Midwest Freeze Impacts Corn Crop

As the greenies push for more and more bio-fuels, the weather is not cooperating. This weekend saw a freeze across much of the U.S. Midwest, which will likely reduce the corn crop this year. According to this report, the freeze "may stunt ... corn that has begun to emerge."

Farmers have made heroic efforts this year to plant their crops, and are ahead of the average pace in percent of total crops planted for this date. That is not all good, though, when a late freeze occurs and just-emerging plants are blasted by the cold air. Corn futures prices will likely increase as the extent of the damage is assessed.

The USA is not alone in having weather-related crop troubles, as this report states that China "may increase purchases from the U.S. as cold, wet weather delays planting in the Asian nation."

Meanwhile, yet another winter storm is blasting northern California, with another 6 to 7 inches of snow expected to fall. While this is excellent news for the ski resorts, and for water supplies in the state, it is not consistent with the dire warnings of heat waves and droughts that climate warmists claim are the result of increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere due to man's consumption of fossil fuels. California's AB 32 law requires more low-carbon fuels, e.g. ethanol, to be blended into gasoline. As corn prices rise, so does the price of ethanol and therefore, gasoline. Higher prices for gasoline hurt everyone.

One good thing about bad policy and bad laws, though, is that they can be changed when they are impossible to enforce, or when their actual results are obviously and painfully detrimental to a significant portion of the electorate. As farmers endure difficult growing conditions, the corn will not be there for making ethanol. The government mandates for ethanol will not be met, and the regulations will be changed.

Of course, we could always make ethanol out of ethylene, which is produced from oil. Anybody want to take bets on that?

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

California Voters to Decide AB 32 Fate

After years of build-up, with government and pro-AB 32 factions crowing about how the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 will create jobs for Californians that will usher the state into the post-petroleum age, while the anti-AB 32 factions saying its draconian measures will cause businesses to fail, manufacturing to close and leave the state, and unemployment to skyrocket, it appears the issue will be on the November 2010 ballot as a California Proposition. There were far more than sufficient signatures gathered (approximately 800,000 gathered compared to 433,000 required) to place the issue on the ballot.

First, the pro-AB 32 factions' arguments, then the anti-AB 32.

Pro-AB 32

Pro-AB 32 factions say that all its measures are worth doing because cutting CO2 emissions will stop global warming, and global warming in California causes the sea levels to rise and flood low-lying areas, the Sierra snowpack to melt or disappear, state-wide heat waves that cause deaths and illness, and many others. They also say that AB 32 will increase jobs and the economy. The way that AB 32 will increase jobs, they say, is by the net effect of all the requirements allowing each person to have an additional $5 per week for spending, or approximately $250 per year. The additional spending will go to purchases such as coffee at coffee shops, and retail sales. The increased demand for coffee shop baristas, and retail sales clerks will result in a surge in employment.

Pro-AB 32 factions say that private investors have pumped billions into California companies who will make revolutionary new products so that emissions of evil Carbon Dioxide, CO2, will no longer be necessary in beautiful California. The products will include smart-grid systems, home-generation of electrical power via solar panels, renewable power plants to supply one-third of utility grid power, advanced cars and trucks that consume about one-third less petroleum-derived fuel, and gasoline and diesel fuels that contain renewable components such as ethanol (for gasoline) and bio-diesel (for diesel, naturally).

There are many, many other aspects of AB 32, with 73 different line items in the Scoping Plan. Changes in the way people make choices are also part of the AB 32 Scoping Plan, with a significant change being scrapping the older and less-efficient home appliances for new and highly-efficient models. These include air conditioners. Proponents say that a home's electricity usage will decline 40 percent by installing new appliances, while the price for electricity will increase only by about 13 percent. The net effect, they say, is the consumer will have more disposable cash each month. Presumably, that extra cash will be used to pay the installment payments on all the new appliances. Similarly for the advanced cars and trucks, which will use less fuel. The reduced fuel consumed (35 mpg compared to 25) will more than offset the increased fuel cost.

Proponents developed a nifty plan to allow a homeowner to be able to afford to install solar panels on the roof. The plan involves increasing the property tax bill, with the annual increase paid to a bank or other financier who puts up all the money for the solar panels and installation. If the homeowner sells the home, the new buyer takes on the payment obligation as part of his tax bill. Presumably, the payments last for 15 to 20 years. Also, proponents argue, the solar panels add to the home's resale value.

Proponents also say that the cap and trade portion of AB 32 will not hurt businesses and industry, because they can actually make money if they just cooperate. Proponents maintain that a carbon credit will be worth $30, $50, even $100 per ton of CO2, so that if the business owners simply cut their CO2 emissions to a point below their government-mandated cap, they can sell the credits to others, thus enjoying a new revenue stream that will allow their business to grow and prosper. The idea is that one can either be a seller of these credits and prosper, or a buyer of these credits and not prosper.

There are many other pro-AB 32 arguments, such as more jobs created for solar panel installers, more construction jobs for renewable power plants, and the long-distance transmission lines to bring the power to the people, and factory jobs to fabricate solar panels and the smart grid components.

Anti-AB 32

Implementing AB 32 will kill California by eliminating millions of jobs, causing massive bankruptcies, closing millions of small businesses and major corporations, and will do nothing to change the Earth's climate.

As more and more scrutiny is applied to the world-wide climate scientists' data, methods, peer-review system, and agenda, it is apparent that there is no cause for alarm over CO2 emissions, or any other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. The entire basis for CO2 causing the Earth to warm catastrophically is false. There are cities in California that show a pronounced cooling even while CO2 continues to rise - Eureka, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento. San Francisco shows a gradual increase in temperature that corresponds to population growth, but not to CO2 in the atmosphere. see this.

None of the dire predictions for California climate catastrophe have occurred since 1975, the period that climate scientists insist has shown an increase in Earth's average temperature due to increasing CO2. In fact, sea levels are decreasing off the coast. Also, the past 40 years have seen much more rainfall than occurred in the first 40 years of the 20th century, with a state-wide average of approximately 23 inches since 1970, but only 19 inches from 1900 to 1940. Presently, the state's lakes are full due to the recent rains and snow that is now beginning to melt. Heat waves have a long way to go to match, let alone exceed, the heat waves of the period 1920 to 1960.

On a more widespread or global basis, polar ice caps are not melting, but are growing. Sea level increases world-wide are at the same pace as far back as satellite records extend, even though CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere. Hurricanes and tropical cyclones have not increased in intensity or frequency. In fact, ocean temperatures are decreasing, and hurricanes are decreasing too.

It is true that investors are pumping billions into California start-up companies, but as I wrote earlier, this is due to the increased price of oil. Such alternative energy, or renewable energy systems, ultimately must compete with oil. At the moment, these industries are incentivized with government subsidies, which can be removed at any time. Also, exchange traded funds (ETFs) that specialize in stocks worldwide that stand to benefit from global warming laws are under-performing the market, and by a wide margin. Investors know that global warming due to CO2 is on shaky grounds, and do not see any advantage in putting their money into such companies. see this and this.

The idea that the average homeowner in California will decrease his electric bill by 40 percent by installing new appliances and a new air conditioner is highly debatable, if not outright false. The largest consumers of electricity in a home are the refrigerator, electric stove and oven, clothes dryer, clothes washer, and automatic dishwasher. Of these, the electric stove and oven cannot be made much more efficient, if any. Homes built in the last 10 years (the 2000's) have high-efficiency appliances due to construction laws. Homes built in the decade prior (the 1990s) likely have had their appliances wear out and either replaced already, or will be replaced soon. My estimate is that, at best, appliance replacement will decrease electric power consumption per home by 10 percent. This will be overwhelmed by the increase in electric power prices, which will be 30 to 50 percent. The reality of high-priced renewable electricity, with its required back-up power plants that burn natural gas, is a large increase in electric power prices. Where Californians currently pay approximately 14 cents per kWh for the lowest-tier of residential power, by 2020 the price will be at least 20 cents, almost a 50 percent increase.

Similarly, the idea that the consumer will save money at the gas pump by purchasing a high-efficiency car just does not make sense. The additional cost for a hybrid car is approximately $3,000, or if one wants to buy a VW Jetta with the high-mileage diesel engine, the cost is more than $10,000 additional. Meanwhile, all drivers in California must pay the increased price of gasoline, but not all drivers will purchase a new car. Those drivers who never purchase a new car, but must by economic necessity buy a used car, must not only wait years before a more-efficient car hits the used car lots, but must pay the higher price of gasoline while they wait. They will not have more spending cash in their pocket.

The idea of putting solar panels on homes in California to reduce grid demand has been around for decades. The economics have never been favorable until recently, with the three-tiered pricing for domestic electricity use in California. As to having the solar panels financed 100 percent by a bank, but having the home's value increased, I'm not quite sure about that. It appears a homeowner could apply for the loan, have the bank pay for installing the solar panels, then sell the home at its enhanced value and walk away with an additional $20,000 or even $50,000 in his pocket, depending on the size of the solar panel system. The buyer would be obligated to pay the annual payments via his increased property tax bill. Hmmm....maybe I'll go into the home-flipping business - but only if I purchase a home without solar panels.

Also, it appears that only the wasteful are in a position to benefit from solar panels on their home. Many of my friends, and my own modest lifestyle, do not have utility bills that soar into the higher echelons of pricing due to excessive use (as determined solely by the price-setting entity, the PUC). Thus, we and similarly situated people will not likely ever install a solar PV system - it just makes zero sense when power price is at 13 cents per kWh. On the other hand, maybe we can simply install the system using the bank's money, then flip the house to a new owner.

The idea that Californians will be the ones manufacturing solar panels is highly suspect, given the manifold advantages of manufacturing overseas. Why would solar panels be manufactured here, when so many other products are made overseas where labor costs, and regulatory costs, are much lower? What is true is that solar panels will be installed using local labor. But after they are installed, what will those installers do? These are not sustainable jobs for the long run.

Cap and trade will dramatically increase the cost of doing business in California, to the detriment of in-state businesses. Arizona has already withdrawn from the regional cap and trade system, thus inviting California businesses to relocate to Arizona, hire people in Arizona, then ship their goods to California. The same is true of many, many other states where business conditions are much more favorable than are California's. We have already seen every automobile assembly plant close in California, due to burdensome regulations, high taxes, high labor costs, high power prices, and now AB 32 wants to impose additional burdens on remaining businesses. It will not take much for businesses, say for example oil refineries, to shut down their refining processes and simply import gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel from other states or from overseas. Most California refineries are on the coast, except for the handful around Bakersfield. A shutdown refinery does not employ as many people, as it takes only a few to run the tank farm. Out of work refinery employees will have a follow-on impact on local businesses, especially those who provided parts and services to the refineries. The same is true for other industries, especially cement manufacturers, and other heavy industry.

The choice seems abundantly clear: vote to keep AB 32 in place and hope that the government knows what they are doing and will keep their word (and has that ever been the case in the USA, and especially California?), and that each person will indeed get that precious $5 extra in their pocket every week, and electric power prices will only increase 13 percent, and every homeowner will rush out to replace all the appliances and install solar panels, and every driver will immediately purchase a new car that achieves 35 miles per gallon, and every business will find some way to reduce their CO2 emissions below their cap level and sell carbon credits.

Or, recognize what business schools around the world (including the prestigious Harvard Business School) have taught for years (because it is a fundamental truth), that reducing one's costs of doing business is the way to grow and prosper a business. Increasing the cost of utilities, and transportation for goods received and for goods shipped, when one's competitors are not burdened with similar costs, is not the way to grow and prosper. Instead, it is a recipe for bankruptcy. Recognize that few homeowners have the ready cash, or credit, to purchase new appliances, and then recognize that many residences in California are rentals such as apartments. Rental apartments will not usually allow the renter to install new appliances, indeed, the only appliance the renter can replace is his own refrigerator. Not the washer, the dryer, the dishwasher, and certainly not the stove or oven. If the landlord replaces these, then rents will go up to pay for them. That will certainly wipe out that $5 per week that California promises will appear in every person's pocket.

The issue will most likely be on the ballot in November, but it will be a tricky ballot. A Yes vote means AB 32 will be halted until the statewide unemployment reaches 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. Presently, California's unemployment rate is at 12.6 percent (for March, 2010).

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

BP Drilling Rig Disaster

I have not written on the drilling rig explosion and fatalities, as this seems to me a horrible event with loss of lives, many people injured, hundreds of miles of shoreline potentially coated with oil, sea life also coated with oil, hundreds if not thousands of residents and businesses damaged economically, in short, quite a catastrophe. Yet today, an article on the oil spill caught my eye and I choose to write.

DISCLAIMER: BP is not a former nor current client of mine. All the material contained herein is from published sources, which may or may not be reliable. The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not reflect in any way those of my clients, current or previous employers, nor anyone else. [end disclaimer]

First, my heartfelt condolences to all those families, and friends, of those who lost their lives that day. And to those who suffered injuries, may you recover fully and return to happy and productive lives.

The article that caught my eye was written by Donna Brazile on CNN, (see here). Ms. Brazile, known for running Al Gore's unsuccessful presidential campaign, states that BP was greedy, and is guilty of negligence resulting in the oil spill. Ms. Brazile also wrote in her article that hurricane Katrina's devastation was a natural event, but BP's drilling disaster was man-made. Ms. Brazile should understand a few things before writing such as those.

Greed

One, BP is not greedy, they are a corporation whose business is to find and produce oil. They have obligations to millions of stockholders, plus thousands of employees and their families, to do their best to create a profit. Finding oil is the lifeblood of oil companies, and those that fail at that task fade into oblivion. BP invested many millions in that one drilling operation. They are not alone, as there are more than one thousand oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.

Drilling on Existing Leases

Two, Democrats have criticized oil companies for not drilling on oil leases they already own, when they request the US open up additional federal lands and offshore waters for oil leases. Yet here, BP was drilling for oil on a lease they already owned. Further, Obama has instructed the Minerals and Mining Service (MMS) to open US federal waters to drilling for oil, which instructions MMS followed in 2009 with a 5 Year Plan. Obama has lifted much of the ban on drilling in federal waters. BP is following what Democrats have requested oil companies do: drill for oil on existing leases, and in waters offshore.

Negligence

Three, Brazile should understand the legal term "negligence." Her use of the term in her article shows a lack of understanding. First, negligence requires a duty on the part of the defendant, conduct by defendant that breaches that duty, harm to plaintiff, and that harm must be linked to defendant's conduct both actually and proximately. Further, the injured plaintiff must be one who could foreseeably be harmed by the defendant's conduct.

BP was drilling in very deep waters, approximately 5,000 feet. BP had a duty, or obligation, to conduct its drilling operations in a manner consistent with what a reasonably prudent person, or company in this case, would have done in a similar situation. There are higher standards of conduct, or duty, in certain situations, that do not apply here. Higher standards are required where an expert is conducting a task, such as a surgeon. The surgeon is held to a standard of what other competent surgeons would do in a similar situation. Higher standards are required when the activity is an ultra-hazardous activity, such as nuclear radiation, and blasting with explosives. But, drilling for oil is not in that category.

BP appears to have exercised due care, meeting its duty, by contracting the drilling to a world-renowned drilling company with a state-of-the-art semi-submersible drilling ship. This ship used GPS location technology, and advanced thrusters to maintain the ship's position above the well. BP also employed a blow out preventer (BOP) at the ocean floor. A BOP is a large valve, usually open so drilling can occur through the valve's hole, and can be shut off quickly when a well begins to flow too quickly. This is somewhat simplified, but the idea is that the BOP closes to prevent a blowout, or uncontrolled oil and gas flowing from a well. From reports to date, it appears that the BOP failed to activate, thus releasing the oil in an uncontrolled manner, which caused the fire.

There is no doubt that many people suffered harm, with eleven people reported as missing and presumed dead. Many others are injured but alive, as they escaped the burning ship. There is also no doubt that the harm was connected to the drilling activity, or at least to the blowout. But, in assessing whether BP's conduct fell below the standard of ordinary care, one asks, what else could they have done? We do not know at this point exactly what happened, and we may not know for a long time, if ever, because the drill ship sank. It may be possible to recover the drill ship or pertinent pieces of it to determine what went wrong. Reports state that there were several emergency stop buttons, but these did not activate the BOP. Also, it appears that BP used remote operated vehicles (unmanned submarines with arm-like attachments) to travel down to the BOP and attempt to activate it from close range. This also was unsuccessful.

We also do not know, at least from published reports, if the BOP was faulty, or was tested properly and passed those tests before being installed. It may have been tested after installation to ensure it closed then opened again, but this has not been mentioned in material I have read. I have no access to internal information, merely what is available on the news outlets. It could very well be that the BOP was properly designed and tested, therefore was not faulty. Perhaps the sudden pressure of the blowout was more than what the BOP was designed to withstand, in which case the designers may be at fault. However, one must ask how a BOP is selected. An analogy is that of a car's bumper. If a large, heavy car is to withstand an impact of 10 miles per hour, but a bumper is selected that is suitable for a small, light-weight car and an impact of 3 miles per hour, then that is a faulty design selection. Yet, how is a designer supposed to know what magnitude of blowout to design for? A blowout is usually due to drilling into a very high-pressure pocket of oil or gas or water, or a combination. But, how high is that pressure? And, how extensive is that pocket?

Drillers use a material called mud that accomplishes several things. First, drilling mud is not really mud in the common sense, but is a carefully designed mixture of materials that, when mixed with water, appears much like a mud made of clay. Drilling mud is pumped into the hole as it is drilled. One of the functions of drilling mud is to act as a heavy column of fluid, and keep oil and gas in the well by the pressure at the bottom of the column of drilling mud. If a pocket of oil or gas at high pressure is drilled into, and that high pressure pocket has greater pressure than the weight of the column of drilling mud, the mud begins to flow upward out of the well. The BOP is designed to close when this occurs. It seems clear that the column of drilling mud was not sufficient to keep the oil and gas in the well. Could BP, or rather, the driller, have used a different mud with greater density, which might have prevented the blowout? Perhaps. Such information is undoubtedly being sought and discussed at BP and its contractors.

Thus, at least at this time, we do not really know the precise cause of the blowout, the fire, and the injuries. BP may have done everything correctly, as did their contractors. For Brazile to accuse BP of negligence, when so little is known about the causes of the accident, is reckless and demonstrates a lack of understanding.

Hurricane Katrina

Four, the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina was not entirely natural, but had many influences from human actions or inactions. The hurricane itself was entirely natural, notwithstanding a judge who wrongly ruled that global warming made the hurricane stronger than it would have been otherwise. The devastation, loss of lives, and injuries were due in large part to incompetent local and state authorities in New Orleans and Louisiana. Flooding occurred, at least in part, because one or more levees failed. Yet funds to repair and strengthen the levees was diverted by local authorities into other avenues. Some reports indicate that riverboat gambling casinos were the target for those funds. Also, local authorities authorized building of homes and businesses in areas below sea level, protected by the levees. The wisdom of this has been questioned. Incompetence at the local disaster response level also contributed to the injuries and deaths.

Brazile implies that the drilling blowout and oil slick was not natural, likely because BP was drilling into the earth searching for oil. While that is true, oil has seeped naturally into the Gulf of Mexico for centuries. The only difference is one of degree.

Brazile goes on to praise Obama for his sending officials from Washington to look at the oil spill, and criticize Bush for his handling of the Katrina event. Yet the record is clear that Bush offered assistance to Louisiana but his offer was not accepted in a timely manner by the Louisiana Governor.

The oil spill in the Gulf continues, with clean up efforts underway, and stopping the well flowing a top priority of BP. BP has offered to pay for damages and to clean up the oil if and when it reaches shore. But to accuse BP of negligence is wrong.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Coldest April Ever in California?

UPDATE 1: April 26, 2010 - And the games begin, yet again. NOAA changed the color palette today, making the state appear much less cold. All the blue color would be purple, as shown below in Figure 2. -- Roger

(original post begins)

And now we can see the shape of California's temperature record for April, 2010, percalclim.dril.edu's website. I wrote on their inappropriate choices of colors for their graphicsearlier, but now they have restored the color palette that shows the alarmingly cold month we have had. It has not only been cold, with snow and rain, there is more in the forecast with only 6 more days to go in the month. The figure below shows the various temperatures, as anomalies from a long-term mean.

The climate warmists, those who fervently believe that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm catastrophically, simply cannot explain such cold temperatures. This goes completely against their deeply-held beliefs. Instead of cooling, California should be much hotter than normal. The purple areas shown in the figure should be red, or deep red. How else can AB 32 be justified, unless the prolonged and severe heat waves appear? How else can the sea levels rise, the polar ice caps melt, the polar bears die off while swimming thousands of miles in a vain search for ice to sit on?

No, this is not good news for those in the warmist camp. Stubborn Earth, it is simply refusing to cooperate with the warmists' agenda.

Figure 1 - April Anomalies to 4-22

Update 1: As shown below in Figure 2, the coldest color (hot pink) now represents 10 deg F below the average, compared to 5 degrees in Figure 1. NOAA again is playing games with the color palette, probably in an attempt to hide the decline.

Figure 2 - April Anomalies to 4-24

UPDATE 2, April 30, 2010. The figure 3 below shows the temperature anomalies for almost the entire month, from the 1st to the 29th. And, we are back to the 5 degree coldest color, and the state is clearly much colder than average as vast areas of purple and pink show. Calclim has not yet updated their monthly anomaly bar chart for April, but I will include that when it becomes available (probably on Monday May 3 or the next day). However, based on their existing chart from 1895 through 2009, this April's statewide average should be one of the 4 or 5 coldest of the entire record. Still, the climate warmists maintain that one state shows nothing, but the global average must be the concern. And, they will likely say that the global average is hotter than normal, perhaps one of the hottest on record.

Even so, it is quite amazing, this CO2. It can chill an entire state (California) while other parts of the globe are supposedly toasting. Highly selective stuff, CO2. Perhaps the CO2 in California is more of the rebel type, anti-authoritarian, rejecting any attempts at controlling its behavior.

As to the dire impacts of global warming that led to the passage of California's AB 32 (see above), none of them are or were happening in April, 2010. Except that more electricity was required to heat up houses. At least we can say that we avoided the killer heat waves. And, it is not likely that all those tropical diseases got a good start this month.

Figure 3 - April Anomalies to 4-29

UPDATE 4, May 3, 2010. The figure 4 below shows the California temperature anomalies for April, since 1895. This year's was lower than average, but did not quite reach my predicted point of top 4 or 5. It did, however, make number 12 out of 116. The average for April was 3.5 degrees F below normal (approximately 2.0 degrees C). The trend line (in black) shows a steady decline since 1990, and is more prolonged and steeper than any decline on record. (Sorry, have to do this) To NOAA's credit, at least they are not trying to hide the decline.

Figure 4 - April Temperature Anomalies in California

It is getting colder in California, at least for the month of April. Has the CO2 blown away?

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California (and shivering from the cold)

Deceitful Climate Scientists 2010

UPDATE 1 April 10, 2010: I had hoped the chicanery was finished, but it is not. As California continues to cool, NOAA has again changed their color palette so that the coldest colors are now 20 degrees colder than normal. Previously, it was only 15 degrees colder. For the entire month of March, 2010, the coldest color was only 5 degrees colder. See color chart at the end (Figure 3) - Roger [end update]

Much has been written, and spoken, about scientists behaving badly, especially those scientists involved in the debate over whether (and how much) the Earth is warming, but more especially, what causes the warming. There are at least two camps, those who maintain that man's activities caused inordinate warming, and those who maintain that any warming, if it actually does exist at all, is entirely or almost entirely natural. I refer to the two camps as the Warmistas and the Skeptics. Sometimes, the former camp is labelled as the Carbon Is Gonna Kill Us All Crowd. The Warmistas resort to devious tactics, distortions, making up data, perversion of peer review processes, withholding their data and methods, and in some cases destroying the data. Skeptics have the better view, in my opinion, because the science just does not support the idea that man-made trace gases (especially CO2) in the atmosphere can warm up the Earth.

This post shows a blatant example of the devious tactic of distortion, that is, using human perceptions to hide a blatant cooling. The instigator, or distorting entity, in this case is NOAA Regional Climate Center, where NOAA is an acronym for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a part of the United States government. As some of my readers will remember, I sometimes post an article on how California fared in the most recent month, as to average temperatures. The information is from www.calclim.dri.edu, and shows how the state is doing each day via color-coded maps. Two such maps are shown below as Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Note the devious tactic? No? See the text below Figure 2 for an explanation.

Figure 1

California temperatures March 2010

Departures from Average

Figure 2

California temperatures April 2010

Departures from Average

The temperatures for the first few days of April are extremely cold, relative to the temperatures for March. The color bar (the key) below Figure 2 shows the dark blue zone to be 9 to 12 degrees F below the average. Such very cold temperatures would be off the chart if they were presented using the color scheme of Figure 1. To the casual observer, it would appear that April is not all that cold, as the dark blue under the Figure 1 scheme is only 3 to 4 degrees F below average. Yet, by carefully selecting their temperature palette, the Warmistas at NOAA make it appear that nothing much is going on. The reality is that it is cold in California. There was a snow storm just today, April 4, in the Sierras.

One could speculate as to why the Warmistas find it necessary to resort to such deviousness. Is it so the children are not scared? Perhaps so the general population will not notice that it is colder than usual? Perhaps there is a technical reason, say, the graphics program NOAA uses does not have any more colors in the software? Perhaps it is just because some NOAA employee likes blues and magenta, so the chart receives those colors? There could be many reasons.

Yet, this is a favorite technique of the Warmistas, to use visual techniques to attempt to over-emphasize warming and downplay any cooling. One can simply refer to a chart where world temperature anomalies are shown by various colors, and the colors are skewed to the reds and oranges. These colors are normally associated with hot. Blues are normally associated with cooler or cold. The NOAA charts above do the same, using oranges and reds for the hotter anomalies.

The Warmistas also choose the scale of graphs where numbers are charted so that a tiny change appears mountainous. The famous graph of CO2 in the atmosphere, from Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, does this. The start of the graph is at approximately 300 ppm, and the end is at approximately 400 ppm. This produces a large, ascending curve. Yet, the entire data is only a few hundred ppm. In the grand scheme of things, this is a trace gas. Warmistas do the same for temperature anomalies, where charts present data in 0.1 degree C increments. An increase of 0.5 degrees is bally-hooed as amazingly important - yet many places in the world change from -20 degrees C to +30 degrees C during the course of a year.

So, we can keep tabs on the Warmistas as they continue in their efforts to scare the adults, or even to hide the decline. It certainly is cold in California during the first week of April. Temperatures have declined, and dramatically.

One would have a difficult time in determining that it is indeed much, much colder than normal, by looking at the devious charts from NOAA.

That's ok, NOAA. We're on to you.

UPDATE 1: As Figure 3 below shows, NOAA has changed the color palette so that the state appears warmer than it would be if the previous color scheme had been maintained. Essentially, the chart below shows a lot of green area, which would be blue under the previous scheme. Green "appears" to be "not so bad," whereas blue "appears" to be cold. -- Roger

Figure 3

California temperatures April 1 - 8, 2010

Departures from Average

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey.

Colder in California in March 2010

It appears that global warming has run and hidden in California during March, 2010. Despite wild claims of increasing CO2 causing heat waves, sea level rises, health crises, droughts, melting polar ice, huge hurricanes, and similar disasters, we had a colder-than-usual month during March, 2010 in California. No sizzling heat, no huge loads on the power grid, just 23 days of below-average temperature, and a few days of above average. The average for the state was negative 0.5 degrees compared to the long-term average of 1949 to 2005. The period chosen for the average is interesting, though, as it begins at a very cold period (see Figure 1 below), so for this month to be colder than that average, it must be cold indeed.

Figure 1

source: here

For this month to be colder than average is indeed puzzling, perhaps one could say that the cooling cannot be explained by increased CO2, and that is a travesty. But then, one might be accused of plagiarism, since similar words were written by noted climate scientists in another context.

The fact remains, though, that CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere, while temperatures are not rising. Even the official results for California show a colder than usual March.

There is no factual or scientific basis for the economy-killing rules of AB 32, as each cold month shows. The law must be suspended, as it will be put to the voters in November, 2010 (assuming sufficient signatures are collected).

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey

Cost Increases from AB 32

As an example of how AB 32 is bad for California's economy, and the opposition to its requirements, the Los Angeles City Council rejected a rate increase request for the local city-owned utility, Department of Water and Power (DWP). Some background is probably in order here.

DWP purchases and imports approximately 40 percent of its power from coal-burning power plants in Utah. The power is transmitted via high-voltage power lines approximately 500 miles. Recently, though, the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, required that Los Angeles "go green" and replace the coal-based power with renewable power. There are also state laws (SB 1368) that require the coal-based power to be reduced and then eliminated, but those laws do not require renewable power as the replacement, simply more efficient power plants. DWP requires a 28 percent increase in power prices to support its replacement power plants to meet the Mayor's goals. That 28 percent increase is very high, especially when one considers the dismal state of the city's finances. Basically, the recession and poor fiscal policies have left the city broke.

One of the mandates of AB 32 is for 20 percent of the state's electric power be provided by renewable sources, by December 31, 2010 (Renewable Portfolio Standard). A further requirement is for 33 percent by 2020. Meeting these percentages means not only building more renewable power plants (solar, wind, geothermal, waste-to-power, landfill gas, etc.) but increasing power prices to pay for the plants. What DWP is proposing is not at all unusual, nor out of line. It costs money to build the renewable power plants, and lots of it.

The sad part of all this is that AB 32 proponents view this as a good thing. They believe (and are on record) that increasing power costs will allow California to "break through" to renewables, and "break free" from the yoke of fossil fuels. The problem is, as they see it, that electric power prices are too LOW, not too high. Higher electric prices will make their dream come true: power from windmills, and solar, and geothermal, and evil fossil fuels can be forever eliminated.

Higher power prices are not good for the economy, for small businesses, or for large businesses, for schools, for hospitals, for any enterprise of any type that purchases electricity. That includes just about every activity in California.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey