Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Roger Ramjets]

I have a large metal roof and the amount of condensation it "traps" is minimal. One downspout drains onto a concrete pad and generates a wet spot that's about half a square meter in size while another, one that leads into a subsurface drain, audibly drips at a rate of one drip per second for about half a day. Maybe enough to keep a pot of geraniums alive.

You have no clue.

Here's some literature that actually talks about the water situation at Talatan.

Nothing said about dew, but hey, anything to keep the Sinoworship alive.

Poisoning the well

From your link:-

Due to the serious desertification, wind-blown sand covers the solar panels, so a large number of grass seeds were heavily planted to mitigate sand hazards. The grass unexpectedly grows fast, and the water used for cleaning PV panels infiltrates beneath the ground, which also promotes the growth of grass.

You said the cleaning water caused it, this says it's only one factor. The other factors are the panels blocking wind and shading the ground, both of which reduce evaporation. This can make a big difference in the desert.

The German example is a no brainer, look at the greenery surrounding the solar park, Rain, they get lots of rain and using sheep to control it gives us nice fuzzy feelings as well as some nice fuzzy wool.

You just can't stop doing it, can you? Language like this is unscientific and manipulative.

 

[dann]

Truthout on bsky, July 17, 2026
“We need Nuremberg trials for Big Oil,” the Sunrise Movement wrote on social media as wildfires rage across Canada. The fossil fuel industry knew for decades that its products were largely responsible for the climate crisis, yet chose to push climate denial instead.

Calls Grow for Accountability from Fossil Fuel Execs Amid Climate-Fueled Fires (truthout.org, July 17, 2026)
"We need Nuremberg trials for Big Oil," the Sunrise Movement wrote on social media as wildfires rage across Canada.

Photo text:

People near the Brooklyn Bridge look on as wildfire smoke from Canada causes hazy conditions in New York City, on July 16, 2026. Out-of-control wildfires in Ontario, Canada, prompted evacuations and sent dangerous smoke billowing into the U.S. where millions of people were exposed to the unhealthy air.

I wonder what it takes for Big Oil execs to get tired of winning? Or for Carney?

Adam Radwanski on bsky, July 17, 2026
Not the kind of climate change column I’ve normally written, or want to write, but I felt I had to. www.thestar.com/business/opi...

I've covered climate policy for years. The haze over Toronto finally shattered my optimism
The wildfire smoke has choked my faith in Canada's climate future, writes Adam Radwanski. We used to at least be trying. Now we're betting against energy transition.
www.thestar.com

Patrick Canning on bsky, July 17, 2026
And I love this article, because it is personal. We are all affected, my daughters are 7 and 10. I'm pissed.
I'm pissed that their future is being incinerated, for money for Carney's investor class. To hold onto an economy we don't need or want, to the past.

lissa on bsky, July 17, 2026
Nobody wants this but the the privileged class who are either too old to give a ◊◊◊◊ or think they can save themselves hiding in their wealthy bunkers.

 

[dann]

T. Ryan Gregory on bsky, July 17, 2026
Climate change denialism in Canada is not just "Climate change is a hoax". It's also:
"Before we deal with climate change, we need to...
... defend against Trump.
... appease Alberta separatists.
... make enough money to switch to renewables.
... not crash our fossil fuel-based economy."

 

[Stout]

You said the cleaning water caused it, this says it's only one factor. The other factors are the panels blocking wind and shading the ground, both of which reduce evaporation. This can make a big difference in the desert.

I offered an explanation as to how the water got there in the first place. You' talking about what's stopping it from leaving. These two things are not the same.

You just can't stop doing it, can you? Language like this is unscientific and manipulative.

You didn't get warm fuzzy feelings from watching those cute sheep happily trot out to devour some yummy green Chinese grass? OK, Spock.

 

[Stout]

The Sunrise movement is STILL using Xitter!? They must be fascists! No wonder Trump is on their side.

Trump blasts Canada over wildfire smoke, threatens to increase tariffs

U.S. President Donald Trump says the cost of pollution from wildfire smoke drifting south of the border 'must' be added to the tariffs imposed on Canadian goods.

www.ctvnews.ca

Let The Blame Games begin...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I wonder what it takes for Big Oil execs to get tired of winning? Or for Carney?

They wouldn't be winning if we weren't buying.

I was talking to my 88 year old neighbor yesterday about the price of petrol, which is 50% higher than it was 5 years ago. She said it's no big deal, people can still afford to pay even when they have long commutes. And she's right. People in New Zealand are grumbling about it, but they aren't cutting back because they need to drive their cars to work each day. So they just accept that the price is now $3 a liter instead of $2. Only a tiny minority are buying EVs or doing other things to get off their oil addiction.

Canada is doing a bit better than New Zealand since they introduced a $5,000 BEV incentive in February, but EVs still make up less then 10% of new car sales. However many European countries are at 20% or higher. The UK is at 25% for the year and 30% for June, with 6% of the total fleet now being electric.

That has to be worrying Big Oil execs. A 6% decline in sales today could become a 50% decline within the next decade. Continuously falling sales means they will have to continuously downsize to remain profitable. At this point nothing can reverse the trend. 96% of EV owners in NZ say they won’t go back to petrol. The percentages in the UK and Europe are similar. Numbers like that must be really scaring oil execs. The power is in our hands, not theirs.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I offered an explanation as to how the water got there in the first place. You' talking about what's stopping it from leaving. These two things are not the same.

Doubling down on the lie? Cleaning water isn't the only water the grass is getting. It can't be unless they clean the panels every few days (which wouldn't be economical).

In case you don't believe me,
Dew formation characteristics in the gravel desert ecosystem

We quantified dew formation characteristics, investigated vegetation water response to dew events in the gravel desert ecosystem at the edge of a desert oasis, Northwestern China... Dew occurred on 36% of growing season days... There is evidence suggesting that dew not only is hydrologically significant (Zangvil, 1996) but also supplies up to 63% of plant water requirements in certain environments...

Rainfall was recorded on 26 days, and the total amount was 51.8 mm from June to October of 2016... rainfall events of 5 mm or less were most frequent and comprised 92% of the events. The total number of dew days was 55 and varied depending on month.

You didn't get warm fuzzy feelings from watching those cute sheep happily trot out to devour some yummy green Chinese grass? OK, Spock.

I grew up on a sheep farm. To me sheep are money on legs that need to be kept healthy - until we slit their throats (which I personly had to do when we wanted meat). My relationship to sheep was like a jailer in a death camp.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The Sunrise movement is STILL using Xitter!? They must be fascists! No wonder Trump is on their side.

The only side Trump is on is himself.

This event shows that we are all in it together. When there was a big bush fire in Australia a few years ago the haze came over the Tasman Sea to New Zealand and went over the mountains to Hawkes Bay (where I live) on the other side of the Island, a distance of 2,400 km.

You can't say the GHG you create isn't signifcant just because your country isn't the biggest emitter. It all goes to the same place, and in the long run has the same effect no matter where it originated.

 

[dann]

They wouldn't be winning if we weren't buying.

I was talking to my 88 year old neighbor yesterday about the price of petrol, which is 50% higher than it was 5 years ago. She said it's no big deal, people can still afford to pay even when they have long commutes. And she's right. People in New Zealand are grumbling about it, but they aren't cutting back because they need to drive their cars to work each day. So they just accept that the price is now $3 a liter instead of $2. Only a tiny minority are buying EVs or doing other things to get off their oil addiction.

Canada is doing a bit better than New Zealand since they introduced a $5,000 BEV incentive in February, but EVs still make up less then10% of new car sales. However many European countries are at 20% or higher. The UK is at 25% for the year and 30% for June, with 6% of the total fleet now being electric.

That has to be worrying Big Oil execs. A 6% decline in sales today could become a 50% decline within the next decade. Continuously falling sales means they will have to continuously downsize to remain profitable. At this point nothing can reverse the trend. 96% of EV owners in NZ say they won’t go back to petrol. The percentages in the UK and Europe are similar. Numbers like that must be really scaring oil execs. The power is in our hands, not theirs.

Sorry, but the power is not 'in our hands' unless we take it.
And your numbers game ignores what I have been posting a couple of times already. From post 2,304:

The PBS video also mentions this interesting fact:
"Car owners are among the worst affected by spiraling fuel prices caused by the Iran conflict. Danish drivers' displeasure surfaced in last month's sales figures. Electric vehicles accounted for 96.3% of all new car purchases."

There is also this:

Electric car sales surge as high oil prices drive shift away from fossil fuels (climate.ec.europa.eu, June 26, 2026)

• Norway: The undisputed leader, with 95% of new cars fully electric.
• UK: 23% of new cars sold in 2025 were BEVs.
• China: BEV car sales jumped from 27% to 33% of the market in just one year.
• Vietnam: Nearly two in five new cars (37%) are now fully electric, up from 24% in 2024.
• Türkiye: BEV car sales jumped from 10% to 14%.
• Indonesia: BEV car sales doubled from 7 to 15%.

And no, the Danish and Norwegian numbers aren't due to the power being 'in our hands' in Denmark and Norway. I don't know exactly why it is, but it's probably something like this:

Denmark leads Nordic surge in electric car sales in 2025 (LinkedIn, Jan 15, 2026)
According to Mobility Denmark, the figures clearly demonstrate how political and economic frameworks influence the pace of electrification.
“Experience from the Nordic countries shows that the transition to electric cars is highly dependent on political priorities,” said Mads Rørvig , CEO of Mobility Denmark mark in a recent press release. “There are clear differences in how electric vehicles have been supported across the region, and this is reflected in the 2025 figures. In Denmark, the state budget agreement has created favourable conditions by maintaining reduced registration taxes on electric cars into 2026.”

So it's not because Danes are somehow smarter or more environmentally friendly than your 88-year-old neighbor. It's also not because of higher oil prices although they do add to the incentive to go electric. (I also doubt that electric vehicle sales in NZ aren't better than they are because of fears that windmills will ruin the tourism industry.)

I think you should be looking at something like this:

How the oil and gas industry helped rewrite New Zealand’s drilling rules (RNZ, Nov 25, 2025)
Fossil fuel companies were given privileged, insider access to confidential drafts of legislation during a two-year campaign to weaken oil and gas regulation and overturn the offshore exploration ban, RNZ has found.
Internal documents show how the sector repeatedly lobbied Resources Minister Shane Jones to dilute New Zealand's clean-up rules for ageing oil fields - rules brought in to protect taxpayers after the 2019 Tui Oil Field collapse left the state burdened with a $300m bill.
Some of the oil executives meeting with Jones had been closely involved in the Tui disaster, but were invited to confidential briefings anyway.

 

[dann]

Trump’s climate denial COLLIDES with America’s apocalyptic summer (MS NOW on YouTube, Jully18, 2026 – 8:33 min.)
“The problem is here and it is getting worse. This is no longer abstract or theoretical,” says Chris Hayes as wildfire smoke blankets U.S. cities.

This isn't really news, but ...

4:57–> Last year, Elon Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency literally ended a key project set to debut this year that would have put new monitors on satellites with advanced ability to monitor wildfire and wildfire smoke. Seriously, they cut that out.
The White House is also using billions of your taxpayer dollars to pay renewable energy companies to kill proposed wind turbines.
That is, they're paying them not to produce carbon-free energy, not to make clean sources of energy that could end our reliance on fossil fuels.
And at the same time they're spending a billion dollars to prop up coal, the most polluting source of energy we have.

 

[Stout]

In case you don't believe me,

>0.03 mm accounted for 82% of the total dew events. Less than significant. You'll remember that the video didn't explain just where the water came from, so you claims that I'm lying amount to nothing more than a steaming pile of sheep dung.

I grew up on a sheep farm. To me sheep are money on legs that need to be kept healthy - until we slit their throats (which I personly had to do when we wanted meat). My relationship to sheep was like a jailer in a death camp.

Unconventional opinion but given the background, I'll allow it.

 

[Stout]

Sorry, but the power is not 'in our hands' unless we take it.

How do you propose "we" take it?

 

[dann]

How do you propose "we" take it?

The people in power are already on your side. Or maybe it's closer to the truth to say that you are on their side.

 

[dann]

Carbon capture is a fig leaf for fossil fuel expansion (The Guardian, July 17, 2026)
The predicted 264bn cost by 2050 could be even higher, plus renewables avoid a far higher total of emissions than can be captured, writes Andrew Boswell while Simon Oldridge calls out vested interests.

 

[Stout]

The people in power are already on your side. Or maybe it's closer to the truth to say that you are on their side.

Damn, wasn't expecting that.

I was expecting Commie Revolution! Or at least a Thunberg inspired everybody-down-tools-and-go-work-in-renewables fervorous call to action.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

>0.03 mm accounted for 82% of the total dew events. Less than significant. You'll remember that the video didn't explain just where the water came from, so you claims that I'm lying amount to nothing more than a steaming pile of sheep dung.

I didn't say you were lying, just asserting speculation as fact. Then when presented with facts that counter it you double down instead of admitting you were wrong. The problem with this isn't so much the denial as the reason you are doing it. It's all part of the narrative you are attempting to weave, and the person you are fooling is yourself.

An honest skeptic examines their own beliefs as much as they do others. One thing I like about this forum is that it encourages me to research stuff, which increases my understanding of subjects and reduces bias. Of course this only works if if I approach it with an open mind, not just latching onto stuff that conforms my preconceptions and ignoring the rest. I may spend an hour of more trying to verify a single factoid. If I had found that cleaning water was the sole source of moisture for grass under these solar panels I would be reporting it, despite my earlier skepticism.

 

[Stout]

I didn't say you were lying, just asserting speculation as fact. Then when presented with facts that counter it you double down instead of admitting you were wrong. The problem with this isn't so much the denial as the reason you are doing it. It's all part of the narrative you are attempting to weave, and the person you are fooling is yourself.

An honest skeptic examines their own beliefs as much as they do others. One thing I like about this forum is that it encourages me to research stuff, which increases my understanding of subjects and reduces bias. Of course this only works if if I approach it with an open mind, not just latching onto stuff that conforms my preconceptions and ignoring the rest. I may spend an hour of more trying to verify a single factoid. If I had found that cleaning water was the sole source of moisture for grass under these solar panels I would be reporting it, despite my earlier skepticism.

Thanks for the deep dive into my psyche and motivations, I'll take it under advisement however in post #2467, in the first sentence, you most definitely accuse me of lying. Originally I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went with the idea that you were suggesting that Science Direct was lying. That they were some sort of anti-Chinese smear site, disreputable as whale(dot)to but when I noticed you citing the exact same source, I had to go full on skeptic and discard that hypothesis.

Now all I'm left with is a must-defend-China-at-all costs explanation as to why you're so obsessed with this water. I mean who doesn't love an authoritarian dictatorship amirite? They'd never stretch the truth by, say, omitting the actual source of the water, to make themselves look good now would they. The very suggestion is preposterous!

In other news

It looks like Canadians have figured out that you can't export all that glorious wind and solar generated electricity to markets other than Trump's America and tossed all these climate pretensions into the dumpster in favour of continuing to be a developed nation. Reals before feels, with all those hopes and dreams of China no longer burning fossil fuels or using them in manufacturing going up in a puff of (wildfire?) smoke.

Majority of Canadians support both pipelines, but Alberta-B.C. project is favoured: poll

A new poll has found that the majority of Canadians are in support of both the Alberta-B.C. pipeline and the Alberta-Ontario pipeline.

nationalpost.com

 

[dann]

Any of the lesser provinces are more that welcome to build their data centers using girly vegan wind and solar.

If it weren't for Stout, I might have dismissed Monica Iyer's paper out of hand and called it BS.
So thank you, Stout!

International Law and Petro-Masculinity (Georgia State University, Papers.SSRN, June 12/July 20, 2026)
The concept of "petro-masculinity" refers to a psychological and cultural association between fossil fuel extraction and use and the values of historically rooted gender hierarchies, muscular capitalism, and authoritarian government. It involves a fundamental association of extractivism and other forms of environmental destruction with power and masculinity as contrasted to environmental protection which is understood as carrying connotations of femininity and weakness. Petro-masculinity is embedded in law, including in international law. It is a fundamental element of how national identities are formed and expressed in the contemporary global order, and the service and maintenance of petro-masculine ideals is one element driving current breakdowns of the international legal system. Drawning on feminist legal theory and ecofeminist discourse, I argue that expressions of Petro-masculinity impact and become embedded in international law through state practice, treaty making, and development of soft law. Petro-masculine impacts are visible not only in international environmental law, but in other areas of international law with impacts on global climate action, including economic law. Through this inquiry I also explore ways that international law and international legal structures might evolve beyond petro-masculinity to more meaningfully protect all people and the planet.

 

[dann]

Rebecca Leber on bsky, July 20, 2026
A major new investigation out today with new revelations about the oil and gas industry's long-running deception over natural gas.
We lay out in new details and documents how big oil and gas manufactured the myth of "clean" natural gas.

Rebecca Leber on bsky, July 20, 2026
This is the first investigation to trace the history of the oil and gas industry's response to its methane pollution problem, and is based on public records requests, internal industry communications, archival records, scientific papers, and interviews.
The Fraud of "Clean" Natural Gas (Center for Climate Integrity)
How Big Oil and Gas Created the Myth that Natural Gas is a Climate Solution

Exposed: How the gas industry deceived the public and policymakers into believing gas was a climate solution
For decades, the oil and gas industry has perpetuated the fraud that natural gas is clean and a climate solution, despite knowing that it is a significant source of air pollution and a major contributor to climate change.
This is the unearthed story of how the industry succeeded at this deception.
For a glossary of key terms and event timeline see Appendix A and B.

Rebecca Leber on bsky, July 20, 2026
4 - New docs from J Walter Thompson detail this campaign that emphasized gas:
“burns with no smoke and virtually no emissions”
"is clean energy”
“does not ruin the air we breathe"
“can help us have a cleaner world”

 

[Stout]

If it weren't for Stout, I might have dismissed Monica Iyer's paper out of hand and called it BS.
So thank you, Stout!

Excellent, glad to read I'm keeping you on your toes especially on this 10th anniversary year of the publication of that feminist glaciology paper.

Now all that's left to do is a reconciliation between this paper and current gender dogma that asserts there's no difference between male and female brains. I mean everybody sees gushing oil derricks as big ejaculating dicks, male and female alike.