Tag Archives: earth

The oil industry knew about climate change before we landed on the moon

Astronaut Neil Armstrong snapped a photo of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon in 1969. NASA

The oil industry knew about climate change before we landed on the moon

By on 13 Apr 2016commentsShare

The year before we landed Neil Armstrong on the moon, the largest oil industry trade group was aware of the consequences burning fossil fuels had on the climate. And yet, even today, public belief in climate change is still rising and falling with changes in the weather.

The D.C.-based Center for International Environmental Law this week dug up an old report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute in 1968. The warning about carbon dioxide might sound familiar:

“If CO2 levels continue to rise at present rates, it is likely that noticeable increases in temperature could occur … “Changes in temperature on the world-wide scale could cause major changes in the earth’s atmosphere over the next several hundred years including change in the polar ice caps.”

This wouldn’t be the last time Big Oil heard this finding. Exxon, in particular, conducted research confirming fossil fuels’ role in global warming as far back as the 1970s. But, as InsideClimateNews investigations have shown, the industry orchestrated a lobbying and misinformation campaign beginning in the 1980s to cast doubt about the research’s conclusions.

The fossil fuel industry was aware of climate change well before the death of Elvis Presley (1977), before the end of the Vietnam War (1975), and way, way before the invention of the internet (1983). The public and politicians, however, are still catching up.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link: 

The oil industry knew about climate change before we landed on the moon

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The oil industry knew about climate change before we landed on the moon

The planet is a big, wobbly top — and melting ice is changing how it spins

The planet is a big, wobbly top — and melting ice is changing how it spins

By on 8 Apr 2016comments

Cross-posted from

Climate CentralShare

The spin of the earth is a constant in our lives. It’s quite literally why night follows day.

And while that cycle isn’t going away, climate change is messing with the axis upon which our fair planet spins. Ice melting has caused a drift in polar motion, a somewhat esoteric term that tells scientists a lot about past and future climate and is crucial in GPS calculations and satellite communication.

Before 2000, Earth’s spin axis was drifting toward Canada (left globe). Climate change-driven ice loss in Greenland, Antarctica and elsewhere is pulling the direction of drift eastward.NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Polar motion refers to the periodic wobble and drift of the poles. It’s been observed for more than 130 years, but the process has been going on for eons driven by mass shifts inside the earth as well as ones on the surface. For decades, the north pole had been slowly drifting toward Canada, but there was a shift in the drift about 15 years ago. Now it’s headed almost directly down the Greenwich Meridian (sorry Canada, no pole for you, eh).

Like many other natural processes large and small, from sea levels to wildfires, climate change is also playing a role in this shift.

“Since about 2000, there has been a dramatic shift in this general direction,” Surendra Adhikari, a researcher at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said. “It is due to climate change without a doubt. It’s related to ice sheets, in particular the Greenland ice sheet.”

That ice sheet has seen its ice loss speed up and has lost an average of 278 gigatons of ice a year since 2000 as temperatures warm. The Antarctic has lost 92 gigatons a year over that time while other stashes of ice from Alaska to Patagonia are also melting and sending water to the oceans, redistributing the weight of the planet.

Adhikari and his colleague Erik Ivins published their findings in Science Advances on Friday, showing that melting ice explains about 66 percent of the change in the shift of the Earth’s spin axis, particularly the rapid losses occurring in Greenland.

It’s a huge, mind boggling process on the global scale, but imagine it like a top. Spinning a top with a bunch of pennies on it will cause wobble and drift in a certain pattern. If you rearrange the pennies, the wobble and drift will be slightly different.

That’s essentially what climate change is doing, except instead of pennies, it’s ice and instead of a top, it’s the planet. Suffice to say, the stakes are a little higher.

Ice loss explains most but not all of the shift. The rest can mostly be chalked up to droughts and heavy rains in certain parts of the globe. Adhikari said this knowledge could be used to help scientists analyze past instances of polar motion shifts and rainfall patterns as well as answer questions about future hydrological cycle changes.

Ice is expected to continue melting and with it, polar motion is expected to continue changing as well.

“What I can tell you is we anticipate a big loss of mass from West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and that will mean that the general direction of the pole won’t go back to Canada for sure,” Adhikari said.

If it continues moving down the Greenwich Meridian or meanders another way remains to be seen, though.

“This depends highly on the region where ice melts, or if the effect of ice melt would be counterbalanced by another effect (for example sea level rise, increased water storage on continents, changes of climate zones),” Florian Seitz, the director of German Geodetic Research Institute, said in an email.

In the here and now, polar motion shifts matter for astronomical observations and perhaps even more importantly for the average person, GPS calculations.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

See the original article here:  

The planet is a big, wobbly top — and melting ice is changing how it spins

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The planet is a big, wobbly top — and melting ice is changing how it spins

3 Laws Congress Needs to Pass to Reduce Toxic Chemicals

Toxic chemicals are abound in many of the most common products we use every day. From breast cancer and reproductive failure to attention deficit disorder and various birth defects, we know that toxic chemicals can harm our health and impact future generations.

Though some laws are already on the books to reduce our exposure to these dangerous compounds, much more is needed to keep us safe and healthy. Here are three laws Congress can and should pass that would reduce our toxic exposures.

Overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act – “TSCA” (pronounced toss-ka) was passed in 1976 to regulate the chemicals used in everyday products. However, when TSCA was passed, we knew far less about the impact chemicals have on our bodies, and there were fewer chemicals in circulation. Today, there are over 80,000 chemicals on the market. Only 200 have been tested for safety, reports Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. And current law allows chemical manufacturers to keep the ingredients in some compounds secret, so it’s hard for consumers to know what they’re actually exposed to. A broad coalition of health, environmental and consumer organizations is urging Congress to reform TSCA by:

* Clearly requiring the law to protect the public and the environment from unsafe chemicals

* Require the Environmental Protection Agency to assess various chemicals and empower EPA to order companies to test the toxicity of their chemicals.

* Expedite the regulation of particularly toxic chemicals which bioaccumulate in our bodies, with a particular focus on PFOA, the chemical in Teflon-type products and asbestos

* Give consumers the right to know what they’re exposed to.

You can read a complete description of the demands the public is making to strengthen TSCA here.

Pass a strong Personal Care Products Safety Act – Currently, the personal products we use, like shampoo, soap and cosmetics, are regulated by provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which was passed over 75 years ago in 1938. The law was engineered by the cosmetics and personal care products industry so thatthe US Food and Drug Administration was NOT given the authority to require ingredients used in these products to be tested for safety. “As a result,” says Jamie McConnell, Director of Programs & Policy at the non-profit research organization Women’s Voice for the Earth, “today it is perfectly legal for cosmetics to contain harmful ingredients like formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), toluene (linked to birth defects), phthalates (also linked to birth defects and reproductive harm), styrene (a carcinogen), and even lead (a potent neurotoxin).”

Women’s Voices and many other health advocacy groups are urging Congress to pass a strong Act that:

* Gives the FDA the authority to get unsafe products off the shelves

* Directs the FDA to assess the safety of a minimum of 5 cosmetic chemicals a year, including those that contain formaldehyde

* Requires full ingredient disclosure, as well as a domestic telephone number or email on product labels to make it easy for consumers to find out what’s in the products they buy.

You can see a complete rundown of the recommended strong provisions for the Act here.

Require GMO Labeling – Right now, companies are not required to let consumers know when the food they produce is made with ingredients tainted by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Earlier this year, industry attempted to pass legislation dubbed the “DARK” act, because it would have explicitly “Denied Americans the Right-to-Know.” That legislation was defeated, but companies still don’t have to disclose the presence of GMOs in their products. Several states, including Vermont, Connecticut and Maine, and 65 countries around the world, including all of the European Union, Russia and even China, require labeling. Polls show that nearly 90 percent of Americans support labeling to indicate the presence of GMOs.

Legislation has been introduced in the Senate that would ensure that consumers can find GMO ingredient labeling on food packaging. The “Biotechnology Food Labeling Uniformity Act” would specifically:

* Enable Americans to see whether a food has been prepared with GMO ingredients

* Require manufacturers to disclose the presence of GMOs

You can learn more about the benefits of GMO labeling, and keep abreast of the status of legislative action, on the Just Label It website.

Related
5 Shocking Facts about Your Cosmetics
4 Potential Health Risks of Eating GMO Foods

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Originally posted here:

3 Laws Congress Needs to Pass to Reduce Toxic Chemicals

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 3 Laws Congress Needs to Pass to Reduce Toxic Chemicals

Sublime Photos of African Wildlife Roaming Their Lost Habitat

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As an ardent conservationist, photographer Nick Brandt’s early work showing the majesty of the large animals that once ruled East Africa wasn’t enough. Brandt created three gorgeous photo books focused on African animals in danger of extinction: On This Earth (2005), A Shadow Falls (2009) and Across the Ravaged Land (2013). As a result of that work, what he saw, and what he learned, in 2010 he created the Big Life Foundation with conservationist Richard Bonham. Big Life protects more than 2 million acres of the Amboseli-Tsavo-Kilimanjaro ecosystem in East Africa.

Brandt’s new project, Inherit the Dust, pushes his photography further to help visualize the impact poaching and development has on wildlife. Inherit the Dust helps viewers see areas where elephants, giraffes, lions and other animals once roamed by placing 30-foot panels with photographs in the now industrialized landscapes. You see elephants sauntering through large dumps or under overpasses, giraffes blending in with machinery at mining sites. It’s a striking and effective technique. The book includes 68 images that, though admittedly repetitive in their execution and style, are no less impactful.

Wasteland with Elephant 2015

The work in the book has a beautiful bleakness to it. Looking at the photos alone leaves you feeling depressed. But the images also raise an important issue: Who is Brandt to question—let alone criticize—African nations for developing their countries? Brandt addresses this in the introduction. “I had to stop and ask myself, am I just grieving for the loss of this world because as a privileged white guy from the West, I’ll never again be able to see these animals in the wild?”

He answers by taking a subtle swipe at China for its role in the blink-of-an-eye pace of development in African countries. He also says just because Western nations trampled their environments in the name of progress, that doesn’t mean it’s a model to follow. With his work as a photographer and with the Big Life Foundation, Brandt asserts that environmental consciousness and growing a country’s economy “do not have to be mutually exclusive.”

Brandt punctuates his argument with Inherit the Dust‘s sweeping, somewhat painful panoramic photos.

All photos by Nick Brandt, Courtesy of Edwynn Houk Gallery, New York.

Quarry with Giraffe 2014

Quarry with Lion 2014

Alleyway with Chimpanzee 2014

Road to Factory with Zebra 2014

Underpass with Elephants (Lean Back, Your Life is on Track) 2015

Wasteland with Rhinos & Residents 2015

Behind the scenes: Giraffe & Goats

Crew wrapping elephant panel at sunset, November 2014

Photos from Inherit the Dust are on exhibition at Edwynn Houck Gallery in New York (March 10 to April 30, 2016); Fahey Klein Gallery in Los Angeles (March 24 to May 14); and Camerawork in Berlin (May 12 to July 8). Nick Brandt is a featured speaker at this year’s LOOK3 Festival of Photography in Charlottesville, Virginia (June 13-19).

View original post here – 

Sublime Photos of African Wildlife Roaming Their Lost Habitat

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sublime Photos of African Wildlife Roaming Their Lost Habitat

WTO swats down India’s massive solar initiative

WTO swats down India’s massive solar initiative

By on 24 Feb 2016commentsShare

The World Trade Organization delivered a blow to India’s ambitious solar power program on Wednesday at the behest of the United States. So much for all that nice chatter about international climate cooperation back in December.

Responding to a U.S. complaint, a WTO dispute panel ruled that several provisions of India’s National Solar Mission were “inconsistent” with international trade norms. The point of contention? India’s solar plan, which seeks to install 100 gigawatts of solar capacity by 2022, requires a certain percentage of cells and panels to be manufactured locally.

These types of provisions, called domestic content requirements, are prohibited under most international trade agreements. Want to be part of the WTO? You gotta be open to trade — every time — or you’re guilty of the dreaded protectionism.

Advertisement

An estimated 300 million Indians don’t have access to electricity. The country’s solar plan, launched in 2010, aims to change that — while simultaneously combating poverty via job creation. And while India has indeed made strides in adding solar capacity, the U.S. argues that the Solar Mission’s domestic content requirements have led to a 90 percent decrease in its solar exports to India since 2011. The export losses led the U.S. to file a WTO complaint, which has been staunchly opposed by several U.S. environmental groups. In August of last year, the WTO panel released a preliminary ruling against the Indian domestic content requirements, and Wednesday’s ruling finalized that decision.

U.S. solar industry leaders praised the WTO panel ruling. (Recall that they stand to make more money by selling their equipment in India.) “This decision helps us bring clean energy to the people of India, as that nation’s demand for electricity rapidly grows,” Dan Whitten, vice president of communications for the Solar Energy Industries Association, told PV-Tech. This, of course, ignores the fact that domestic content requirements allow a country like India to provide themselves with clean energy. (And to potentially do so with fewer emissions, as domestically produced solar panels don’t have to be shipped in from overseas — but this story isn’t exactly about what’s right for the environment.)

The ruling is a particularly harsh kick in the gut to climate cooperation, coming so soon after the (quasi-)promising results reached in Paris last December. “The ink is barely dry on the U.N. Paris Climate Agreement, but clearly trade still trumps real action on climate change,” said Sam Cossar-Gilbert, a program coordinator at Friends of the Earth International, in a statement.

You might be tempted to call the U.S. a hypocrite at this point: On the one hand, it led the Paris climate talks in all but name, while on the other hand, it pressed ahead with its WTO complaint against India. But this isn’t so much a demonstration of American inconsistency on the issue as it is of the disconnect between trade policy and climate policy more generally. If there’s hypocrisy to be found anywhere, it’s in U.S. trade policy itself: The United States supports some degree of subsidies for local renewables in nearly half of all states. India could likely file a WTO complaint against the U.S. if it wanted.

This isn’t the first time that trade agreements have cast a shadow over a domestic solar initiative. In 2012, for example, in response to a complaint filed on behalf of Japan and the E.U., the WTO ruled against the government of Ontario’s green energy program, which incentivized renewable producers to source goods and services from inside the province. As the free-trade logic goes, these types of local content requirements discriminate against foreign manufacturers.

Wednesday’s decision comes at a time of rampant coal and waste burning for India. In Delhi, air quality is now worse than in Beijing. While India will now consider an appeal to the WTO Appellate Body, it’s worth noting that when Canada appealed the Ontario WTO ruling, it lost.

Said Cossar-Gilbert: “Trade policies are preventing a sustainable future.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Read original article: 

WTO swats down India’s massive solar initiative

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on WTO swats down India’s massive solar initiative

General Relativity: Not So Hard After All!

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Yesterday I tackled a vexing problem: Is general relativity really that hard to understand? In one sense, of course it is. But when it receives the treatment that most scientific theories are given, I’d say no. For example, here’s how Newton’s theory of gravitation is usually described for laymen:

All objects with mass (for example, the earth and the moon) are attracted to each other. The bigger the mass, the stronger the attraction.
The attraction decreases as the objects get farther apart. If they’re twice as far apart, the attraction is one-fourth. If they’re three times as far apart, the attraction is one-ninth. Etc.

Easy peasy! Objects are attracted to each other via certain mathematical rules. But hold on. This is only easy because we’ve left out all the hard stuff. Why are massive objects attracted to each other? Newton himself didn’t even try to guess, famously declaring “I frame no hypotheses.” Action-at-a-distance remained a deep and profound mystery for centuries.1 And another thing: why does the gravitational attraction decrease by exactly the square of the distance? That’s suspiciously neat. Why not by the power of 2.1 or the cube root of e? And nothing matters except mass and distance? Why is that? This kind of stuff is almost never mentioned in popular descriptions, and it’s the reason Newton’s theory is so easy to picture: It’s because we don’t usually give you anything to picture in the first place. Apples fall to the earth and planets orbit the sun. End of story.

Well then, let’s describe Einstein’s theory of gravity—general relativity—the same way:

Objects with mass are attracted to each other.
The attraction decreases as the objects get farther apart. Einstein’s equation is different from Newton’s, so the amount of the decrease is slightly different too.
In Einstein’s theory, gravity isn’t a property of mass. It’s caused by the geometry of the universe, so it affects everything, including energy.
Light is a form of energy, so beams of light are slightly bent when they travel near massive objects like stars.
Einstein’s equations predict that time runs slower near objects with high gravitational fields.
Sometimes an object can have such a strong gravitational field that light can’t escape and time stops. These are called black holes.
Plus a few other intriguing but fairly minor deviations from Newton’s theory.

Not so hard! Once again, there’s nothing to picture even though this is a perfectly adequate lay description of general relativity. The trouble starts when we do what we didn’t do for Newton: ask why all this stuff happens. But guess what? In any field of study, things get more complicated and harder to analogize as you dive more deeply. For some reason, though, we insist on doing this for relativity even though we happily ignore it in descriptions of Newton’s theory of gravity. And this is when we start getting accelerating elevators in space and curved spacetime and light cones and time dilation. Then we complain that we don’t understand it.

(By the way: if you study classical Newtonian gravity, it turns out to be really complicated too! Gravitation, the famous Misner/Thorne/Wheeler doorstop on general relativity, is 1200 difficult pages. But guess what? Moulton’s Introduction to Celestial Mechanics pushes 500 pages—and it only covers a fraction of classical gravitation. This stuff is hard!)

Relativity and quantum mechanics are both famously hard to grasp once you go beyond what they say and demand to know what they mean. In truth, they don’t “mean” anything. They do gangbusters at describing what happens when certain actions are taken, and we can thank them for transistors, GPS satellites, atom bombs, PET scans, hard drives, solar cells, and plenty of other things. The mathematics is difficult, but often it looks kinda sorta like the math for easier concepts. So quantum mechanics has waves and probability amplitudes because some of the math looks pretty similar to the math we use to describe ocean swells and flipping coins. Likewise, general relativity has curved spacetime because Einstein’s math looks a lot like the math we use to describe ordinary curved objects.

But is it really probability? Is it really a four-dimensional curve? Those are good ways to interpret the math. But you know what? No matter how much you dive in, you’ll never know for sure if these interpretations of the math into human-readable form are really correct. You can be confident the math is correct,2 but the interpretations will always be a bit iffy. And sadly, they won’t really help you understand the actual operation of these theories anyway. Objects with mass attract each other, and if you know the math you can figure out exactly how much they attract each other. Calling the path of the objects a geodesic on a 4-dimensional curved spacetime manifold doesn’t really make things any clearer. In all likelihood, a picture of a bowling ball on a trampoline doesn’t either.

But we keep trying. We just can’t help thinking that everything has to be understandable to the h. sapiens brain. This makes interpreting difficult math an excellent way to pass the time for a certain kind of person. It’s a lot like trying to interpret the actions of the Kardashian family. Lots of fun, but ultimately sort of futile if you’re just an ordinary schmoe.

1General relativity and quantum mechanics finally put everyone’s minds at ease by showing that the action wasn’t actually at a distance after all. Unfortunately, they explained one mystery only at the cost of hatching a whole bunch of others.

2We hope so, anyway. But then, Newton’s math looked pretty damn good for a couple of centuries before it turned out to be slightly wrong. That may yet happen to general relativity and quantum mechanics too.

UPDATE: I’ve modified the third bullet of the relativity list to make it more accurate.

View the original here: 

General Relativity: Not So Hard After All!

Posted in alo, ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on General Relativity: Not So Hard After All!

Netflix and Grill: Michael Pollan Takes His Food Evangelism to the Small Screen

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

“Fire,” the first episode of a new docuseries called Cooked, opens with sweeping shots of a barren landscape in western Australia, dotted with huge, roaring fires. At dusk, Aborigine families gather around the flames to roast bush turkeys and goannas—a large Australian lizard—beneath the glowing embers. A mother baptizes her toddler in the smoke as it rises.

The four-part docuseries that premiered on Friday is based on the New York Times best-selling book Cooked. Its author, science writer Michael Pollan, has built an empire writing books (The Omnivore’s Dilemma, In Defense of Food, Food Rules) that argue Americans should eat simple, home-cooked foods. Each episode in the Netflix series is inspired by the four elements used to transform raw ingredients into food—fire (barbeque), water (braising), air (bread making), and earth (fermentation). Each episode has a different director and follows the everyday cooks profiled in Pollan’s book, as well as the writer’s own culinary quests.

In “Fire” we meet Ed Mitchell, the pit master from North Carolina who grills hogs on the barbeque with techniques passed down from his great-grandfather, and we watch Pollan attempt to create a whole-hog cookout himself. Later, in the Earth episode, Noella Marcellino, a nun in Connecticut with a doctorate in microbiology, separates curds and whey in a large wooden barrel to make cheese.

Pollan’s prolific body of work asks readers to question what and how much they eat. (On an Inquiring Minds podcast in 2014, he argued that the Paleo diet is nowhere near how hunter-gatherers actually ate.)

But Cooked is different. Instead of evangelizing about which foods to eat, Pollan urges us to prepare our own.

“I’m hopeful that there will be a renaissance in cooking,” Pollan says in the series. “If we’re going to cook, it’s going to be because we decide we want to, that it is important enough to us, pleasurable enough to us, necessary enough to our health and our happiness.”

“Cooked” premiers on Netflix February 19. Photo courtesy of Netflix

Much of the information presented in the Cooked Netflix series won’t be new to foodies who follow Pollan’s work. It touches on the rise of industrialization and processed food, the beneficial gut microbes that thrive when we eat fermented food, and the importance of eating meat that came from ethically treated animals. However, even viewers obsessed with health food trends will be seduced by the series’ vibrant scenes, which provide a glimpse of how cultures around the world make—and break—their proverbial bread.

We’re told that the United States spends less time on cooking than any other nation in the world, and Pollan stresses that “time is the missing ingredient in our recipes and in our lives.” Yet the series doesn’t offer viewers detailed advice about how to increase how much they cook. Cooked offers only a few general tips, such as doing meal prep on Sundays.

Pollan got blowback for an essay he wrote in the New York Times in 2009 that suggested that Betty Friedman’s 1963 The Feminine Mystique got women out of the kitchen and was linked to the decline of home cooking. In Water, the episode that addresses the realities of processed foods and the restaurant industry, Pollan and director Caroline Suh said they were careful how they approached the issue.

“The collapse of cooking can be interpreted as a byproduct of feminism, but it’s a lot more complicated and a lot more interesting than that,” Pollan said in an interview. “Getting it right in the film took some time, but it was important to tell the story of the insinuation of industry into our kitchens, and show how the decline of cooking was a supply-driven phenomenon.”

Richard Bourdon makes his sourdough with three ingredients: wheat, water, and salt. Photo courtesy of Netflix.

Whether it’s men or women who wear the apron, the message of Cooked is clear—we should make home-cooked meals a habit, for our bodies and for our souls.

Jessica Prentice, author of Full Moon Feast and coiner of the term “locavore,” once wrote that if someone cannot drive we find it incomprehensible, yet if someone admits to not knowing how to cook, we see it as normal.

Cooked aims to get us back in the driver’s seat.

“Is there any practice less selfish,” Pollan asks in Cooked, “any time less wasted than preparing something nourishing and delicious for the people you love?”

The series premiered at the Berlin Film Festival on February 16 and on Netflix on February 19.

View original article:

Netflix and Grill: Michael Pollan Takes His Food Evangelism to the Small Screen

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Netflix and Grill: Michael Pollan Takes His Food Evangelism to the Small Screen

The Planet Just Shattered Another Heat Record

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story originally appeared in Slate and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Hot enough for ya? It should be: January 2016 was the hottest January globally since records began in 1880. And it didn’t just edge out the previous record holder for January, it destroyed it.

The temperatures used here are land and ocean measurements analyzed by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, using NOAA temperature measuring stations across the world. These are extremely high quality and reliable datasets of global temperature measurements—despite the fallacious cries of a few.

If you want to see how temperatures have changed over time, it’s useful to compare them to an average over some time period. GISS uses the dates 1951–1980; it takes all the temperatures over that range for a given month, averages them, then subtracts that number from the average temperature measured for a given month. This forces the monthly range of 1951–1980 to give an average equal to 0, which is used as the baseline. You can then easily read off how much monthly temperatures deviate from that average, which is called the temperature anomaly; if a month is colder than usual for that month in the data, that shows up as a negative anomaly. If it’s warmer, the anomaly is positive.

January 2016 land and ocean temperature anomalies (deviations from average temperatures in January from 1951 to 1980). The conclusion is pretty obvious. NASA/GISS

The global temperature anomaly for January 2016 was 1.13° Celsius. That makes it the hottest January on record (the previous record was 0.95° C in 2007). But there’s more: 1.13° is the largest anomaly for any month since records began in 1880. There have only been monthly anomalies greater than 1°C three times before in recorded history, and those three were all from last year. The farther back in the past you go, the lower the anomalies are on average.

Yes, the world is getting hotter.

On the blog Hot Whopper (and on ThinkProgress) it’s shown that a lot of January’s anomaly is due to the Arctic heating up far, far more than usual, as it has been doing for some time. The temperature map above makes that clear.

Look at how much warmer the Arctic is! Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice was at a record low extent in January 2016 as well, more than 1 million square kilometers lower than the 1981–2010 average. But almost the whole planet was far hotter in January 2016 than the 1951–1980 average.

A lot of deniers will say this is a statistical fluctuation; sometimes things are just hotter. That is utter baloney. If that were true, you’d expect just as many record cold days/months/years as warm ones. Two Australian scientists looked into this and found record hot and cold days were about even…until the 1960s, then hot days started outpacing cold ones, and from 2000 to 2014 record heat outnumbered record cold by a factor of 12 to 1.

As it happens, we’re in the middle of an El Niño, an event in the Pacific Ocean that tends to warm surface temperatures. This is also one of if not the most intense on record. Some of that record-breaking heat in January is due to El Niño for sure, but not all or even a majority of it. As I pointed out recently, climate scientist Gavin Schmidt showed that El Niño only accounts for a fraction of a degree of this heating. Even accounting for El Niño years, things are getting hotter.

The root cause is not El Niño. It’s us. We’ve been pumping tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the air every year for decades. That gas has trapped the Earth’s heat, and the planet is warming up.

Several of the months in 2015 were the hottest on record, leading to 2015 overall being the hottest year ever recorded (again, despite the ridiculously transparent claims of deniers). Will 2016 beat it? We can’t say for sure yet, but judging from January, I wouldn’t bet against it.

Taken from:  

The Planet Just Shattered Another Heat Record

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Planet Just Shattered Another Heat Record

Rapper B.o.B Insists Earth Is Flat. Take That, Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The Grammy-nominated performer posted photos of flat horizons and a recording — a “diss track” — critical of the celebrity astrophysicist. See original article here:  Rapper B.o.B Insists Earth Is Flat. Take That, Neil deGrasse Tyson. ; ; ;

This article:

Rapper B.o.B Insists Earth Is Flat. Take That, Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rapper B.o.B Insists Earth Is Flat. Take That, Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Dot Earth Blog: With Imposed Transparency and Concerned Millennials, a Boom in Corporate Responsibility?

In an era of rising transparency and concerns about corporate ethics, companies eager to please millennials appear to be shifting business models and messages. This article is from:  Dot Earth Blog: With Imposed Transparency and Concerned Millennials, a Boom in Corporate Responsibility? ; ; ;

Source article: 

Dot Earth Blog: With Imposed Transparency and Concerned Millennials, a Boom in Corporate Responsibility?

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dot Earth Blog: With Imposed Transparency and Concerned Millennials, a Boom in Corporate Responsibility?