BWorld 160, A high carbon tax is irrational

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last October 19, 2017.

Political science masquerading as climate science insist that the gas that we humans and our animals exhale, the gas that is used by trees, flowers, fruits and other crops to grow and feed the world — carbon dioxide or CO2 — is a pollutant that must be over-taxed and over-regulated.

Far from the truth. CO2 is a useful gas, not a pollutant.

Since it is useful, the optimal carbon tax for coal in particular is not P10/ton, not P20, not P600, but zero. However, a zero tax on coal is unpopular from the world of climate alarmism, so we classify these tax rates as follows: P0 tax is optimal, P10/ton is rational, P20/ton is compromise, P600 is irrational.

Recently, eminent economist Dr. Ciel Habito made a follow-up paper, “The case for the carbon tax” and insist that the carbon tax for coal should be raised from the current P10/ton to P600/ton.

To support his claim, he used some ridiculous numbers that are peddled by the watermelon (green outside, red inside) movement. Here are two:

(1) “Dominated by CO2 (72%), GHGs trap heat… .”

Wrong. CO2 is 400 ppm or only 0.04% of all greenhouse gases (GHGs). About 95% of GHGs is water vapor — the clouds, evaporation from the seas, oceans, lakes, rivers, stomata of leaves, etc. The remaining 4%+ are methane, nitrous oxide, others.

(2) “CO2 averaged about 280 parts per million (ppm) for the last 10,000 years…In 2015… 400 ppm for the first time…. now triggering much more frequent extreme weather events.”

This is perhaps 5% geological science and 95% politics.

The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods (when there were no SUVs, no coal plants, no airplanes) were much warmer than the Modern Warm Period (mid-1800s to roughly 2000). There were wild swings in global warming and global cooling cycles regardless of the CO2 level. How would one call this — “much less frequent extreme weather events than today?” Garbage.

Climate change (CC) is true. All skeptics recognize climate change, recognize global warming. Planet Earth is 4.6 billion years old and there were climate change all those years because climate change is cyclical (warming-cooling-warming-cooling…) and natural. Global warming is true, and so is global cooling.

It is political science that masquerades as climate science to say that there is no climate cycle, that there is no global cooling that takes place after global warming.

BACK TO COAL POWER.

From the recent energy and economic experience of our neighbors in Asia and some industrial countries in the world, the hard lessons are these: (a) Countries that have coal consumption of at least 2.1x expansion over the past two decades are also those that experienced fast GDP growth of at least 3x expansion.

Prominent examples are China, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, and even Pakistan. And (b) Philippines’ coal consumption is small compared to its neighbors; its 2016 use is just nearly 1/2 of Malaysia and Vietnam’s, just 1/3 of Taiwan’s and almost 1/5 of Indonesia’s, 1/6 of South Korea’s, 1/9 of Japan’s. (see table)

A high carbon tax is irrationalI have repeatedly argued that CO2 is a useful gas. For those who insist that CO2 is a pollutant, they can certainly help curb further CO2 emission even without legislation and carbon taxation through the following:

• Stop breathing too often; more exhalation means more CO2 emission.

• Stop adopting pets (if any), stop eating chicken, pork, meat because these animals exhale CO2.

• Stop using their cars, not even jeepneys or buses, they emit CO2; skateboards and bicycles only.

• Stop riding airplanes and motorized boats, they emit CO2; solar planes or big kites and sailboats only.

• Stop connecting from the grid and from Meralco because 48% of nationwide electricity generation comes from coal; no gensets either. Use only solar-wind-biomass + candles at home.

• Tell their friends, business associates, family members, to do the same so that there will be more people emitting less CO2.

The Habito proposal of more expensive electricity via P600/ton carbon tax on coal is dangerous because while the Senate version of TRAIN adopts a P20/ton excise tax, the P600 can spring up somewhere during the final and Bicameral Committee meeting. The proposal should be exposed as based on political science, not geological or climate science.

-------------

See also:
BWorld 148, Energy Trilemma Index 2016, September 16, 2017 

BWorld 157, Build-build-build is possible without new taxes, October 09, 2017 

BWorld 158, Why a carbon tax is wrong, October 16, 2017 
BWorld 159, Electoral reforms and the President, October 19, 2017

BWorld 158, Why a carbon tax is wrong

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last week.

Coal power produced nearly 48% of Philippines’ actual electricity generation in 2016 despite having only 34.6% share in the country’s installed power capacity of 21,400 MW or 21.4 GW, Department of Energy (DoE) figures show.

Renewables (hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, biomass) produced 24.2% of total power generation in 2016 despite having 32.5% of installed power capacity. In particular, wind + solar combined contributed a small 2.3% of total power generation.

At a forum organized by the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) at the UP School of Economics last Oct. 5, the speaker Dr. Francisco Viray, former DoE secretary and now president and CEO of PhinMa Energy Corp., showed in his presentation a screen shot of Dr. Ciel Habito’s article, “Let’s get the carbon tax right.” Ciel was arguing among others, that the carbon tax for coal power should be raised from the current P10/ton to P600/ton and not P20/ton as contained in Senate bill No. 1592 of Sen. Angara.

I commented during the open forum that Ciel’s article in reality has a wrong title, it should have been “A carbon tax is wrong.” And here are the reasons why.

One, as mentioned above, coal power was responsible for nearly 48% of total electricity generation nationwide in 2016 and it is wrong to restrict its supply and/or make its price become more expensive. Kill coal or even drastic cut in coal power would mean massive, large-scale, and nationwide blackouts for several hours a day, something that consumers wouldn’t want to endure. After all, even a one minute brownout can already cause widespread disappointment.

Two, the Philippines’ overall coal consumption – in absolute amount and in per capita level – is small compared to the consumption of its neighbors in Asia (see table).

The Philippines has only 100 kilos or 0.1 ton per head per year of coal, the smallest in the region. There is no basis to suggest restricting further coal use given the fast demand for electricity nationwide.

Three, it is wrong to advocate more expensive electricity via high carbon tax given that subsidies to renewables via feed-in-tariff (FiT), among others, are already adding upward price pressure. A higher carbon tax may be more acceptable to the consumers if the FiT scheme is discontinued and ultimately abolished. If this is not done, better to keep coal excise tax as low as possible.

The proposed P600/ton excise tax on coal power would translate to P0.24/kWh hike in power generation charge. Using Ciel’s numbers, one ton of coal can generate 2,519 kWh electricity on average. So P600/2,519 kWh = P0.24/kWh. That is equivalent to FiT-Allowance that each electricity consumer from Luzon to Mindanao must pay monthly for many years to come.

Four, it is wrong to demonize and over-regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant because it is not. CO2 is invisible, colorless, and odorless unlike those dark smoke coming from vehicles and chimneys of old manufacturing plants.

CO2 is the gas that humans and animals exhale, the gas that flowers, trees, rice and other crops use to produce their own food via photosynthesis. More CO2 means more plant growth, faster greening of the planet. CO2 therefore is a useful gas, not a pollutant gas that the UN, Al Gore, and other groups and individuals would portray it.

While the hike in coal excise tax from P10 to P20/ton as contained in the Senate version is somehow acceptable, there is danger that the P600/ton proposal will spring out of nowhere during the bicameral meeting of the House and Senate leaders. This should not be allowed to happen.

Continued demonization of coal and rising favoritism of variable renewables like wind-solar would mean more expensive electricity, more unstable grid, and darker streets at night. Dark streets would mean more road accidents, more robbery, more abduction and rapes, more murders as criminals benefit from anonymity provided by darkness.

Energy irrationality can kill more people today, not 40 or 100 years from now. The irrationality and insensitivity of rising government taxes should be restricted and limited.

--------------

See also:

BWorld 155, Electric cooperatives and system loss, October 02, 2017 

BWorld 156, Integrated PPP vs hybrid PPP, October 04, 2017 

BWorld 157, Build-build-build is possible without new taxes, October 09, 2017

BWorld 120, Five myths of solar-wind energy

* This is my article in BusinessWorld on March 20, 2017

Variable renewable energy (RE) like wind and solar are far out from giving humanity sufficient, stable, and cheap electricity to sustain growth and fight poverty. For the simple reasons that they are very intermittent and expensive. Below are five of the common myths that we hear and read about wind and solar.

1. Solar, wind, biomass, and other REs will replace fossil fuels as major global energy sources in the near future.

Wrong. From the projections by the two of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies, these REs, which may also include geothermal, will produce only 8.5% of global energy demand (Exxon Mobil data) or 6% (British Petroleum data) by 2025.

2. The share of coal, gas, and nuclear will further decline as the world moves towards implementing the Paris Agreement of 2015.

Wrong. From both EM and BP projections, there is no let up in global use and demand for fossil fuel and nuclear sources in the near future. This is for the simple reason that people anywhere dislike power interruption even for one minute, much more frequent and involuntary outages lasting many hours, daily or weekly.

3. Solar and wind are cheaper than coal now, their overall costs will keep falling.

Wrong. The feed-in-tariff (FiT) rates or guaranteed price for 20 years for solar-wind keep rising, not declining. For first group of solar entrants, their FiT rates in Pesos/kWh were 9.68 in 2015, 9.91 in 2016, and 10.26 in 2017. For second group of solar entrants, their FiT rates were 8.69 in 2016 and 8.89 in 2017.

For wind power first group of entrants, their FiT rates in Pesos/kWh were 8.53 in 2015, 8.90, in 2016 and 9.19 in 2017. For second group of wind entrants, their FiT rates were 7.40 in 2016 and 7.72 in 2017. Only the sun and wind are free but the panels, switchyards, cables, wind turbines, towers, access roads, etc. are not.

Current power prices in Mindanao are only around P2.80/kwh as many new huge coal plants compete with each other along with hydro and geothermal plants. No additional charges.

4. Solar and wind have no social cost (SC) while the SC of coal is very high.

Wrong. Solar and wind are very land-intensive and, as a result, more areas for food, commercial, and forest production are diverted to accommodate more solar and wind farms. To have 1 MW of installed solar power, one will need about 1.5 hectare of land. So to have a 300 MW solar plant, one will need about 450 hectares of land; San Miguel power has a 300-MW coal plant in Mindanao sitting on only 30 hectares of land, or hectare/MW ratio of only 0.1 for coal vs. 1.5 for solar.

Since solar has a low capacity factor, only 18% of its installed capacity -- from 450 hectares of land with installed power of 300 MW -- can actually produce only around 54 MW.

Majestic solar, 66.3 MW in CEZA, Rosario, Cavite is not included here because it is a rooftop facility and hence, does not occupy extra land area.

5. Carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution and emission from coal power plants will further warm the planet.

Wrong. CO2 is not a pollutant or evil gas. It is a useful gas, the gas that we humans and our animals exhale, the gas that our rice, corn, flowers, trees and other plants use to produce their own food via photosynthesis. More CO2 means more plant growth, more food production, more trees regenerating naturally, which have cooling effect on land surface.

The above five myths were among the topics discussed during the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC) “Roundtable on Philippine Energy Security and Competitiveness” last Friday, March 17 at UPSE in Diliman, Quezon City. The main speaker was Dr. Majah Ravago of UPSE and EPDP and she presented the main EPDP paper, Filipino 2040 Energy. The five reactors included Jose “Viking” Logarta of the ICSC and Dr. Christoph Menke of Trier University of Applied Sciences in Germany. Dr. Menke discussed the GIZ paper criticizing the EPDP paper.

Governments should not create regulations that distort the energy market away from real competition. Insisting on dishonest claims like “carbon pollution” and “renewables to save the planet” only lead to more expensive and unstable energy supply, wasteful use of land and other natural resources.

-------------

See also: 

BWorld 114, Brownouts, ancillary services and transmission charge, March 23, 2017 

BWorld 117, Energy bureaucracy, electric cooperatives and NEA, March 28, 2017 

BWorld 118, Regulate this, prohibit that: bureaucracies in transportation, March 30, 2017 

BWorld 119, Seven myths in the mining debate, April 07, 2017

Climate Tricks 60, Alarmism cannot produce data of "unprecedented warming"

One of the persistent but debunked claims by the climate alarmism movement is that the recent, modern warm period is "unprecedented warming", meaning there were no precedents in global warming. A friend for instance commented in my fb thread about Earth Hour, "The level of CO2 heats up the Earth's atmosphere and we have record high temperatures. 2015 was a record high then until we got data from 2016 and, 2017 maybe even higher."

I asked him these two questions: (1) What time or period of planet Earth's 4.6 B years that there was NO climate change? You have alternative data to this, 700 M years climate data?

(2) What was it like before this "man-made" CC and "unprecedented warming": less rain, no rain, more rains? less flood, no flood, more flood? Proof and scientific papers?

He replied and answered Q1 that indeed, there was no time or period that climate did not occur in the 4.6 B years of Earth's existence. Then he added, "remember when humans appeared on earth it's activities affected its atmosphere after it invented fire. Before, it was an awesome balance but man adversely affected this balance."

And his indirect answer to Q2, "Before, it was an awesome balance." Wow, from what source? And what is that reference period of "before", 100 years ago? 1,000 years, 1 M year, or 100 M years ago, or farther?

Similar claims would be "we have stronger and stronger typhoons, cyclones and hurricanes" -- ok, compared to when? Compared to 100 years ago? 1,000 years ago? 1 M years? Any scientific baseline? scientific source/s?

Another friend asked, "Did our interventions and activities quicken the pace of climate change?"

When you say "quicken the pace of cc", they mean there is less rain, less flood, than say 1,000 or 1 M years ago? Or more rain, more flood? This is the planet's climate cycle since 1 M years ago.

He insisted to introduce the "human variable" in the discussion, to see how human activities affected the natural climate cycle. Well, the "human variable" is here, at the far end of the chart, past 700 M years data. Current CO2 levels are far far lower compared to that period. What's so scary here? 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFo.../PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Here's a shorter timeframe, past 5,000 years. The "human variable" is at the far right of the chart. How different is it compared to the Medieval warm period? compared to the Roman warm period? 

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/.../Main/Warm_periods.jpg

Data above say that recent or the past century's warming was nothing scary, nothing alarming, nothing frankensteining compared to past warming thousands and millions of years ago as claimed by the climate alarmists and scammers. 

-------------

See also:

Climate Tricks 57, Inability to disprove past global warming precedents, December 16, 2016 

Climate Tricks 58, Trump's climate advisor to reverse US government alarmism, January 20, 2017 

Climate Tricks 59, Alarmism by the socialists and global ecological central planners, January 28, 2017

Climate Tricks 50, Letter to the US HOR Committee on Science, Space and Technology

This week, a group of scientists, engineers, physicians, economists, mostly from the US but with other signatories from abroad, wrote the Chairman of the US' House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, about temperature data quality. Originally posted in WUWT, 300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House ScienceCommittee: ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’.

January 25, 2016

Chairman Lamar Smith
Committee on Science, Space and Technology
House of Representatives
Congress of the United States

Dear Chairman Smith,

We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act. This is an issue of international relevance because of the weight given to U.S. Government assessments during international negotiations such as the IPCC.

The Data Quality Act required government-wide guidelines to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information,” that was disseminated to the public. Individual agencies, such as the EPA, NOAA and many others were required to issue corresponding guidelines and set up mechanisms to allow affected parties to seek to correct information considered erroneous.

We remind you that controversy previously arose over EPA’s apparent failure to comply with these guidelines in connection with its Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, which was the subject of a report by the EPA Office of the Inspector General in 2011, see http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/20110926-11-p-0702.pdf In that case, EPA failed to comply with peer review requirements for a “highly influential scientific assessment” and argued that the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding was not a “highly influential” scientific assessment. If it wasn’t, then it’s hard to imagine what would be. (For a contemporary discussion of the EPA’s stance see
http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/04/epa-the-endangerment-finding-was-not-a-highly-influentialscientific-
assessment/ ).

In our opinion, in respect to Karl et al. 2015 and related documents, NOAA has failed to observe the OMB (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act, for peer review of “influential scientific information” and “highly influential scientific assessments.”

We urge you to focus on these important compliance issues. For your consideration we attach a draft letter which directly connects these issues to your committee’s prior request for documents.

Sincerely,
(List of signatories and tag lines)

The list of signatories is 18 pages long, see here.
I am one of the signatories, on page 14. I was invited by a good friend in the US, Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist. It seems that I am the only signatory from South East Asia.

-------------

See also:

Climate Tricks 46, More alarmism --> more climate money expectation --> more disappointment, December 12, 2015
Climate Tricks 47, Severe UK flooding due to "man-made" warming, climate change? December 30, 2015 

Climate Tricks 48, Denying climate cycles, January 13, 2016 

Climate Tricks 49, No extreme weather, no severe storms in the past? January 14, 2016

Global warming hits Asia, Part 4, January 26, 2016

Climate Tricks 41, CO2 Leads Temperature, or Vice Versa?

There is an interesting article yesterday in WUWT, Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature DrivesAtmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature. The author is right on target when  he  wrote,

The IPCC’s position that increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data.

In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. The attached Excel spreadsheet (“CO2 vs T”) shows that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months (Figures 2, 3 and 4). The IPCC states that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming – in effect, the IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC’s core scientific conclusion is illogical and false....

Veizer’s approach is credible and consistent with the data. The IPCC’s core scientific position is disproved – CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months – the future can not cause the past.

While further research is warranted, it is appropriate to cease all CO2 abatement programs that are not cost-effective, and focus efforts on sensible energy efficiency, clean water and the abatement of real atmospheric pollution, including airborne NOx, SOx and particulate emissions.

The tens of trillions of dollars contemplated for CO2 abatement should, given the balance of evidence, be saved or re-allocated to truly important global priorities.

Amen to those statements. A huge scam perpetrated by the UN and various governments that victimize taxpayers and energy consumers in so many countries around the world.

Dr. Roy Spencer made a good discussion of the subject too, How Much of Atmospheric CO2 Increase is Natural? (August 27th, 2014). He showed these two charts with a note,

But what if (I’m NOT necessarily advocating this) most of the CO2 humans produce, which is near the land surface, is absorbed by vegetation, and the observed global increase is partly or mostly due to outgassing of the oceans?

Scientists seem to make the assumption that nature is always in balance. But this clearly isn’t the case for natural sources and sinks of CO2 (you can find such plots in the IPCC reports, too)....

We should remember how much we have anthropomorphized recent warming: Human activities produce CO2 in reasonably well known amounts, humans do the monitoring of CO2, then humans do the modeling. Since we really don’t understand the natural sources and sinks very well — not to the <1% level needed to document that a “natural balance” exists (since human emissions are now close to 5% of natural sources and sinks) -- we just assume they are “in balance”. There, problem solved.

So, we impose a human explanation on what we observe in nature. A common tendency throughout human history. We are searching for answers at night under the only streetlamp where we can see.

Here's another plot from http://friendsofscience.org/. Lower troposphere global temperature, monthly data from January 2002 to April 2015, vs. CO2 concentration in the planet. Note the lack of "causality" between the two.

 Dr. Tim Ball made a good discussion paper on this subject, Plants encouraged as CO2 levels reach 400 ppm (May 9, 2015) and observed, 

All life on Earth exists because of CO2. It is essential to flora, which then produce oxygen essential to fauna.... Most plants, especially the complex vascular plants evolved in the last 300 million years. The average level of atmospheric CO2 over that period was approximately 1200 ppm....

The longer geologic record produced by Scotese and Bernier (Figure 1) shows that for most of Earth’s history the level was well above the current level. The only time when levels were commensurate with today was from 315 million years ago (mya) to 270 mya, yet for over half of that period temperature was similar to today.

Most plants, especially the complex vascular plants evolved in the last 300 million years. The average level of atmospheric CO2 over that period was approximately 1200 ppm.

Some government units are more honest than others (many are outright lying when it comes to CO2 and climate). From Ontario government, "Carbon dioxide in greenhouses", http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.

In many or most modern greenhouse farming in the world, farmers use CO2 generators and inflate the CO2 level from 400 ppm outside to at least 500 ppm inside. Here in one farm in Israel, they use 500 ppm. In many farms in the US, they inflate up to 800-1,000 ppm. More CO2, more and faster plant growth, more food for humanity, organic products. 

At 400 parts per million (ppm), it is not that big and many crops are considered as "carbon starved." Divide 400/1,000,000 = ???? 

Just 0.04 percent only of total GHGs in the entire planet. More CO2 means more plant growth, more trees, more vegetables, more rice, thank you gas-of-life, CO2. Only dishonest entities like the UN, Al Gore, and many other "planet saviours" keep saying that CO2 is a pollutant, if not evil gas, that must be demonized, over-regulated, over-taxed and must be cut.

-----------

See also: 

CO2 is a Useful Gas, February 11, 2011

Climate Tricks 5: CO2, Clouds and Positive Feedback, March 21, 2012 

Climate Tricks 25: Demonizing CO2 as a Toxic, Pollutant Gas, January 19, 2014 

Climate Tricks 26: CO2, Pollution and Climate Junkets, February 21, 2014

Climate Tricks 37: Climate Money and the Scientific Dishonesty Behind It, January 31, 2015 
Climate Tricks 38: Threats and Witch Hunt of Skeptical Scientists, March 02, 2015 
Climate Tricks 39: Many Attacks on Dr. Willie Soon, He Repliedm March 03, 2015
Earth Hour 6: The WWF can Change Climate Change? March 29, 2015
Climate Tricks 40: Arrest Climate Change Deniers, April 11, 2015

Climate Tricks 40: Arrest Climate Change Deniers

Another emotional and  authoritarian call from the alarmist groups.  This is from gawlers.com, March 28, 2015. The alarmists are getting more emotional, more desperate, more intolerant.

On the other hand, that proposal might be correct. Yes, arrest the deniers. Those people who:

1. Deny that climate change (CC) is natural and cyclical; that it is largely nature-made, not man-made.

2. Deny that global warming (GW) also happened in the past despite absence of SUVs and coal/nuke power plants. Deny that GW is not "unprecedented" and that global cooling can happen after GW; 

Source: Dr. Roy Spencer, April 6th, 2015

3. Deny that global warming can pause for many years, despite continued rise of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Source:  Werner Brozek, RSS Shows No Warming For 15 Years (Now Includes FebruaryData), April 09, 2015

4. Deny that CO2-temperature has no clear causality, that global temperature can flat line, or even decline, while CO2 concentration can  keep rising.  

Source: Friends of Science. Violet trend line (2002 best fit) for the period January 2002 to February 2015.

5. Deny that  CO2 is plant food or fertilizer, and  hence, is a useful gas, the gas that we humans and our animals exhale, the gas that plants and crops use to grow and produce their own food via photosynthesis.

On the right: Empirical Data. Growth of 21-day-old rice and S. viridis seedlings at different ambient CO2 concentrations ranging from 30 to 800 parts per million. NOTE: The very last set of pots on the extreme right is out of sequence. They are for 390 ppm, while the next to last pots are for 800 ppm.

Source: Indur Goklany, Memo to Doubters -- CO2 is Plant Food! June 30, 2012

6. Deny that Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) contribute to natural climate regulation of warming and cooling.

The PDO has been trending down since the early 1980s. It also was up during the 1930s and negative during the 1970s. The AMO and the PDO are the natural ocean cycles that climate scientists talk about.

Source: Ed Caryl, NTZ, What Caused the Global Warming Pause or Why Hate theHiatus?, April 08, 2015.

7. Deny that the Sun can be the  main driver of planet Earth's climate of warming or cooling.

Sources: Hockey Schtick, http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html

8. Deny that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), their effect on cloud formations and Earth's albedo also contribute to climate regulation of warming or cooling.

The neutron count is an indicator of the cosmic ray flux at the top of the atmosphere. Here is the neutron count at Oulu, Finland since 1965. It is thought that cosmic rays seed cloud formation. Therefore high recent count is providing cooling clouds. 

Source: Ed Caryl, NTZ.

9. Deny that human emission of CO2 as share of total CO2 in the atmosphere is small (between 0 - 30%). And that CO2 residence in the atmosphere is short (only 4-7 years) and not "hundreds of years".

Source: Hockey Schtick, March 24, 2015

10. Deny that Arctic (and Greenland, Antarctica) ice melts and grows, every year. And also follow a thin-thick ice cycle.

Source: Joe D' Aleo, icecap, April 08, 2015.

These deniers who deny the above and many other scientific facts and data, they should be arrested. 

But who will arrest these deniers if the arresting institutions -- governments, plus the UN -- are themselves part or leaders of this grand global denial movement?

For this group of CC deniers, they argue that "man-made" CC causes less rain and more rain, less flood and more flood, less snow and more snow, less storms and more storms, less heat waves and more heat waves, less dogs and more dogs. It is actually stupid and anti-science.

Whatever the weather or climate, they are all "man-made" CC and hence, there should be lots of "man-made" solutions. Like more climate bureaucracies, more and frequent global climate junkets, more climate loans, more energy taxation and regulations, more subsidies and cronyism to favored renewables.

Given the uncertainty of climate predictions, there should be NO global and national  climate coercions. Like forcing people to pay for expensive electricity from renewables, forcing people to pay for the huge cost of climate bureaucracies and their frequent global climate junkets.

If the deniers will recognize and stop denying any of those 10 (more actually) scientific facts showen above, the whole foundation of "man-made" CC collapses. Just one out of ten, much more if all 10 of them.

Yes the deniers will deny that their ultimate goal is global ecological central planning. Global environmental socialism.
------------

See also::

Climate Tricks 35:Follow the Money, Trillions of $$$, December 10, 2014 
Climate Tricks 36: Avoid Looking at Data 450,000 Years Ago or Longer, December 29, 2014 
Climate Tricks 37: Climate Money and the Scientific Dishonesty Behind It, January 31, 2015 
Climate Tricks 38: Threats and Witch Hunt of Skeptical Scientists, March 02, 2015 
Climate Tricks 39: Many Attacks on Dr. Willie Soon, He Repliedm March 03, 2015
Earth Hour 6: The WWF can Change Climate Change?, March 29, 2015

Climate Tricks 36: Avoid Looking at Data 450,000 Years Ago or Longer

The anthropogenic or "man-made" warming/CC camp  is generally a parochial and  short-time reference hypothesis. I say parochial because they only focus and blame carbon dioxide (CO2) as climate driver and generally don't mention or discuss other natural contributors to climate forcing like the Sun, galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), water vapor, Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), volcanoes, etc, And I say "short-time" reference because they generally look back over the past 160 years only, in  the mid 1800s which coincided with the end of the little ice age (LIA) and started a new cycle of past century's warming.

There is another good scientific paper posted in WUWT yesterday, Vostok and the 8000 year time lag by Euan Mearns. I am reposting portions of that paper including the concluding notes. The author's data covering nearly 450,000 years showed long-term warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycles. Yes, global warming did happen hundreds of thousand years ago when there was not even bicycles or telephones.

Here are portions of Dr. Mearns' paper.
-----------

In comparing the temperature, CO2 and CH4 signals in the Vostok ice core, it is important to understand that the temperature signal is carried by hydrogen : deuterium isotope abundance in the water that makes the ice whilst the CO2 and CH4 signals are carried by air bubbles trapped in the ice. The air bubbles trapped by ice are always deemed to be younger than the ice owing to the time lag between snow falling and it being compacted to form ice. In Vostok, the time lag between snow falling and ice trapping air varies between 2000 and 6500 years.

Note that in all my charts time is passing from right to left with the “present day” to the left. The present day (year zero) is deemed to be 1995, the year that the cores were drilled. The GT4 time scale of Petit et al is used.

The methane concentrations in gas bubbles and temperature variations in Vostok are incredibly well aligned, especially at the terminations and return to glaciation when temperature variations are at their greatest.

Methane and temperature variations. Note how methane and temperature are particularly strongly aligned at the terminations and during subsequent decline back to glacial conditions.

This shows that the ice age to gas age calibration is good. But does it show that methane variations of ±200 ppbV (parts per billion) are amplifying the orbital control of glaciations?

The fit of CO2 to temperature is actually not nearly so tight as for CH4. There is a persistent tendency for CO2 to lag temperature throughout and this time lag is most pronounced at the onset of each glacial cycle “where CO2 lags temperature by several thousand years”.

CO2 and temperature appear well-correlated in a gross sense but there are some significant deviations. At the terminations, the alignment is as good as observed for methane. But upon descent into the following glaciation there is a time lag between CO2 and temperature of several thousand years. Petit et al [1] make the observation but fail to offer an explanation and to take the significance into account preferring to make instead unsupportable claims about CO2 and CH4 amplifying orbital forcing.

CO2 lags methane in a manner similar to the lag between CO2 and temperature. This time lag requires an explanation rooted in the geochemical environments that are both emitting and sequestering these gases. Petit et al [1] devote surprisingly little space to explaining the physical processes behind the CO2 and methane variations at all.

So what may actually be going on? A few months ago Roger and I had a series of posts on Earth’s carbon cycle. We never really got to the bottom of it but in the process learned a lot and turned up much interesting data.  I made three interim conclusions 1) deep ocean water contains much more carbon than the surface, and because of this 2) the much publicised oceanic CO2 solubility pump cannot exist and 3) most CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis – trees on land and phytoplankton in the oceans [4]. This may help us to understand the CO2 time lag. The deep oceans contain vast amounts of carbon, the product of rotting plankton at depth, and when the oceans warm or overturn, this C can be released to the atmosphere, quickly. But the return trip is not so simple since this depends on photosynthetic rates. In short, it seems that the oceans can exhale CO2 much more easily than it can be inhaled again.

On land, the re-creation of northern hemisphere ice sheets will kill high latitude forests and cause global migration of climatic belt boundaries towards the equator. Killing forests reduces the size of the terrestrial CO2 pump whilst simultaneously adding a source of CO2 – rotting wood. This will tend to offset the oceanic biosphere’s ability to pump CO2 down during the cooling phase.

Conclusions

* Over four glacial cycles CO2, CH4 and temperature display cyclical co-variation. This has been used by the climate science community as evidence for amplification of orbital forcing via greenhouse gas feedbacks.

* I am not the first to observe that CO2 lags temperature in Vostok [2] and indeed Petit et al [1] make the observation that at the onset of glaciation CO2 lags temperature by several thousand years. But they fail to discuss this and the fairly profound implications it has.

* Temperature and CH4 are extremely tightly correlated with no time lags. Thus, while CO2 and CH4 are correlated with temperature in a general sense, in detail their response to global geochemical cycles are different. Again Petit et al. make the observation but fail to discuss it.

* At the onset of the last glaciation the time lag was 8,000 years and the world was cast into the depths of an ice age with CO2 variance evidently contributing little to the large fall in temperature.

* The only conclusion possible from Vostok is that variations in CO2 and CH4 are both caused by global temperature change and freeze thaw cycles at high latitudes. These natural geochemical cycles makes it inevitable that CO2 and CH4 will correlate with temperature. It is therefore totally invalid to use this relationship as evidence for CO2 forcing of climate, especially since during the onset of glaciations, there is no correlation at all.
--------------

See also::

Climate Tricks 32: Yeb Sano and CCC to Save the Arctic, September 16, 2014
Climate Tricks 33: UN Fooling Government Leaders to Accept Expensive Energy, September 25, 2014 
Climate Tricks 34: Watermelon Movement, Green Outside, Red Inside, October 07, 2014 
Climate Tricks 35:Follow the Money, Trillions of $$$, December 10, 2014

Climate Tricks 26: CO2, Pollution and Climate Junkets

A friend working at the House of Representatives posted the other day photos of a forum on climate change, sponsored by the House Committee on Ecology, Senate Committee on Environment, British Embassy Manila, and Global Legistors Organization – Philippines. In this photo, crying climate negotiator Yeb Sano speaking. Yeb was a former WWF activist then migrated to become a government official, one of the commissioners at the Climate Change Commission (CCC) and does frequent global travels to “save the planet.”

I commented that many if not all of the speakers may have argued that "CC is happening now" which is partly true. But I doubt that anyone say that "CC has happened in the past, naturally, with or without humans", http://www.drroyspencer.com/.../senate-epw-hearing.../

Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before” « Roy Spencer, PhD

www.drroyspencer.com

The author of that article is a world known climatologist. They are analyzing global temp data of the air/lower troposphere and ocean temp as gathered by satellites 24/7, 365 days a year. See the graph, actual global temp vs projections and guesses of global temp, 13 pages long, http://www.drroyspencer.com/.../Spencer_EPW_Written...

My friend commented that no one disputes that CC is natural and cyclical but one variable is the amount of human activity that may contribute to the change. “Now, do we continue consuming our natural resources and exploit the resources of other developing countries just because we believe that climate change is a natural evolution of things?”

This is one of the very few instances were campaigners of “man-made” or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and ACC recognize that GW and CC are also nature made. This could be another indicator that the AGW hypothesis and religion is indeed crumbling.

Now If CC is accepted as nature-made and not man-made, what is the point of using our tax money to pay for the endless junkets of climate negotiators for many years, the creation of various climate bureaucracies, the enactment of a Renewable Energy (RE) law that will make already expensive electricity become even more expensive through feed in tariff (FIT) and RPS?

With or wthout humans and their SUVs, global cooling will still happen. With or without humans and their bicycles, global warming will still happen.

Climate Tricks 25: Demonizing CO2 as a Toxic, Pollutant Gas

Carbon dioxide or CO2, is a gas composed of one molecules of carbon and two molecules of oxygen. It's not a harmful gas, it is not an evil gas. But with the UN, Al Gore, and various campaigners of more environmental and energy regulations, more government, CO2 has been demonized.

Here's a chart, global air temperature UAH and RSS average (blue) and their trend line (red) vs. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (green), January 2002 to December 2013. There is "causality"?

Source: http://friendsofscience.org/

A friend, Dr. Tony Leachon, posted yesterday in his facebook wall, "Global warming is everyone's problem, but which countries have contributed to it the most?"

I asked him, "Doc Tony, you are a scientist yourself. You believe in the claim that CO2 is a pollutant and harmful gas?"

Then Rosel DS joined. He wrote,

“Yes Nonoy, if CO2 is in excess as it contributes to the Greenhouse effect. US EPA Chief Jackson wrote: "In the endangerment finding, Jackson declares that current and projected concentrations of “the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases–carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)–in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” seehttp://www.forbes.com/.../epa-administrator-resigns.../

EPA Chief Resigns: Declared Carbon Dioxide A Pollutant

www.forbes.com

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced this morning she would resign as hea...See More

What happened to people’s high school or college biology? The gas that we and the rest of humanity exhale, the gas that our pets, farm and wild animals exhale, the gas that our plants, crops, trees use to produce their own food via photosynthesis, is CO2. It is a useful gas. No CO2, no plant life, no animals, humans that eat various agri crops. Now it is a harmful, pollutant, evil gas? Some institutions are just too corrupt to bend even basic natural science for their political agenda.

I asked Rosel if he or EPA head Jackson can see CO2? If so, what is its color as a pollutant? Can heand Jackson smell CO2? If so, how does it smell as a pollutant?

Rosel replied,

“Nonoy, we all agree on our biology basics. When in excess, carbon dioxide (coming mostly from industrial sources) becomes the primary green house gas that is the cause of climate change. I assume you agree on this. Hence for the public I share: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html Do you have anything to add to enlighten the discussion? Lizbeth de Padua Dante Guanlao Simbulan Jr. Gina Lopez Doc Emer Jimmy Valena Thanks

Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

www.epa.gov

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activit...See More

And Doc Tony Leachon also replied that “Yes, CO2 is toxic.”

And Rosel added,

“I have to agree with Tony Leachon. A good thing can easily be a bad thing in excess. "Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 kPa level, i.e., about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location.["CarbonTracker CT2011_oi (Graphical map of CO2)". esrl.noaa.gov.]

“CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[Wikipedia]”

And I have to ask again Rosel as he did not answer my questions: “Can you see CO2 as a pollutant? Can you smell CO2 as a pollutant? Answerable by yes or not, answer them, do not evade.”

His point, "When in excess, CO2... becomes the primary GHG..."
What is that excess? From about 285 ppm at the start of the Industrial Revolution or nearly 2 centuries ago, currently it's 400 ppm or 0.04%. Then you introduce 10,000 ppm, 70,000 ppm, you are introducing sort of zoombie dinosaurs and highly fictional stories. Get real. UN IPCC guys talk only of "doubling of CO2" (meaning about 800 ppm) to cause catastrophic/apocalyptic/horrific result in antropogenic global warming (AGW) of up to 4 C by the end of this century. Of course they mean "send us more money, lots and lots of money, and we will fight CC".

I suggested to Doc Tony that since he believes that  "CO2 is toxic", then he should be careful when he kisses his wife lips to lips too long, they will be poisoning each other as they both exhale CO2.

As I pointed out above, CO2 is a useful gas. No CO2, or very low levels of CO2 means plant extinction or near-extinction. No rice, no veggies, no grass for cattle, etc. In many greenhouse farming, CO2 as plant food and plant fertilizer, is introduced as supplement, up to 1,000 ppm. http://notrickszone.com/.../higher-co2-concentrations.../

Higher CO2 Concentrations Will Feed A Billion More People

notrickszone.com

If CO2 is increased 200 ppm above the current levels, (which have already increased production by the 13 to 15% cited above) production will increase by 13 to 15% (see here �and here ).

Additional articles on CO2:

(1) Carbon Dioxide And The Ocean: Temperature Is Driving CO2, And Not Vice Versa

By Ed Caryl on 8. Oktober 2013

Carbon Dioxide and the Ocean

 (2) Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations At 400 PPM Are Still Dangerously Low For Life On Earth

By P Gosselin on 17. Mai 2013

(3) CO2 Residence Times, Take Two

Posted on December 11, 2013 by Anthony Watts

(4) Newsbytes: Japan Stuns UN Climate Summit By Ditching CO2 Target

Posted on November 15, 2013 by Anthony Watts

From Dr. Benny Peiser of the GWPF

(5) Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information

Posted on November 13, 2013 by Guest Blogger

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

----------

See also::
Climate Tricks 21: Arctic Ice Will be Gone This Year?, July 14, 2013 
Climate Tricks 22: Typhoon Haiyan due to Man-Made CC?, November 10, 2013 
Climate Tricks 23: Using Typhoon Haiyan for Climate and Energy Rent-Seeking, November 30, 2013 

Climate Tricks 24: Polar Vortex is Caused by Global Warming?, January 09, 2014