objectively nothing but a protest that turned into a riot and went a bit too far”.


    Agreed. There were far worse incidents around the same time, like the riot in Seattle where anarchists barricaded part of the city and people were injured and killed within that area. The mayor sat on her Democrat butt and did nothing till her hand was forced.

    At the White House, a guard died of a heart attack. That was a very unfortunate outcome. Six others died, two by suicide following the event. One protestor was shot by a guard and had the person shot been black, the guard would be facing murder charges.

    One died of a stroke and one was killed in the rush.


    Hardly an insurrection, just a protest gone too far.

    • gbaikie says:

      maybe because a there was lot protestors.
      Most protest don’t have many people involved.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        There were a lot of suspicious “agitators” in the crowd. I think when Republicans take the House they might get to the bottom of that, or at least try. When they were calling for protests in the Capitol my first inclination was to go and be involved. I knew like most that the election was “fishy” and debated several of the leftists on this page. However, when and if there is a secession movement, it will start with the states, not some rowdy crowd at the Capitol. I knew Trump couldn’t do anything because the states choose the electors and Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin were not going to submit another slate of electors. The left know that and is why they had no qualms about cheating. BAMN!

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Also, there will be a House investigation into the geotracking data and mules at some point. It won’t be resolved until Democrats do a great deal of damage.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        I want to find out who orchestrated the big steal. I pretty much know but want to see the evidence, testimony, etc.

      • gbaikie says:

        I don’t do protests, but it’s my understanding that any protest has agitators. And agitators can be part of our government and part of other countries govt, and “private interests”, both domestic and foreign. Just Americans who like any kind of protest- or there because there a crowd in which there might trouble or trouble could be started- or could seen be better than going a bar.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        No doubt about it, agitators await protests so they can get in their and cause trouble.

  86. Ken says:

    What do you tell otherwise intelligent people that chemtrails really is a conspiracy theory.

    I have been running into a number of people who are convinced chemtrails are real. Showing links to videos of aircraft contrails in WW2 where the contrails pinpoint aircraft in the sky for AA batteries doesn’t convince them otherwise.

    • RLH says:

      Wartime is just when you need to add special tanks to aircraft in order to spray chemicals that might some day do something : )

      • Ken says:

        So Germany lost WW2 because of chemtrails. Who knew?

      • RLH says:

        I thought it was the Yanks who won the war. That’s what the movies all say.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        No, we wouldn’t have won the war without the Brits breaking the Enigma. Keira Knightly was instrumental.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Richard… even though I was born a Brit, and my DNA is still Scottish, I have to admit that we could not have won without the Yanks. Roosevelt alone kept our heads above water with much needed supplies long before the US entered the war. Then the Russians baled us out by switching sides.

        Even the Canadians played a major part on and around D-Day. Montgomery, bless his black heart, used primarily Canadian troops to counter the best of the German army at Caen. That eventually allowed Patton to sneak around the flanks and encircle the German army. The point is, it was supposed to take a week to two weeks and Monty was still fumbling the job a month later.

        I am not sure that Monty was not fighting for the Germans. His incompetence suggests either he was really that stupid or he wanted the Germans to win. Mind you, Hitler did a pretty good job of working on our behalf with his major blunders.

      • Ken says:

        Here are some Yanks having a high time of winning the war:


        Wasn’t Keira Knightly a famous pin-up favored by soldiers sailors and airmen?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Ken…Hollywood’s version of WW II is quite different.

        The US did win the Pacific War single-handedly and much to their credit, still made Europe the priority.

        If you have watched the movie, The Great Escape, with Steve McQueen et al, they had US soldiers in key positions. The Escape was performed largely by RAF and commonwealth air force POWs, and only one US man involved, the infamous Johnnie Dodge.

        The main tunneler, Canadian Wally Floody, was played as a US soldier, not airman. Ironically, Hollywood had Floody on site as a consultant. You can see him walking with Steve McQueen in a photo at the following link…


        Something on Johnnie Dodge, a real character.


      • Ken says:


        I learned chess at an early age and have since been an inveterate were-gamer.

        The interest in the war games led to a lot of reading about war. When I grew up the library was chockablock with accounts from every theatre of war in WW2.

        I know who did what in WW2.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        The Vancouver Public Library used to have older books hidden in the stacks. You have to ask for them. Many good true war stories in there.

        I enjoyed reading about the war in Burma…The Forgotten War. Some of the books were found in the hidden stacks.

        Having said that, I have no interest in glorifying war. Just find the courage of people who had to fight both amazing and inspiring. Some pilots flying the bombers were only 19.

      • RLH says:

        I think that breaking the Enigma was the Poles, not the Brits.


      • Entropic man says:

        There was a plan to assassinate Hitler at the Berghof.


        Churchill vetoed it for fear that Hitler might be replaced by someone competent.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I am still trying to understand what is meant by chemtrails. Are they referring to the white trails of water vapour behind a jet flying at considerable altitude?

      • Ken says:

        The vapor trails that trail behind jets are called contrails.

        There is a conspiracy theory that says that the contrails are actually chemtrails where chemical or biological agents are being deliberately introduced to the atmosphere.

        One ‘reason’ would be to introduce particulate matter in order to increase the earth’s albedo for the purpose of climate engineering.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        According to your link, prop planes leave them as well. The props seem to stir up water vapour in the atmosphere.

      • Entropic man says:

        It’s not the propellers, it’s the water vapour in the exhaust gases from the fuel burned.

      • Entropic man says:

        It is not the propellers, The white contrail is condensed water vapour from the engine exhaust gases, whether ICE or jet.

      • Entropic man says:

        Like Ken I grew up on old war memoirs.

        Constance Babbington-Smyth wrote about photo-reconnaisance.

        The high altitude photographic reconnaissance Spitfires found their maximum safe altitude for the day by climbing until they left a contrail and then descending until it disappeared.

      • Ken says:

        Wikipedia article:


        Contrails (/ˈkɒntreɪlz/; short for “condensation trails”) or vapor trails are line-shaped clouds produced by aircraft engine exhaust or changes in air pressure, typically at aircraft cruising altitudes several miles above the Earth’s surface. Contrails are composed primarily of water, in the form of ice crystals. The combination of water vapor in aircraft engine exhaust and the low ambient temperatures that exist at high altitudes allows the formation of the trails. Impurities in the engine exhaust from the fuel, including sulfur compounds (0.05% by weight in jet fuel) provide some of the particles that can serve as sites for water droplet growth in the exhaust and, if water droplets form, they might freeze to form ice particles that compose a contrail.[1] Their formation can also be triggered by changes in air pressure in wingtip vortices or in the air over the entire wing surface.[2] Contrails, and other clouds directly resulting from human activity, are collectively named homogenitus.[3]

        Depending on the temperature and humidity at the altitude the contrails form, they may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for hours and spread to be several miles wide, eventually resembling natural cirrus or altocumulus clouds.[1] Persistent contrails are of particular interest to scientists because they increase the cloudiness of the atmosphere.[1] The resulting cloud forms are formally described as homomutatus,[3] and may resemble cirrus, cirrocumulus, or cirrostratus, and are sometimes called cirrus aviaticus.[4] Some persistent spreading contrails contribute to climate change.[5]

        End quote

      • Ken says:

        One of the chemtrail conspiracy theories is that the planes are deliberately spraying chemicals in order to deliberately increase cloudiness. The conspiracy theory has it that it is being done to affect climate and weather and is causing drought in California and heavy rain in China and etc.

        There has been (and is) discussion of actually doing chemtrails as geo-engineering to counter global warming.

        How do you prove to someone that doing chemtrails isn’t going to work effectively and that the contrails are simply a phenomenon of planes flying in cold wet air?

  87. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    NASA begins return to the moon with low-cost CAPSTONE mission, launched by Rocket Lab

    Rocket Lab (RKLB) launched a small spacecraft bound for the moon from its New Zealand facility early on Tuesday, a mission that represents firsts for both the company and NASA.

    The company’s Electron rocket carried a special version of its Photon satellite platform, which itself is carrying the microwave oven-sized CAPSTONE spacecraft.

    With a price tag just shy of $30 million, NASA hopes the mission will verify that a specific type of moon orbit is suitable for a space station that the agency aims to launch later this decade.

    “Perfect Electron launch!” Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck tweeted Tuesday.

    Gateway’s success does not depend on this data, NASA’s Christopher Baker, executive of the small spacecraft technology program, explained to CNBC before the launch. But he added that CAPSTONE does allow the agency to ground its orbital calculations “in actual data” and give “operational experience in the near-rectilinear Halo orbit.”

    The rocket that launched this mission is just about twice the size of Apollo’s Launch Escape System, which is the teeny little rocket at the very tip of the Saturn V, designed to pull the crew module away in an abort.

    Or another way to look at it is Electron normally has a payload of 300 kg to low earth orbit, but Capstone stretches that capability to get an even smaller payload all the way to a lunar orbit. Saturn V could throw 110,000 kg to low earth orbit, 366 times the payload of Electron.

  88. gbaikie says:

    Blowing up the Moon for Water? Space Miners Aim to Mine Water as Early as 2023

    “In an attempt to fast-track the development on new mining technology, NASA have also launched their latest challenge titled the Break the Ice Lunar Challenge.The challenge has been issued to anyone who can design the system architecture necessary to perform excavations on the lunar surface, with the phase 1 winner of the challenge earning $125,000 with additional cash prizes going to the top 10 runners-up for a total of $500,000. Results will be announced August 13.”

    • gbaikie says:

      “It is thought that the greatest amounts of water-ice deposits can be found at the moons poles inside of craters which feature permanent shadows. If mining the moons frozen water reserves proves effective, then it could serve as a crucial refueling station for missions on their way to Mars. This is beneficial due to the cost of sending fuel into space from Earth, and the fact that it is extremely difficult to launch enough fuel from Earth into space in order to make a complete trip to Mars.”

      Well, Mars could be a large market for lunar water.
      What NASA is doing is Prize type thing. And if it works, it could be essentially be the entire lunar exploration program. Though NASA spending 3 billion dollar for starship and far more billions for other stuff.
      But if it works, it’s 1/2 million for what is needed for lunar exploration program.
      How it works, is if you win first place [or 2nd or 3rd, etc] you could get a company worth billions. But depends luck and depends how you do it- which is true of any business on Earth.
      As Scott Adams pointed out, Elon Musk is his own PR department [which actually works] and costs him no money. Or one could say, Free Money.
      In theory anyone could do it. But….

      But I would say what mineable water does in lower the cost to the Moon. Musk is trying lower the cost of city on Mars.
      And it possible if lunar water is mineable, Musk might discover that Moon could make his Mars City cheaper. Maybe.
      But mineable lunar water will enable lunar bases, and unless Congress with fund it, I think NASA should not make a lunar base, but rather once lunar water is determined to be or not to be mineable, NASA should start it’s crewed Mars program. And other parties [all space agencies in the world AND other players can do lunar bases.

      Or NASA has wanted to explore Mars, and one purpose of NASA exploring the moon, is so NASA can explore Mars.
      Or the Moon is a testbed: Def:
      “a vehicle (such as an airplane) used for testing new equipment (such as engines or weapons systems) broadly : any device, facility, or means for testing something in development.”
      But testbed not in sense some specific vehicle, but in manner testing a broad range of stuff. And would say is more about testing NASA- is there any realistic hope, that NASA could explore Mars.
      Or Exploring Mars is quite a challenge. Or exploring moon could be called a baby step, but it seems testbed is better term.
      You also say NASA could explore the Moon and continue operating ISS.
      Operating ISS and doing Mars program probably should be avoided, but NASA is currently trying to hand off ISS.
      One could say exploring the Moon, might help handing off ISS.
      Of course NASA want to do the Gateway thing. I tend to think of Gateway as part of Mars program. But Gateway seems it limit Mars exploration funding and delay Mars exploration funding. But Lunar base would cause more problems/delay than Gateway.
      If congress wants triple NASA budget, then NASA can keep ISS, Gateway and Explore Mars while having a Lunar base. But let’s not count on such generousness from Congress.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Why would the January 6th Committee put someone on the stand without verifying their testimony? Liz Cheney is undoubtedly more intelligent than that. By doing so, she has disemboweled the entire case against Trump. Maybe Liz did it subconsciously. Perhaps she realized the whole thing was a sham and decided to blow it up single-handedly. I don’t put it beyond Democrats to do something so stupid but not Cheney.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Why is this investigation going on, that is the real question? What happened that is of concern to national security?

        It’s obviously yet another witchhunt to discredit Trump.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        The last election was stolen. They’re uncertain that they can pull it off again because we know how they did it, and they don’t have a pandemic to exploit. Everyone will be watching. Leftists don’t think they can beat Trump fairly, and this time he’ll be more experienced, and they won’t be able to use the Trump Russia collusion BS. They’ll try something. The entire Deep State is on the Democrats’ side. It’s pure evil.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Stephen…if you have noted, Biden has just announced another pandemic. The question arises as to whether the Republicans can more closely monitor the shenanigans in 2022 and 2024.

      • Entropic Man says:

        In England there are several checks and balances which monitor the moral and legal actions of a Prime Minister and remove him/her if they go beyond the limits set by law, custom and practice.

        What checks, balances and removal options does the Constitution provide to recognise and remove a POTUS who goes beyond the limits?

      • Mark B says:

        In the US system the normal options for removal of a rogue president are Impeachment whereby Congress may remove the president or the 25th Amendment which allows the president’s cabinet to make the determination that the president is unfit to fulfill his duties.

        The shortcoming of both is that partisanship may overrule duty to country as it is inherently damaging to the party of the president to cooperate in his removal.

      • Entropic man says:

        We’ve had a similar problem with Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

        Half his party believe that he’s their ticket to reelection.

        The other half think he’s gone so far beyond the limits that he’s unelectable and will drag them down with him.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        No, the purpose of the 25th Amendment is not to remove a “rogue” President. Impeachment then conviction is the only way to remove a “rogue” President.

      • gbaikie says:

        Apparently, she is suppose to be royalty in Wyoming, so she could pick the “decided to blow it up single-handedly” dying as representative only to return from the ashes as Senator or whatever.

  89. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…more on Einstein. I discovered, for the first time, his original 1905 paper on relativity in which he calls it something else.

    Near the beginning, under kinematics, he states:

    “If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by time. We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, That train arrives here at 7 oclock, I mean something like this: The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.

    It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of time by substituting the position of the small hand of my watch for time. And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, orwhat comes to the same thingto evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch”.

    Einstein admits himself that…”…we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by time”. He is saying that his theory of relativity has no physical meaning without a clear understanding of time. He fails to supply that meaning for time, hence his theory has no meaning.

    Nowhere does he define time as to what it is, to Einstein, it is related to a watch or a clock. He admits that time is a definition. Then he goes on to use that definition as the basis of relative time as:

    tB – tA = t’A – tB

    You can read the explanation for yourself at…


    The point is, you cannot simply base time as the hands on a clock without understanding its real derivation. Time is obviously a human invention based on the rotation of the Earth, which is a relative constant. Time cannot dilate without the rotational speed of the Earth changing.

    Then he goes on to talk about rods. We know where that is going, his claim that the physical length of a rod will change as the rod reaches the speed of light.

    As Louis Essen pointed out, Einstein’s theories of relativity are nothing more than conjectures based on thought experiments. I might add to that, on in-house definitions.

    Some scientists have claimed Einsteinian relativity has replaced Newtonian mechanics, which is sheer nonsense. Just about everything we do in engineering is based on Newtonian mechanics and little or nothing on Einsteinian theory. Einstein admitted as much.

    • Entropic man says:

      I think you are confusing time with the measurement of time.

      Distance is the size of the gap between two objects. Inches are the units we use to measure that distance, but as the map is not the terrain inches measure the gap but are not the gap

      Time is the gap between two events. We measure it using clocks or any other phenomenon which occurs at a constant rate. Seconds measured by a clock are the unit for measuring time, but they are not themselves time.

      • RLH says:

        “I think you are confusing time with the measurement of time”


        “Time is the gap between two events”

        With provisions about the distance between the events in space as well as in time (and the speed of light also).

      • Entropic man says:

        Indeed. Einstein’s 1905 paper clearly distinguishes between the simple classical case of events taking place locally, which is the Newtonian assumption and events taking place at a distance.

        The latter is a much more complex problem, and the analysis of the problem of reconciling distance and simultanaity is what led Einstein to Special Relativity.

      • RLH says:

        How do you measure the ‘time’ at something that is approaching you at the speed of light? Any visible change in the position of the hands on a clock on the body, for instance, will arrive at you at the same time they do.

        That is what ‘travelling at the speed of light’ means.

  90. Entropic man says:

    The classical view of time is as a fourth coordinate.

    X,Y, Z and t.

    X, Y, and Z define spatial coordinates relative to objects or a reference frame. You can move freely in any direction.

    t defines the duration from an event.

    In Newtonian physics t is distinct. You can only move in one direction (towards increasing universal entropy) and at a constant rate for all observers.

    This is fine for orbital mechanics, but there are a few devils in the detail.

    • Entropic man says:

      For example, the elliptical orbit of Mercury rotates very slowly anticlockwise over thousands of years. This precession is predicted by Newton’s laws.

      Unfortunately the observed precession is 43 arcseconds/century slower than the Newtonian prediction, as though time were passing slightly slower for Mercury than for Earth.

      Einstein’s theory predicts Mercury’s observed precession exactly.

      • RLH says:

        Care is needed to apply the correct time/distance that Mercury is from the Sun as its orbits. So it is the observed position when light/gravity leaves Mercury not the actual position where Mercury is when that same light/gravity reaches the Sun that you need to use. If that is not applied to Newton’s laws then the wrong result will be calculated.

        Co-incidentally this is based on triangles that use a = sqrt(b^2 + c^2).

      • Entropic man says:

        Indeed. The non-Newtonian behaviour of Mercury’s orbital precession persist even after all necessary corrections to the timing of observations are made.

        Ultimately you are measuring the motion of a line drawn through both foci of Mercury’s elliptical orbit and out to the inertial reference frame defined by distant stars.

        From an Einsteinian perspective the argument is that the curved spacetime of the nearly Sun’s gravity field is slowing time for Mercury relative to the flat spacetime assumed by Newton.

      • RLH says:

        You should note that time of flight of light/gravity needs to be taken into account also.

        Simply looking at things as you portray in an inertial frame without that can lead you to conclude that time is slowing down as you get closer to the star.

        The time of flight taken by light/gravity from planet to the Sun is the hypothesis of the right angle triangle that the actual position, apparent position due to the orbiting velocity and the Sun make. This is the a = sqrt(b^2 + c^2) mentioned above.

        This is remarkably similar to the equation normally used for time in orbital calculations to make ‘time’ slow down and certainly holds true for the velocity/distance that the Mercury/Sun orbital pair requires.

        Newton did not know that light/gravity had a velocity so did not take that into account.

      • RLH says:

        ….is the hypotenuse of the right angle triangle….

  91. Ken says:

    Huge ruling that says EPA doesn’t have climate change authority to curb Green House Gas Emissions.


    • Entropic man says:

      Was this wise?

      The precedent means that you can stop any federal agency in its tracks by claiming in court that what they want to do is important enough to need an Act of Congress.

      It will be much harder for any President, D or R, to actually do anything. Or was that the idea?

      • Ken says:

        Henry VIII clauses are the bane of any democratic government.

        Issues like Climate Change Policy must be decided by elected representatives. In the US that would be Congress and Senate. Its absurd that an unelected unaccountable bureaucrat makes such huge decisions with no way to challenge by the people whose lives are directly and negatively impacted. The ruling so states.

      • Entropic man says:

        I keep losing track of who answers to whom.

        IIRC federal agencies are part of the executive branch and answer to the President.

        Last time I looked, the President was elected. He makes policy and federal agencies carry it out.

        Thus from 2016 Trump made climate policy and the EPA did what he said. Now Biden is President and the EPA follow his policy.

        Could the EPA ruling be part of a strategy to shift the balance of power from the President towards Congress? This would make sense if Republican strategists expect a run of Democrat Presidents and Republican Congresses.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        You’re an outsider, so I’ll give you a little slack. The EPA has no more power than what is codified into Law by Congress. The Executive Branch executes the law. Trump’s EPA eliminated regulations, most of which were unconstitutional. Yes, the President sets policy for the Executive Branch. He isn’t allowed to pick and choose which laws he enforces. However, he does.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Our system does not give Federal Agencies unfettered power, never has. Federal Agencies grab power, that is their nature. Often Congress lets them do it. However, eventually, the states will sue and win, as they did today.

      • Entropic man says:

        Perhaps you need to be an American to understand it.

        To this outsider it looks like a system in which conservatives and liberal cancel each other out and the federal government does nothing while the States go their own way.

        How do you actually achieve a functioning country?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Wow, you’re learning. By the way, we’ve saved your ass at least twice.

      • RLH says:

        In your own mind only.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Biden attacks the Supreme Court, the Senate, and the Constitution while calling the Supreme Court’s ruling destabilizing. Irony.

      • RLH says:

        Trump packed the Supreme Court with right wing justices and now the Republicans want it to stay that way.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Trump appointed originalists.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        What’s staggering to me is we’re your most critical ally, and you want to tear us down. Make us different. Make us more like you. You guys are good at beating up countries like Argentina. Staggers the imagination.

      • RLH says:

        Trump appointed right wing justices. As was his stated aim.

      • Entropic man says:

        “Whats staggering to me is were your most critical ally, and you want to tear us down. ”

        We need to understand our allies as well as we need to understand our enemies.

        Strengths and weaknesses.

        Your weakness is your dysfunctional political system which has allowed you to drift away from science and reality into wishful thinking and superstition.

        When the largest economic and military power on the planet starts making decisions based on a deluded world view her allies become very nervous.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        The political system is temporarily dysfunctional due to a few states. Until the legislatures and people in those states demand election integrity, the system will be dysfunctional. Our system is self-correcting and is the greatest system in the World. Benjamin Franklin stated, “A Republic if you can keep it.” I hope we can keep it. For our sakes and yours.

      • Entropic man says:

        “Our system is self-correcting and is the greatest system in the World. ”

        As I said, you are deluded.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ken…we need a similar ruling here in Canada for both climate change and issues like covid. IMHO, Canadian governments have no right to turn over our lives to unelected officials like those who led us down the garden path re covid.

      • Ken says:

        Our Courts are too slow.

        Example is Action4Canada vs Crown.

        Statement of Claim filed 21 Aug 2021.

        Motion to Strike heard 31 May 2022. Judge still hasn’t decided if he will hear the case.

        Meanwhile people are fired from their jobs or are otherwise having their lives ruined by government overreach on COVID.

        I would argue the Carbon Taxes are causing similar problems by providing the catalyst to destroy our economy. As far as I am aware no one has launched a court case yet.

        We need a more responsive court system in Canada.

  92. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    We are going back to the Moon!

    Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world’s leading space-faring nation.


    But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?


    We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

    JFK’S RICE STADIUM MOON SPEECH September 12, 1962

    • Ken says:

      Thanks for the exciting news.

      What exactly is accomplished by doing the same thing as the 1969 voyages?

      Exciting all the same.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Try to keep up…

        We’re going back to the Moon for scientific discovery, economic benefits, and inspiration for a new generation of explorers: the Artemis Generation. While maintaining American leadership in exploration, we will build a global alliance and explore deep space.

        Artemis is the first step in the next era of human exploration. Together with commercial and international partners, NASA will establish a sustainable presence on the Moon to prepare for missions to Mars.

        We will build an Artemis Base Camp on the surface and the Gateway in lunar orbit. These elements will allow our robots and astronauts to explore more and conduct more science than ever before.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        NASA’s Artemis program is a new era of lunar exploration – one where we will send robots and humans to explore more of the Moon than ever before – this time to stay.

        On the surface, we’ll build a base camp at the South Pole and look for resources like water to help further our exploration.

        Operating in lunar orbit with and without crew will be the Gateway – a new outpost supporting lunar science, sustainable surface operations and missions farther into the solar system, including Mars.

      • Entropic man says:

        The real competitor for the US in space is China.

        They are currently behind in technology but have two long term advantages which will allow them to catch up and pull ahead.

        1) They will soon be the largest economy in the planet (2028?)

        2) They are a one-party dictatorship. This gives them a continuity of policy which the US cannot match.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Sounds like you’re in love.

      • gbaikie says:

        The only reason US beat Soviet Union to the Moon, was because of US private sector.
        You can’t argue this point. Everyone knows it.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ent…”The real competitor for the US in space is China”.


        China steals all it technology from the US.

      • Entropic man says:

        “China steals all it technology from the US.”

        If so, it means that their space programme should progress considerably faster than yours. Actually, most of their hardware has a Russian style, simple and robust rather than the overcomplicated gold plated stuff NASA prefers.

        They’ll also avoid the Proxmired blind alley that the shuttle turned out to be.

      • Entropic man says:

        Stephen Anderson

        ” Sounds like youre in love.”


        I’m a centrist, at least by international standards.

        I wouldn’t choose China’s authoritarian one-party dictatorship.

        Nor would I choose your Right-wing authoritarian oligarchy/theocracy.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        The oligarchs and theocrats are on the left.

      • Entropic man says:

        The rich and the evangelical Christians vote Democrat?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      maguff…”But why, some say, the Moon?”


      That’s easy. The Moon does not rotate on its axis so it’s easier to land.

  93. Tim S says:

    In her (they, their?) dissenting opinion in the EPA case, Justice Kagan quoted the IPCC assessment reports as science. Is she really not aware that they are political documents that are filled with political statements and political directives such as redistribution of wealth?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tim…that’s right, no science is done at IPCC reviews. The reviews themselves are highly politicized. John Christy of UAH recently revealed that the IPCC no longer allows skeptics on the reviews.

      The IPCC language is not science, it all probability theory based on unvalidated climate models.

  94. gbaikie says:

    So everyone agrees the average ocean temperature is global climate.
    But the cargo cult thinks CO2 levels are important.
    So to make any sense what so ever, CO2 levels must affect how heat is lost from the ocean {CO2 can’t add heat to the ocean, CO2 could only prevent heat from ocean from being emitted into Space].
    So, it leave the only question of how much and how.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…”CO2 could only prevent heat from ocean from being emitted into Space…”


      Can’t transmit heat to space. All CO2 can do is absorb about 6% of surface radiation. It is claimed that amount of absorp-tin can slow the rate of heat dissipation from the surface but it’s not nearly enough.

      The whole atmosphere is required to affect heat dissipation via Newton’s Cooling Law and the atmosphere is 99% oxygen and nitrogen. It’s the temperature of the N2/O2 that affects the rate of heat dissipation.

  95. gbaikie says:

    China looks to launch liquid propellant rockets from the seas
    by Andrew Jones June 30, 2022
    Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
    –THE NEW SPACE RACE: China Looks to Launch Liquid Propellant Rockets from the Seas.

    Sea Dragon at last!–

    I like Sea Dragons. Anyhow article says:
    –TALLINN, Estonia Chinese state-owned and commercial companies are developing capabilities to launch liquid propellant rockets from sea platforms to boost the countrys launch options.

    China has already demonstrated the ability to launch the Long March 11 solid rocket from sea platforms. These have been facilitated by a new spaceport near Haiyang in the eastern coastal province of Shandong.

    Now, private firms including Orienspace and the state-owned China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT) are developing larger, liquid propellant Gravity series rockets and adapted Long March 8 launchers for sea launches.–

    A Sea dragon make a Starship look tiny.

  96. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh …”I think that breaking the Enigma was the Poles, not the Brits”.


    The Poles did not break the code, they acquired an enigma machine and gave it to the Brits. It was ultimately cracked at Bletchley Park

    The main problem was adjusting to the codes the machine could produce which could be changed instantly by adjusting the cypher wheels. The code breakers became aware that when the codes were changed, the sender would usually send a simple test name or phrase, which gave the code breakers a clue as to the new encryption.

    Machines were developed at Bletchely Park to aid in decoding the codes. Alan Turing was involved and the machines became the basis of modern computers.

    • RLH says:

      “The Poles did not break the code, they acquired an enigma machine”


      Reda the article at https://www.history.co.uk/articles/the-polish-cryptographers-who-cracked-the-enigma-code

      • RLH says:

        ….Read the article….

      • RLH says:

        “Alastair Denniston. Denniston and the head British cryptanalyst, Dilly Knox, were stunned when they discovered just how advanced Polish codebreaking was. So far, the British had relied on linguists to try to crack Enigma messages. The Poles had proven that the key to cracking the code lay not in linguistics but mathematics”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        The following is closer to the truth yet it is incomplete itself. There are many books written on the SOE and Gubbins and recently I read a good book on Vera Atkins. She was portrayed as a secretary because some of the clowns in Parliament were so mysoginist they would never have stood for a woman literally running SOE. Also, there was professional jealousies with the twits in MI6. If I remember correctly, Vera was on the trip with Gubbins to Poland and it was she who showed them the circuitous route t0 Poland.

        Well worth reading the official history. I think Michael Foote wrote a book on it. There was a lot f professional resentment toward SOE due to their sculduggery. Many naive military leaders thought it ungentlemanly to carry on as SOE did. Fortunately, Churchill loved it.


        “Though the Polish expedition appeared to many to have been a dismal failure, it led to one act that would have incredible significance in the course of the war.

        Polish intelligence had been working on cracking Germanys military codes. Though the work was incomplete, they had made valuable progress, including the capture of a critical piece of equipment”.

        There is no doubt the Poles had brilliant cryptographers but they had neither the time, the location, nor the means to crack the code. The cracking was done at Bletchley Park.

        I got a kick out of reading about brilliant eccentrics like Dilly Knox. There were many eccentrics at Bletchley.

  97. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…” In Newtonian physics t is distinct. You can only move in one direction (towards increasing universal entropy) and at a constant rate for all observers.

    This is fine for orbital mechanics, but there are a few devils in the detail”.


    You have a couple of things confused. One, time does not exist in Newtonian mechanics either. Time is nothing more than an invention for keeping tract of change. The reference point for the observed change is the Earth’s rotational period.

    Secondly, anything moving in a straight line is not moving because of a physical entity called time. Anything at rest can begin moving if, and only if, a force is applied with sufficient intensity to move the mass. Newton II quantifies the motion as f = ma but the only real entities in that relationship are force and mass.

    Acceleration can be regarded in two way: as a natural phenomenon, or as a quantification of motion that describes the relationship between a force and a mass. If force is applied to the wheels of a dragster, we can see the linear change in its velocity without measuring it. That is the phenomenon.

    We can even see a change in acceleration, called ‘jerk’, if the dragster accelerates at 3/4 throttle then the driver applies full throttle. If you are sitting in the back seat of a high powered road machine, the jerk throws you back in the seat.

    If we want to quantify the change in velocity, we need to introduce time. The basic measure of time is the second and it is calculated as 1/86,400th of one Earth rotation. A clock designed to indicate time based on that second is nothing but a machine synchronized to the Earth’s rotation.

    An atomic clock is also designed to produce the same second, even though the basis of its timebase is related to nuclear forces/vibrations, not time. The frequency is very high, however, and needs to be divided down to an interval with the length of a second.

    In other words, time has no existence as a real entity.

    Thirdly, entropy has nothing to do with motion, it is a measure of heat transfer. Clausius invented entropy as a mathematical expression of the 2nd law. Some have incorrectly used it to measure disorder in the universe but the parameters of entropy are based on heat, not motion.

    Fourth, In Newtonian physics, a mass can move in any direction and at different rates wrt to an observer. However, if the observer is moving wrt the mass, it becomes a problem of relative motion…Newtonian relative motion.

    Einstein’s relativity theory is based directly on Newtonian physics. For whatever reason he added a multiplier to time (t) to adjust the time factor in relation to the velocity of a mass compared to the speed of light. He did not explain why he added the multiplier, nor has anyone else explained it. The inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, took exception to Einstein’s theories and claimed Einstein did not understand measurement.

    With regard to the apparent retrograde motion of Mercury and other planets, it can all be worked out using Newtonian relativity. Why no one could figure out the retrograde illusion is related to an observer moving on another body, with relative motion to the observed body, is the mystery. There are times in Earth orbit when Mercury appears to move backwards.

    • Entropic man says:

      So many delusions.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      “…One, time does not exist in Newtonian mechanics either.”

      Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion,…

      Taken from the Scholium in an obscure book titled The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy By Isaac Newton, The Principia for short.

      Your post reminded me of Drunk Physics Vol. 1: The Higgs Boson.

    • Entropic man says:

      “time does not exist in Newtonian mechanics ”





      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ent…I explained all that, obviously you skimmed my post since you claimed I was mired in illusions.

        The problem with you and maguff is your lack of desire to understand physics from a real, physical perspective. If you were serious, you’d point out where to find time as a 4th dimension of space.

        Ironically, Einstein turned his nose up at quantum theory with regard to entanglement theory, yet he felt comfortable talking about an equally intangible subject like time dilation.

        With f = ma, there are only two real, physical entities, force and mass. a = dv/dt =ds2/dt2 is a mathematical construct and has no physical form in that context.

        As far as Newton talking about time as duration, I ask, a duration of what? Newton was offering definitions, not scientific fact. That’s all Einstein did as well. Neither explained what time is, if it is a real, physical entity.

        People speak of the arrow of time. What is it moving through, which medium? And in which direction does it point?

        To save you a lot of time…no pun intended…that arrow points through the human mind as a series of memories. It is an illusion. The human mind is the only entity interested in measuring the relationship between force and mass.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        “With f = ma, there are only two real, physical entities, force and mass. a = dv/dt =ds2/dt2 is a mathematical construct and has no physical form…”


        Why do you think fighter pilots and astronauts wear anti-g suits if acceleration “is a mathematical construct and has no physical form”?

        At least now you acknowledge that time does exist in Newtonian mechanics!

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        GR, here’s a video about the physiological effects on the human body of this “mathematical construct” that you say “has no physical form.” You At Different G-Forces

        It is at just the right level for you.

  98. Mark Shapiro says:

    Cradle to Grave comparisons show that EVs beat ICEs in all but a handful of U.S. counties in producing lower CO2 emissions. Take a look at my video to learn the TRUTH about EVs.


    Dr. Mark

    • gbaikie says:

      But CO2 is needed by plants and 400 ppm is a low level CO2 for plants- they grow better.
      And we are living in an Ice Age, if higher CO2 levels cause are warmer world, it would be a better world.

      The Ice Age we living in is called the “Late Cenozoic Ice Age, or Antarctic Glaciation began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing”.

      We are in an interglacial period which is called Holocene. Over last million year there has been many interglacial periods and they have been warmer than the Holocene interglacial period.
      During warmest parts of these past interglacial periods, the average temperature of the ocean has been warmer than our ocean- which currently has average temperature of about 3.5 C.
      “The Eemian (also called the last interglacial, Sangamonian Stage, Ipswichian, Mikulin, Kaydaky, penultimate,Valdivia or Riss-Wrm) was the interglacial period which began about 130,000 years ago…
      The Eemian climate is believed to have been warmer than the current Holocene.”

      All interglacial period start with rapid increase in global air temperature from the very cold global air temperature of the glaciation and have peak warm period lasting thousands of year. And is followed by gradual cooling which eventually leads to another glaciation period. This also happened with Holocene period and this peak warm period is called, Holocene climatic optimum:
      During this Thermal Maximum our sea levels peaked 1 or 2 meters higher than they are currently. Which a lot less as compared Eemain which: “Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today,” See above wiki link on Eemian.
      And it’s thought during time when ocean was warmest during Eemian the average ocean temperature was 4 C or warmer.

      Or I would say our ocean during Holocene peaked at 4 C or less, as compared to Eemian which was 4 C or more.
      During our Holocene peak, we have ice-free polar sea ice, and Sahara desert was mostly grasslands but with forests, river and lakes [which no longer exist in Sahara, and a lot evidence human settlements which involved fishing activity with these no longer existing rivers and lakes.
      And it claimed the cooling and transformation of Sahara into it’s current desert is largest example of global climate change.
      And many think if we greened the Sahara [again] it would cause global warming.

      • gbaikie says:

        Anyhow, with that said, if we not limiting fossil fuel use, how would electric cars compare to gasoline cars?

      • gbaikie says:

        NASA is giving 1/2 million dollar prize to mine lunar water.
        Why not give 1/2 million dollar prize to mine freshwater in our ocean- or methane hydrate have methane and fresh water. So you also could be mining methane, but prize would be for the amount fresh water you extracted and made from the ocean Methane Hydrates.

        I think it would be better if more vehicles used Methane. Methane is sort of like electric cars with their shorter range, but it seems you could “re-charge” faster with methane.

      • gbaikie says:

        Somewhat related:
        “I started to realize that I had accepted as true certain claims about energy and our environment. Now I began to see those claims were false. For example:

        I used to think solar and wind power were the best ways to reduce CO2 emissions. But the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions during the past 15 years (over 60%) has come from switching from coal to natural gas.

        I used to think that the world was transitioning to solar, wind, and batteries. This, too, was false. Trillions of dollars were spent on wind and solar projects over the last 20 years, yet the worlds dependence on fossil fuels declined only 3 percentage points, from 87% to 84%.

        I used to believe nuclear energy was dangerous and nuclear waste was a big problem. In fact, nuclear is the safest and most reliable way to generate low-emission electricity, and it provides the best chance of reducing CO2 emissions.”
        Linked from http://www.transterrestrial.com/

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gb…”the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions during the past 15 years (over 60%) has come from switching from coal to natural gas”.


        Is that reduction in CO2 or particulate matter?

  99. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    How Far Can a Gas Truck & an Electric Ford Lightning Go Towing the Same Camper On ONE Fill-up?

    Spoiler alert: The outcome of this test was never in question. EV’s are great for commuter cars. Long hauls, especially towing operations are not there yet.

  100. The MPGE figures of EVs are “wall to wheel” figures that include losses incurred while charging the battery. Multiply these by combined generation, transmission and distribution efficiency of providing electricity from fossil fuels which was about 36% as of 2019.
    Meanwhile, average MPG of US 2020 model year cars, SUVs and light trucks is 25.4, not 39. For only 2020 cars, this figure is 30.7 MPG, not 39.

    • For considering natural gas alone because that’s what gets mostly increased when electricity demand increases, combined generation, transmission and distribution efficiency is 39.3% using Dr. Spencer’s figures. Average MPGE of a US electric vehicle is about 97. Multiplying these results in 37 MPGE, to compare to 30.7 MPG for fossil fuel cars and 25.4 MPG for fossil fuel cars, light trucks and SUVs combined.

  101. David Kelly says:

    The EPA ratings for EVs is measured from-grid, so losses due to conversion and storage are already accounted for. My 2013 Tesla Model S 85 is rated 380Wh/mile, a number I regularly beat. The car often claims 280Wh/mile but that is measured from-battery and my measured from-grid charging losses are about 15%. If car says it used 40 kWh then it takes 46-48 kWh from the grid to charge back to the same level.

    When I installed my EVSE I also purchased a utility meter on eBay for just that 50A circuit ($25! But the box to mount it in was $35 at Lowes). So I have a good means of monitoring my from-grid use.

    Guess in 2016 I undertook a similar calculation “on back of a napkin”, didn’t save formal analysis. Went looking for EPA emission vs power output of coal-fired electric power generation. They don’t publish these numbers in easy units, there were several gyrations to get from BTU into kWh. I didn’t find power grid losses to be as great as you state, and remember coal conversion efficiency was better than you state. Because “everyone” is fixated on CO2 I worked on determining CO2/mile for my Tesla. The EPA publishes CO2/mile for gasoline automobiles. What I found if electricity was 100% coal-fired my Tesla is very close to a typical gasoline automobile at 30-33 MPG. A current model Tesla Model 3 should be in the 40 MPG-CO2 range.

    • Mark Wapples says:

      We have similar issues in the UK.

      The car manufacturers calculate a CO2 based on a hypothetical balance of renewables and fossil fuels.
      However in reality as they are extra to the normal electricity usage they should be calculated on the basis of gas and coal fired generation which is employed to cover the shortfall of renewables.
      This gives a figure of 30 to 40 mpg which is significantly lower than my deisel engined car.
      Hybrid technology should be the way forward until renewables become reliable and, only for the reduction of pollution in built up areas.

  102. Bruno says:

    The bottom line is quite simple: if EV vehicles were economically efficient, there would be no need to put subsidies on them, and they would quickly overwhelm the market without having to do anything special.
    This is a basic law of economics that most people seem to have forgotten…

  103. Greg says:

    How much has efficient lighting contributed to offset the balance of electricity generated from other sources.

  104. Peter Growcott says:

    Hi Roy,

    I live in the UK. I stumbled on your analysis after I’d independently come to much the same conclusion. When referenced back to PRIMARY ENERGY & untaxed pricing, an EV is LESS thermal efficient & twice as costly as cheap, small, lightweight ICE cars. (PS note we Brits use imperial gallons, not US ones)…

    My car is light (835 kg), has a relatively high compression ratio (11:1) 1 litre 3 pot engine which uses thin (0W20) oil. Driven frugally, it will return 72 mpg (16 mpl). Now typically a litre of petrol contains 9.5 kWh of energy so my car’s doing the equivalent of 1.68 miles per kWh, so half what a typical EV does right? No, wrong because you’re comparing primary energy (fuel) with secondary energy (leccy). At the margin, power for EVs must come from burning gas. On a combined cycle gas plant, you need two kWh worth of natural gas to make 1 kWh of EV usable leccy. So if an EV does 3 miles/kWh, it’s really doing 1.5 miles per kWh of natural gas. In terms of CO2 emissions, the two are roughly equivalent in terms of primary energy & this is BEFORE power transmission losses are accounted for.

    Now let’s compare costs. My Jet (Conoco-Philips) station sells unleaded for 1.64/litre. At 72 mpg or 16 mpl, I currently pay 10.25 p/mile. However this includes a big wodge of tax. Deduct the 86p/litre of tax & I’m paying 79p/litre for petrol or 4.94 p/untaxed mile. Now the price of natural gas isn’t easy to define. Right now, it’s 4.00/therm or 13.65 p/kWh. That’s a wholesale, untaxed price so let’s go with that. The typical EV does 1.5 miles per kWh of natural gas so it costs 9.1p/untaxed mile. That’s almost DOUBLE what I’m paying!

    Here, the plan is to ban sales of ALL new ICEs, including non plug-in hybrids in 2030. I can’t help but think this plan has been very badly thought through. We seem to be tying ourselves up in knots to do something at enormous expense which may not ultimately have the desired outcome of improving of halting global warming!

  105. jselleck893 says:

    To illustrate how EVs create fewer emissions than their counterparts, Paltsev points to MITs Insights Into Future Mobility study from 2019. Read more