Tuesday, March 31, 2015

My Prediction for March GISTEMP: +0.86 C (=hot)

March was a hot month, globally. Recording the daily reanalysis temperature from the U of Maine site, as I described here, my estimate for GISTEMP's March anomaly is +0.86°C.

That would make it the 3rd-warmest March since 1880, and the 4th-warmest of any month since then.

Last month I was close -- too high by only 0.03°C

Over the last several months the HadSST3 sea surface temperature has been more linear with the U of Maine daily average (R2 = 0.92 since August); my guess for HadSST's March anomaly is +0.36°C, which would be their lowest anomaly in 12 months.

Here are my two graphs:


Saturday, March 28, 2015

US Carbon Dioxide Emissions Up 0.7% in 2014

Yesterday the EIA released the U.S. CO2 emissions for December 2014. For the year, US emissions were up 0.7%.

That's in a world were year over year emissions were flat, and China's decreased by 2%. We're not even keeping up with the average.


Patrick Moore Gets Called Out, Storms Out of Interview

@EcoSenseNow
Patrick Moore gets called out on one of his scientific claims, and so storms out of the interview.

Moore was being interviewed by a French TV channel, about the recent claims that glyphosphate -- the weed killer "Roundup" produced by Monsanto -- is unsafe and recently listed as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

He said he'd be "happy" to drink some of it -- and the brilliant French jounalist called him on it, saying they had some with them.

Dr. Moore quickly refused to back up his words, and stormed out, calling the interviewer an "idiot." The transcript:


So now you know how good Patrick Moore's word is-- not very good at all. But that's not surprising.

But hey, give him a break -- it's not easy being a corporate sellout.

Video here:

Friday, March 27, 2015

Earth Day: Because Dressing Right is What Matters


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Celebrate Earth Day with Eco-Friendly Fashion
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:02:23 -0400
From: Jennifer Uy <XXX>
To: david.appell@gmail.com


Celebrate Earth Day with Eco-Friendly Fashion
Hi David,
Wanted to make sure you got this! Indigenous is known for more than their trendy, high-quality, eco-friendly fashion. They're committed to fair trade partnerships with culturally diverse artisans. 
Please let me know if this would be a fit for an Earth Day or Mother's Day segment!
Best,
Jennifer

The Perfect Gift for Any Fashion-Loving and Eco-Conscious Mom!
INDIGENOUS is the Eco-chic and Globally Responsible brand that will leave her looking and feeling great

Highlight your mom's beauty, uniqueness and compassion with a gift from INDIGENOUS.

INDIGENOUS, a leader in organic and fair trade fashion, promises high quality eco-chic fashion that's good to people and good to the planet.  INDIGENOUS keeps harmful chemicals and toxins away from the body through organic and sustainable materials and supports artisans through maintaining rich cultural heritages and knitting traditions with fair wages and fair working conditions.
Dedicated to impeccable quality, design and fit without sacrificing values, their amazing summer line has something for every stylish Mom.

She'll love the summertime sophistication of the chic and versatile Netted Poncho. Featuring soothing shades of teal combined with classic summer white, this flattering poncho is a go-to whether heading to the office, running errands with the kids or hanging around the pool. $198 www.indigenous.com.

The Maxi Tank Dress is so comfortable she may not want to take it off! Light grey with a pop of silver stripes, the empire waist flatters while organic cotton and low-impact dyes add eco-responsibility to amazing fashion. $138 www.indigenous.com.

Give her two gifts in one with the Reversible Maxi Skirt. Soft, organic and chic, this go-to piece is perfect for dressing up or dressing down. One side features solid black while the reverse side features black and white stripes. It's great for all season long!  $108 www.indigenous.com.

For additional information, please visit www.indigenous.com or contact jennifer@chicblvd.com











Contact: 
Jennifer Uy
Public Relations Account Executive
XXX

Socialize with us! Facebook | Instagram | Twitter
0


If you would rather not receive future communications from Chicblvd Inc, let us know by clicking here.
Chicblvd Inc, 1487 poinsettia ave #125, Vista, CA 92081 United States

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Rest of World Is Past Peak Oil (*)

Here is world oil production per capita, in barrels per person per year. The green curve includes US oil production and population, and the red line omits them. It seems only US production is keeping the world above Peak Oil(*).


* I don't think it's quite this simple, though, because if the US hadn't increased its production in recent years, other countries, most notably Saudi Arabia, might have stepped up their production to keep the red curve reasonably flat after 2006. And other countries might have taken up fracking more than they have, even though it's controversial. I'd suspect they probably will do more fracking, more than they are already, if oil production starts to seriously decline.

data sources:
monthly oil production, by country and for the world
World Population
US Population

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Californians, Lawns and God

"I believe it is a God-given right as Californians to be able to water gardens and lawns."

-- Diane Feinstein, Democratic Senator from California, as quoted in the Sacramento Bee, November 21, 2004.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Patrick Moore Bravely Comes Out Against a World with "no carbon dioxide"

Patrick Moore is back, writing for the Heartland Institute, with gems like this:
The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. 
Except not a single soul is arguing there should be no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Heartland Institute is really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days....

And it seems Moore missed this bit of science about CO2 and food: "Wheat's Nutritive Value Decreases Under Elevated CO2."

N.b: Patrick, there is no hyphen in "carbon dioxide." Jeez.

Science Image of the Day




"Yet animal experiments support the idea that light is protective. Researchers first demonstrated
this in chicks, a common lab model for studying vision. By fitting chicks with goggles that alter the resolution and contrast of incoming images, it is possible to induce the development of myopia while raising the birds under controlled conditions in which only light intensity is changed."

- from "The myopia boom," Elie Dolgin, Nature 3/18/15

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Climate Scientists Should Not Be Drawing Up Carbon Divestment Principles

I think this is a huge mistake:


They include academics at Oxford, Imperial College London and Harvard.

Prof Myles Allen, of Oxford University, said the move was similar to principles governing investment in South Africa under apartheid in the 1980s.

"This is a challenging question being put to universities," he told BBC News.

"We have the opportunity here to think about the most constructive approach to the divestment issue."
This will exponentially increase the concerns and crys about scientists having conflicted positions and a financial stake in the outcome of their science.

Amazingly, the BBC reporter didn't even broach this idea.

Large positions in carbon-free investment vehicles has already led to the marginalization of Al Gore. Now it will spread.

And frankly, I can't really blame anyone for thinking that about a scientist drawing up "investment principles." By participating in such discussions, they are invariably going to have (or appear to have) the inside track on who might adopt those principles -- mutual funds, retirement accounts, banks, etc. That gives them the opportunity to quietly shift their personal investments in response to that knowledge, and whether they do or not, whether they say they do or do not, it will raise suspicisions, and thus suspicions about their science.

Nor do climate scientists have the expertise to draw up investment "principles." That's for bankers, economists, investment houses, individual investors. What do they need to know besides "we need to eliminate CO2 emissions?" They're in a much better position to make decisions about how to most efficiently make that transition. I'm sure they have smart people who can do the energy and CO2 calculations.

This throws gasoline on a roaring fire, and in the US at least it will be used by opponents of action on climate change. And frankly I can't blame them one bit, insofar as it involves any scientists work on these divestment plans. (And it will give rise to suspicisons about all other climate scientists too, regardless of their nonparticipation in such efforts.)

I just don't get this at all.