Three Strikes

September 21, 2019

A large percentage of the public doesn’t know that global warming is happening now

Because you can’t actually see it on a thermometer.

that it’s caused by record levels of CO2 from fossil fuel burning,

that 99% of climate scientists agree on this and that the changes are effectively permanent.

David Romps…

US Hurricanes

September 9, 2019


Megafauna Extinctions

August 9, 2019

The Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene megafauna extinctions took place over 10’s of thousands of years at different times on different continents (Koch & Barnosky, 2006). Megafauna extinctions tended to occur shortly after significant human populations arrived.

The African megafauna extinction occurred about 1.4 million years ago when our ancestors learned how to hunt.

Australia’s megafauna extinction occurred about 40,000 years ago, shortly after large numbers of humans arrived.  “Australia lost 14 of its 16 genera of Pleistocene mammalian megafauna along with all megafaunal reptiles” (Koch & Barnosky, 2006). By 40,000 years ago, Australia had already lost more than 90% its larger species (Prideaux et al., 2010).

Mammoths, Mastodons and Stegodons cruised through every Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycle right up until the one where humans and recently domesticated wolves began hunting them globally.

North American (Rancholabrean) extinctions appear to have occurred much later and possibly in at least two phases.  While 16 of 35 Rancholabrean extinctions took place during the terminal Pleistocene (~2,000 yr period coincident with the Younger Dryas, the other 19 genera disappeared from the North American fossil record thousands of years earlier (Faith & Surovell, 2009).    2,000 years is a geological blink of the eye. Something catastrophic may have happened in North America during the terminal Pleistocene. This was also when the Folsom culture replaced the Clovis culture.  A bolide is certainly a possibility for some of the Rancholabrean extinctions.

However, the overarching element is human predation and habitat encroachment.

It was probably a combination of factors. Deglaciation would have been very disruptive to habitats. We and our dogs were probably just the “straw that broke the camelops back.”


Faith, J. Tyler, Todd A. Surovell.  “Synchronous extinction of North America’s Pleistocene mammals.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2009, 106 (49) 20641-20645; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0908153106

Koch, Paul L. and Anthony D. Barnosky. “Late Quaternary Extinctions: State of the Debate.”  Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2006. 37:215–50

Prideaux, Gavin J., Grant A. Gully, Aidan M. C. Couzens, Linda K. Ayliffe, Nathan R. Jankowski, Zenobia Jacobs, Richard G. Roberts, John C. Hellstrom, Michael K. Gagan, Lindsay M. Hatcher.  “Timing and dynamics of Late Pleistocene mammal extinctions in southwestern Australia.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2010, 107 (51) 22157-22162; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1011073107


August 6, 2019


Tarawa is a coral atoll formed on top of a volcanic seamount which rises steeply from 4000 m of water. The atoll is roughly triangular in plan and comprises a chain of small islands on the south and northeast sides which partially enclose a central lagoon (Fig. 2). The islands are generally 2-3 m above present sea level. The surface material of most of the islands is coral sand. In places, cemented coral hardpan forms a terrace 1.5-2 m above sea level. The first four bores drilled on Bonriki and Buariki intersected coral sand to depths of 7.5-11.5 m below the ground surface (Appendix 1). Beneath the sand, these bores intersected buried coral reef, 1.5-12.0 m thick. Beneath the buried coral reef, some of the bores encountered interbedded limestone and sand; others had a limestone sequence extending to 30 m below surface, the maximum depth of drilling. The total thickness of the limestone sequence is unknown. ^The nearest atoll to Tarawa that has previously been drilled is Funafuti in the Ellice Islands (Fig. 1), where volcanic basement was not encountered even at 330 m. The nearest atoll where basement has been intersected is Enewetok in the Marshall Islands, where basalt was encountered beneath 1300 m of limestone.

Tarawa was 2-3 m above sea level in 1981… What is it today? “Highest elevation 3 m (10 ft)

What was the elevation when the U.S. Marine Corps landed in 1943?

Intelligence reports from Betio were sobering. The island, devoid of natural defilade positions and narrow enough to limit maneuver room, favored the defenders. Betio was less than three miles long, no broader than 800 yards at its widest point and contained no natural elevation higher than 10 feet above sea level. “Every place on the island can be covered by direct rifle and machine gun fire.” observed Edson.

Betio, Tarawa Atoll 1943

Betio, Tarawa Atoll today


Climate Sensitivity

August 3, 2019


I digitized the instrumental (observation-derived) ECS estimates…

TCR is approximately 2/3 of ECS.

Average ECS = 2.29 σ = 0.93
Average TCR = 1.53 σ = 0.63

Thank Zeke for proving my point.

Calcite Precipitation

August 2, 2019

CO2(g) ⇔ CO2(aq)

CO2(aq) + H2O ⇔ HCO3(aq) + H+(aq)

HCO3(aq) ⇔ CO32–(aq) + H+(aq)

Ca2+(aq) + 2 HCO3(aq) ⇔ CaCO3 + CO2(aq) + H2O

Duane in Florida

August 1, 2019

Still raging against the dying of the light, I see.

You can rant and rave all you like, but the cost of PV has plummeted in the last decade, it is much cheaper than coal. PV works great during daytime, requires no storage, and daytime just happens to be the peak demand portion of the 24 hour day. Wind too tends to peak in the daylight hours, though it also continues all night long. Storage is no big deal – either use battery banks, or use renewables to store energy in hydrogen, which is a fantastic vehicle fuel.


Demand for electricity varies throughout the day, but it does so in fairly predictable ways. It rises in the morning to a little hump before noon, levels out over midday, and then rises to a higher hump in the evening, when everyone gets home from work and turns on their TVs and stoves.

Demand 1s highest from late afternoon through early evening, when people are generally getting home from work.

ercot demand

California is even more skewed towards the early evening…
cal demand
Scientific American

Demand peaks when solar output is falling off…


This causes the “Duck Curve”…


Which worsens, with each MW of solar added to the grid…


One of the solutions suggested was to make more accurate estimates of distributed solar power to avoid deploying too much utility scale solar power.

Renewables will never replace all other power sources .. and does not need to. The silly dreamers who think it can are certainly worth mocking. But you mock yourselves when you rant and rave against reality.

The post was nothing but reality, apart from the Common Dreams quotes… Try reading it.

In my state of Florida, our largest electric utility, Florida Power and Light, is also the world’s largest producer of renewable energy, the majority of that being PV. And our electric rates are among the lowest in the nation, 9 point something cents per KW-hr. FPL is a very well managed utility, and they deliver the goods at an attractive price point. They also use nuclear and a lot of combined cycle natural gas, and are now virtually devoid of coal-fueled power.

FPL is very well managed. However, the average residential rate in Florida is $11.7¢/kWh… a little below the the national average (13¢/kWh) and about the same as Texas (12¢/kWh), maybe we have too much wind afterall…


The vast majority of Florida’s electricity comes from natural gas-fired generation and coal-fired generation currently tops nonhydroelectric renewables by a wide margin.  Solar power is a subset of nonhydroelectric renewables.


Coal is going down, there is no doubt about it. Coal will not completely disappear, but the source that used to account for well over half of all US electrical power generation is now headed down to less than 20%. You cannot deny that, no matter how much you rant and rave and mock as “stupid” all those people who are living in the real world and do not attempt to deny reality.

Deny it? I wrote that in the post… Try reading it.

Stick to the science of climate change – that is where this site and its writers and editors are on firm ground. But every time you guys go off on one of your silly anti-renewables rants, you simply discredit yourselves as raving deniers of reality.

wpid-data-laughs-o.gif Duane, Data is laughing at you.



July 29, 2019


([Ca2+] × [CO3
2-] ) / [CaCO3] = Ω

([Ca2+]×[CO32-])/[CaCO3] = Ω

When Ω =1, seawater is in equilibrium.   When Ωarg = 1,  aragonite neither dissolves, nor precipitates.  All other factors held equal, if you add more CO2, Ωarg < 1, and aragonite dissolves.  Not a big deal at 400-600 ppmv CO2, potentially a serious problem at 1,000-2,000 ppmv CO2, if that increase occurs over a few hundred years instead of millions of years as it has in the past.

Survey says…

July 27, 2019

According to the 2016 survey of the American Meteorological Society (Maibach et al., 2016)…

Climate change is real: 96%

Only 96% of “scientists” agree that climate change is real.

Climate change is man-made: 67%

Only 67% of “scientists” characterized climate change as real and man-made.

Climate Change has been harmful over the past 50 years: 38%

Only 38% of “scientists” characterized climate change as having been dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the past 50 years.

Climate change will be dangerous over the next 50 years: 50%

Only 50% of “scientists” characterized climate change as being dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the next 50 years.

Climate change can largely be ignored: 40%

Only 18% of “scientists” thought that there was any point in destroying our economy in order to prevent the weather from changing. Fully 41% of “scientists” indicated that climate change might as well be “ignored.”

In summary…


Furthermore… 53% of AMS survey respondents agreed there was conflict about climate change among atmospheric scientists and 63% thought the conflict was a good thing (Stenhouse et al. 2017)

This article analyzes open-ended survey responses to understand how members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) perceive conflict within the AMS over global warming. Of all survey respondents, 53% agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects, and 53% saw at least some unproductive aspects.

I won’t even venture into my branch of science… Because more than half of government and academic economic geologists disagree with the 67% majority of the AMS (Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009).


Doran, P. T., and Zimmerman, M. K. ( 2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate ChangeEos Trans. AGU903), 22– 23, doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.

Maibach, E., Perkins, D., Francis, Z., Myers, T., Englbom, A., et al. (2016). A 2016 National
Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication.

Stenhouse, N., A. Harper, X. Cai, S. Cobb, A. Nicotera, and E. Maibach2017Conflict about Climate Change at the American Meteorological Society: Meteorologists’ Views on a Scientific and Organizational Controversy. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 98219–223,

EIA AEO2019 Tables

July 23, 2019