Earth Hour 9, Hate-love of fossil fuels

Another #EarthHour today, an annual global campaign by the WWF. Darkness is either good or bad. If good, then people should do it nightly or many hours a night like North Korea, not just 1 hour/year. And #fossilfuel is either good or bad. If bad, then people should stay off-grid because the grid transmits and distributes 50% of all PH electricity coming from coal power, another 20% coming from oil and natural gas, both fossil fuels. One cannot say "Fossil fuel is bad but I'll keep using it anyway". That hypocrisy and double talk is like saying that "Corruption and stealing is bad but I'll keep doing it anyway." #CCC, #WWF, #AlGore, #UN, #DENR, #Greenpeace.

See also WWF double talk here. It wants a "zero-carbon world", fine.  People, companies, foundations, governments, UN agencies, should donate/send more money to the WWF to help attain this goal.

Then WWF officials and people are into frequent global climate talks/meetings. Fine, they should be riding solar planes, giant kites, uber-brooms or uber-witches, to move across countries and continents. They hate CO2-emitting oil used by commercial planes, buses and cars; they hate CO2-emitting coal, oil and gas power plants.

And WWF, GPeace, many other environmental activist groups are also campaigners of "climate justice" movement. They demand "system change" -- referring to change from capitalist system to socialist or communist system. Cool.

The main purpose of Earth Hour campaign is to sustain climate alarmism, to keep scaring, fooling and milking the people of "man-made" warming/climate change so we need "man-made" solutions via more government, more UN, more carbon/coal/oil taxes, more climate loans (World Bank, ADB Philippines), more climate bureaucracies, more/frequent global climate junkets.

For them, there is little or no such thing as "nature-made" warming/CC. They deny that CC is natural; deny that CC is cyclical; deny that global cooling can happen after global warming; deny that the Sun, galactic cosmic rays, clouds and water vapor, ocean oscillation, other natural factors are big drivers of climate; deny that CO2 is a useful and non-pollutant gas. They are the big deniers then turn their fingers around so that large-scale climate robbery and trillions of $ scam will continue.

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

See also: 
Earth Hour 6: The WWF can Change Climate Change?, March 29, 2015 
Earth Hour 7, Lesson in basic electrical engineering, March 21, 2016 
Earth Hour 8, Celebrate darkness vs modernization, March 23, 2017

Earth Hour 8, Celebrate darkness vs modernization

Earth Hour 2017 by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is two days away and yet last night, while I was having dinner with my daughter at a resto at SM Mall of Asia (MOA), the waiter informed us that they will shut off the lights from 7.30 - 8.30pm, for "Earth Hour", we can transfer to a table outside where the mall's exterior and street lights are on and bright. I said they should have informed me earlier so I could cancel my order because I don't believe in that stupid "celebrate darkness" campaign. Waiter went out, talked to management, came back and said they wont shut off the lights inside, only the shop sign outside. Good.

For me, this is the best EH photo. Celebrate darkness even for 1 hour is idiotic. But since campaigners do not really shut off lights 100%, only about 50% so they can have their speeches and singing to protect the planet from the "evils of fossil fuels" as they went to various venues on cars, buses, motorcycles that run on fossil fuel, it's only a half-idiotic campaign.

If "celebrate darkness" to "save the planet" is a good thing, then campaigners like WWF and Henry Sy family should do it every night, 365 nights a year, not just 1 hour a year. Darkness is the bliss of cave men and women, and double talk people among us who criticize if not hate modernity but cannot shake off their love affair with facebook, youtube, emails, cars, plane rides, etc.

Electricity and modernity allowed us to have a wealthier, more comfortable world. If people think riding cars or buses or jeeps that run on fossil fuel is bad, they should stop riding those vehicles and use only bicycles, skateboards and running shoes.

EH is not an ordinary "awareness campaign", rather it is one of the major anti-fossil fuel, kill coal, over-tax oil campaigns. Which have implicit and explicit ramifications in our energy, transportation and industrialization policies. Expensive electricity from unstable, intermittent sources should be embraced by the public. Even if those intermittent sources can ensure blackouts 100% if back up fossil fuel plants are not around.

Climate change (CC) is about global warming, global cooling, warming, cooling,... endless cycles for the past 4.6 billion years. With or without humans and their cars, malls, boats, planes and coal or nuke power plants. CC is natural or nature-made, not man-made.

One friend complained why I cannot respect the other view. Well for private citizens or civil society actions without national and global coercion, I don't mind. But those campaigns and advocacies have plenty of coercive components, like us taxpayers paying for the endless global climate meetings and junkets by government climate and environment officials and their staff, their offices and perks. Or government forcing us to pay higher electricity bills monthly to give endless subsidies to renewables.

Another friend argued that we humans are "hastening changes that in turn threaten our very existence." Uhmmm, exactly 101 years before Haiyan/Yolanda, Nov. 1912, also in Leyte, when total PH population that time was perhaps only 10M or less, when CO2 concentration was much lower, these things happened.

The WWF, Greenpeace, other groups make huge money by deceiving and convincing the public that if there are less rain, no rain or no flood, there is scary "man-made" CC so people should send them money. If there are more rains, more flood, there is also scary "man-made" CC so people should send them money. They campaign to fight less rain and more rain, fight less flood and more flood, fight less cold and more cold, fight less snow and more snow. Whatever the weather and climate, we should be scared and worried and alarmed, and they are the big planet saviours.

So the EH is part of a global fund raising campaign. WWF positions itself as a big planet saviour so it needs big money. CC alarmism, ditching the natural and cyclical nature of CC is about 95% political science and 5% climate science. The ultimate goal is more government, more UN, more global ecological central planning. That is why it is common to see WWF officials migrating to high government officials and vice versa.
------------

See also:
Earth Hour 5: Celebrating Darkness is not Wise, March 30, 2012 
Earth Hour 6: The WWF can Change Climate Change?, March 29, 2015 
Earth Hour 7, Lesson in basic electrical engineering, March 21, 2016

Earth Hour 7, Lesson in basic electrical engineering

Another Earth Hour drama the other day. The WWF guys, their buddies, should do it nightly, 365 nights a year, and several hours a night if possible. Better yet, they should have an office in North Korea where EH is a nightly reality for many of its neighbors.

A good satellite photo of Europe and Africa, same time zones. Darkness is cool? Am laughing.

Photo from http://geology.com/articles/satellite-photo-earth-at-night.shtml

I am reposting a nice intro to basic electrical  engineering, from my engineer-economist friend, Cynthia Hernandez. Cynthia gave me permission to repost this. Thanks Cynths.
-----------

March 20, 2016

Scene in the house last night:

Mother: (looks at clock) Naku! 8:30 na! We have to turn off the lights for Earth Hour.

Me: (launches into my Earth Hour rant*)

End result: Lights and aircon stay ON! Woohoo!

*Earth Hour rant (slightly) condensed: Electricity is not just the Demand side. You turn off the lights, your meter runs slightly less, and you think, "Hurrah, I saved ×× kWh less, yey me, I'm such an Earth Warrior!" Then you pat yourself on the back and not think about the environment for the rest of the year.

However, on the Supply side, the huge generators that have to run to feed the Nation's addiction to OTWOL (or whatever is the current obsession. I don't watch TV so maybe that gives me environmentalist points?) don't stop spinning. Why? If you're running your car at 100 kph, you don't brake to 0 kph in 1 second, right? And these generators are engines that are a million times larger and more complex.

So, when everybody turns off their lights, generators don't spontaneously use less fossil fuel. They are not designed like that. Especially if demand is expected to pick up again after an hour. Most likely scenario is that they are still running in reserve mode and burning fossil fuels as they do so.

Thus, the glowing news articles that appear a day after Earth Hour saying "Hey, you brave Earth-saving person, you saved xxx tons of CO2 from going into the air!" are simplistic. You might not be getting billed for that electricity, but the infrastructure that delivers that electricity to you has only slowed down slightly.

If you really want to make an impact, don't use electricity for an ENTIRE DAY. That means not subjecting the electric grid to the stress of an hourlong demand drop. The system operators, that have to take extraordinary measures so that your appliances don't get fried by a massive voltage surge, will thank you. That is, if you can stand to be without electricity in this heat. Good luck with that.

‪#‎ThinkBeforeGoingOnABandwagon ‪#‎ILoveElectricity ‪#‎EarthHourIsStupid

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

Meanwhile, this quote is from Bjorn Lomborg, he tweeted it. Cool.

Global ecological socialism -- the main goal of climate alarmism and the "man-made" or anthropogenic warming/climate change -- is deceptive and lousy, they wish to see more, bigger governments. The WWF, Greenpeace, the United Nations, other big international campaigners are simply saying, "save the planet... (send more money to us)." 
------------

See also:
Earth Hour 3: Letter to WWF-EH Campaign Leaders, March 21, 2011
Earth Hour 4: WWF-EH Censoring Critical Comments, March 30, 2011 
Earth Hour 5: Celebrating Darkness is not Wise, March 30, 2012 
Earth Hour 6: The WWF can Change Climate Change?, March 29, 2015

Climate Tricks 51, The CCC, Greenpeace and fossil fuels, February 01, 2016
Wind power, flattened mountain ridges, collapsed towers, March 08, 2016
Energy 60, PH solar companies, PagIBIG loan for solar, March 12, 2016

Earth Hour 6: The WWF can Change Climate Change?

To celebrate darkness even for one hour is lousy. More, stable electricity at lower price gave us modern life, including the convenience of the web, blogger, facebook and youtube. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), instigator of "celebrate darkness", "use less energy and electricity" movement, along with the  UN and Greenpeace, should give special awards to North Korea.

The WWF says "change climate change". Huhhh? Climate change is natural and cyclical. Like day-night cycle, dry-wet season cycle, winter-spring-summer-fall cycle, water evaporation-condensation cycle, etc. They want to change that natural cycle?

The WWF, the UN and GP, the triumvirate for climate alarmism, should have offices in Pyongyang.  It's heaven on  earth there, they have little electricity, few power plants from non-renewables, and they use less energy.

The UN says we should send them more money, so they can have more and  endless climate junkets. As the UN and other climate alarmists cause more alarm and public scare, they get more funding, private and taxpayers money. Then use the money to scare and deceive the public more.

Greenpeace US says more lights and electricity creates "man-made" CC. Thus, the solution is to go dark, wow. The offices, the houses of officers and staff of WWF, UN and GP should go dark every night, 365 nights a year and not just one hour a year. That way, they can help save the planet and walk their talk.

Ok, what is the inconvenient truth in climate science? I am posting just four papers from four scientists from four different sources.

(1) From Dr. Tim Ball, Relative Homogeneity of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)and The Little Ice Age (LIA), WUWT, March 22, 2015.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) contradicted their claim that the 20th century was the warmest ever.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) showed that the present warming trend began prior to the major impact of the Industrial Revolution. Significant production of CO2 by humans began only after World War II....

(2) From Dr. Roy Spencer, On Natural Climate Variability and Climate Models, February 27th, 2015.

Global average surface temperature changes (as James Hansen has also stated), can only be due to 3 processes: (1) radiative forcing, (2) radiative feedback, and (3) changes in ocean vertical circulation, all of which can be addressed with a 1D model like ours.

(3) From Dr. Murry Salby, Man-made CO2 could only cause warming of 'a few tenths ofa degree, if at all', Hockey Schtick, March 24, 2015.

Fig. 1: History of change of the total global CO2 concentration per year (green) and only on the surface properties (temperature + humidity dominant parts) induced change in CO2 concentration (blue). Correlation coefficient of 0.93. In contrast to the natural CO2 emissions depend on the "surface properties", do not have the anthropogenic emissions.

...The man-made share of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a maximum of 30% (0-30%). The remainder is related to temperature changes, natural outgassing from the oceans, and to humidity.

The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-7 years, not hundreds of years as falsely claimed by the IPCC Bern model.

Man-made CO2 emissions increased a whopping 350% faster since 2002, yet the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere remained steady at ~2.1 ppm/yr, a "strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share....

(4) From Drs. Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt, Solar Cycle Weakening…And: German Analysis Shows ClimateModels Do Overestimate CO2 Forcing, NTZ, March 05, 2015

Figure 1: Solar activity of the current Cycle No. 24 in red, the mean value for all previously observed cycles is shown in blue, and the up to now similar Cycle No. 1 in black.

Enjoy 6 other beautiful charts here.

Here in the Philippines, I think more people now realize that glorifying darkness, even for one hour, is a stupid act. Hence, few people turned off their lights last night. If people think having darkness is a good act, then they should have earth hour every night, 365 hours a year, not just one hour a year. 

A friend, Selwyn, also  observed:

If someone already knows that atmospheric CO2 is readily convertible to carbonic acid in water (H2CO3) which converts to Bicarbonate (HCO3-) which converts to either Sodium Bicarbonate or the Carbonate ion (CO3-2) which ends up as Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3), also known as seashells, skeleton bones, coral reefs, chalk, and limestone, one would also know how quickly such a CO2 increase would quickly be absorbed by the environment. But since very few so-called "environmentalists" actually know science, it's very easy to make them panic. Boo!

Finally, here's a better celebration. More lights at night mean less road accidents, less crimes, less strained eyes by students and workers. The campaigners of "darkness to save the planet" do not realize the dangers to humanity of their advocacy. Or they realize it but they do not care. What is important for them is the advancement of their ecological central planning advocacy.
-------------

See also:
Earth Hour 1: Success in North Korea, March 28, 2010
Earth Hour 2: "Reduce Consumption of Power" -- WWF, March 18, 2011
Earth Hour 3: Letter to WWF-EH Campaign Leaders, March 21, 2011
Earth Hour 4: WWF-EH Censoring Critical Comments, March 30, 2011 
Earth Hour 5: Celebrating Darkness is not Wise, March 30, 2012

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

Energy Econ 17: Brown outs in Mindanao, Thin Reserves in Luzon

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Earth Hour campaigners could be jumping with joy with this news. Up to six Earth Hours everyday in some areas of Mindanao, wow.

KIDAPAWAN CITY -- Power consumers in Cotabato City have been experiencing two to three rotating power interruptions due to limited power supply Cotabato Light and Power Company (Colight) had been getting from the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP).

In North Cotabato, last year’s long hours of brownout could even go higher as Mindanao’s power supply deteriorates.

Kidapawan City and other service areas of the Cotabato Electric Cooperative (Cotelco) have been experiencing four to six hours power interruption every day since last week.

Lory Tan, Yeb Sano, Vince Perez and other leaders of WWF, the chief campaigner of Earth Hour, will deny of course that they are jumping with joy. But that is what they are campaigning, that power plants should come mainly from renewables like hydro, biomass, solar and wind.  If coming from dirty "non-renewables like coal and natural gas, they are unhappy because such energy sources contribute to "man-made/anthroogenic" global warming and climate change. The renewables on the other hand, help "save the planet."

Meanwhile, the anti-Meralco, anti-privatization of NPC hydro plants, or even anti-coal crusaders, cannot go full blast in their campaigns. Even if Meralco is not in Mindanao, even if the hydro plants are in the hands of government, even if coal power is very limited in Mindanao, brown outs, which are worse than power rate hikes, are happening.

In Luzon, even outside Meralco area (M.Manila, Cavite, Rizal, Bulacan), tight or low power reserves (only 200-300 MW instead of the relatively safe 600 MW) can mean rotating brown outs if just one power plant with 300 MW capacity will suddenly conk out. A small bearing gave way, which damaged the big bearings, which damaged other moving parts, and power supply is suddenly zero. These are parts of daily realities, that is why high reserves by base load plants, at least 600 MW, is important. 

Peak load plants like diesel can provide extra power of course (peak hours are usually 11am to 2pm weekdays, then 7-9pm). But diesel is expensive compared to coal, hydro or natural gas. So using diesel plants will mean higher generation charge, which constitutes between 50-60 percent of our monthly electricity bill. Then the anti-power rate hike groups will rally in the streets, go to Congress and Supreme Court, go to mainstream media, facebook and twitter, to oppose any power rate hike.

--------

These windmills in Bangui, Ilocos Norte, 20 of them, are famous. They are often posted in fb and other social media. They have an installed capacity of 33 MW. But since wind plants have capacity delivery of only around 20 percent of their installed capacity on average, these wind plants can deliver only around 6 MW on average. (Photo credit, my good friend Jun Concepcion)

See the windmills, there are no houses and fishing village, no beach resorts either, no other business enterprises. This is because some of those wind towers can fall down someday, or the blades can overheat and also fall down. Hence, dangerous to people and structures.

But don't those wind plants bring down the cost of electricity in the country? No. On the contrary, they contribute to expensive electricity because of the feed in tariff (FIT) that they are entitled to, courtesy of the Renewable Energy (RE) Act of 2008. The FIT for wind power is P8.53/kwh, and for solar, P9.68/kwh. FIT is add-on charge to existing generation charge. So if average generation charge for the month is P5/kwh + FIT of P8.53 = P13.83/kwh. Electricity consumers, residential or commercial or industrial, will bear this burden.

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

See also: 

The Renewable Energy (RE) law, February 18, 2011

Energy Econ 2: Renewable Energy and High Electricity Prices, July 30, 2012 

Energy Econ 7: Renewables, FIT, RPS and Climate, September 24, 2012 

Energy Econ 10: Climate Alarmism and FIT for Renewables, June 28, 2013

Energy Econ 13: Universal Charges and Thin Power Reserves, February 13, 2014

Energy Econ 14: Power Rate Hike, Who Colluded?, February 22, 2014 

Energy Econ 15: Electricity Angsts, Presentation at UP Diliman, March 08, 2014 

Energy Econ 16: Electricity and Development, March 20, 2014

Mining 16: CSR, WWF and Environmental Alarmism

The corporate social responsibility (CSR) of a company is to satisfy its (a) customers via good quality products and services at a good and competitive price, (b) workers via good pay and benefits and safe working conditions, (c) shareholders via good returns on  their investments. For companies in the extractive sector like oil, gas and mining, (d) minimize environmental damage and rehabilitation after site closure.

That's my own understanding or definition of CSR. I don't believe that a company has the "responsibility" to provide scholarships to poor students, conduct medical missions, reforestation, etc. while it bleeds its employees with super low wages and dangerous working conditions, or produce lousy or over-priced products and services to its customers. Any PR services like giving scholarships, medical missions, etc. should be done after satisfying the three (or four) important players in the company. My previous articles on the subject are here,
CSR as "mandatory requirement" = extortionism, April 05, 2006 
CSR of a company is to make profit, March 03, 2011.

Nonetheless, drawing up a CSR varies from one company or industry association to another, there is no single "CSR for all companies" in a given industry, sector or country. And it's good to have variety and diversity in how companies and private enterprises define their own CSR. 

During the Mining Conference 2012 in Sofitel Hotel last September, a presentation by the Institute for Development and Econometric Analysis (IDEAS), CSR Mining Scorecard Initiatives: Zooming in on the CSR Industry Scorecard, these slides were among those shown.


CSR of the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP), and its CSR Guidebook. Each of the six pillars of the Code have "elements" and details. 

The “Australian Minerals Industry Code for Environmental Management” or "The Code‟ of 1996. This is to ensure that the country's practices in uranium mining, milling and rehabilitation meet world-class standards.

And South Africa's “Broad-based Socio-economic Empowerment Charter” (BBSEE), with a vision of  "A globally competitive mining industry that draws on the human and financial resources of all South Africa's people and offers real benefits to all South Africans."   

Then it has a scorecard for SA's mining industry focusing on human resource development, and employment equity.

What caught my attention in Australia's Code is that "The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) stepped in to review the Code in 1999, coming up with a scorecard to have a more concrete basis in reviewing performance and adherence of companies to the Code."

Earth Hour 5: Celebrating Darkness is not Wise

Darkness is cool if you're in some far flung areas and want to commune with nature -- the fireflies, the infinite stars on a cloudless night, listen to various sounds of animals and bugs like frogs and crickets, and so on. But if you're in urban areas or in places where work is impossible without electricity (hospitals, malls, offices, etc.), darkness and power outage is a curse.

Now a big environmental NGO has spread a new fashion of turning off lights one hour each year, called the "Earth Hour" (EH) by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and many people around the world have rejoiced at their initiative. But their biggest fans actually are in North Korea and many cities in Africa. There, people have no electricity many hours a day, 365 days a year. They have very power plants and oil-fed generators that emit lots of CO2 that contributes to global warming and climate change. So the guys there are great saviors of the planet.

Before going to the EH campaign, I will post 3 brief papers from 3 different sources about the recent global temperature, the role of clouds on global temperature and climate (hey, it's been almost 3 weeks of cloudy sky here, sometimes rainy days, in the supposedly dry-hot-summer month of March), and Arctic sea ice extent. Is it true that the speed of ice melt there will soon result in an "ice-free" Arctic summer in just a few years?

This is a bit long post, so get your popcorn or sandwich and favorite drinks :-)
----------

(1) http://www.Real-Science.com/winter-that-wasnt-was-the-coldest-since-1993

“Winter That Wasn’t” Was The Coldest Since 1993

Posted on March 29, 2012 by Steven Goddard

Time Magazine called this past winter “the winter that wasn’t.” So did Joe Romm and lots of other insular global warming rednecks in the US.

Satellite data shows that winter 2011-2012 was the coldest globally since 1993, and eighth coldest on record.

www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

(2) http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-paper-shows-clouds-have-negative.html

MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012

New paper shows clouds have a significant negative feedback on temperature

A paper published last week in the Journal of Climate utilized satellite measurements to demonstrate that European hot summers since the 1980s are associated with a reduction in cloudiness. These observations corroborate other recent papers showing that clouds exert a negative feedback on global warming. Alarmists [such as the 'Skeptical Science' site here] hypothesize that clouds exert a net positive-feedback leading to a 'runaway greenhouse effect', but observational data from multiple papers* have shown that clouds instead exert a strong net negative-feedback cooling effect on the climate.

*Lindzen & Choi, Spencer & Braswell, Allen, Tang et al [below], others

Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00040.1

European hot summers associated with a reduction of cloudiness

Qiuhong Tang¹

Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

Guoyong Leng

Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

Pavel Ya. Groisman

National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, United States

Abstract

A pronounced summer warming is observed in Europe since the 1980s that has Been accompanied with an increase in the occurrence of heat waves. Water deficit that strongly reduces surface latent cooling is a widely accepted explanation for the causes of hot summers. We show that the variance of European summer temperature is partly explained by changes in summer cloudiness. Using observation-based products of climate variables, satellite-derived cloud cover and radiation products, we show that during the 1984-2007 period Europe has become less cloudy (except of northeastern Europe) and the regions east of Europe have become cloudier in summer daytime. In response,the summer temperatures increased in the areas of total cloud cover decrease, and stalled or declined in the areas of cloud cover increase.Trends in the surface shortwave radiation are generally positive (negative) in the regions with summer warming (cooling or stalled warming), while the signs of trends in top-of-atmosphere (TOA) reflected shortwave radiation are reversed. Our results suggest that total cloud cover is either the important local factor influencing the summer temperature changes in Europe or a 

major indicator of these changes.

(2) http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/could-arctic-sea-ice-decline-be-caused-by-the-arctic-oscillation/

Could Arctic Sea Ice Decline be Caused by the Arctic Oscillation?

March 22nd, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

While the IPCC claims that recent Arctic sea ice declines are the result of human-caused warming, there is also convincing observational evidence that natural cycles in atmospheric circulation patterns might also be involved.

And unless we know how much of the decline is natural, I maintain we cannot know how much is human-caused.

In 2002, a paper was published in the Journal of Climate entitled Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation, where the authors (one of whom, Mike Wallace, was a co-discoverer of the AO) shows that changing wind patterns associated with the AO contributed to Arctic sea ice declines from one decade to the next: from 1979-1988 to 1989-1998.

The Arctic Oscillation involves sea level pressure patterns over the Arctic Ocean, North Atlantic, and North Pacific. Since sea ice moves around with the wind (see this movie example), sea level pressure patterns can either expose or cover various sections of the Arctic Ocean.

When there are many winters in a row with high (or low) pressure, it can affect sea ice cover on decadal time scales. Over time, ice can become more extensive and thicker, or less extensive and thinner.

There is a time lag involved in all of this, as discussed in the above paper. So, to examine the potential cumulative effect of the AO, I made the following plot of cumulative values of the winter (December-January-February) AO (actually, their departures from the long-term average) since 1900. I’ve attached a spreadsheet with the data for those interested, updated through this past winter.

Climate Stupidity 23: Low Cloud and Rains due to Warming

Been raining here in Metro Manila and surrounding provinces the whole day yesterday, the rain showers extended until today and perhaps the next few days. No typhoon or tropical depression, simply on the "tail end of a cold front". It also rained on the first 2 days of this month. This morning it was great -- very low clouds over the metropolis, misty and cold, really nice.

The normal dry-but-cold months of November-December have become wet-and-cold, thanks to "man-made global warming". Many UN and government bureaucrats, plus climate rent-seekers among big international NGOs like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace, and corporate rent-seekers are in Durban, S. Africa now to "fight global warming and man-made climate change."

Here's the November 2011 air/tropospheric temperature anomaly. See the trend towards global cooling. Data from Real Science

Air temperature, land surface temperature, sea surface temperature, all experiencing declines in temperature anomaly (meaning "colder than normal") while global CO2 concentration keeps rising, see below. That is why the warmers change tune and say that "more CO2 causes more warming and more cooling." Cool guys.

Here's the growth of CO2 emission in major economies around the world, from 1950 to 2010. Data is from Updated carbon emissions defining the history of the global economy, November 14, 2011 by Warwick Hughes.

So if one will plot recent global air/tropospheric temperature vs. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, this is how it looks like. Data from the Friends of Science.

------

Meanwhile, I wrote several short papers on climate in 2009, posting 5 of them here:

(1) Market Solution to Emission Problems

February 10, 2009

I favor market-driven climate change (CC) mitigation via innovation and business. This is because they are still part of human adaptation to CC. What I am against is additional government intervention, regulation and taxation, to "fight and mitigate" CC and global warming. If more companies will join the race to produce more effective solar panels, more efficient windmills, etc., fine. Then let governments abolish corporate income tax, dividend and capital gains tax, documentary stamp tax, etc. on those firms, in exchange for government not giving them "incentives" and subsidies. As demand for green and renewable energy sources increase, and as government distortion through multiple taxation and regulation decrease, suppliers of those commodities will find the sector highly profitable, and more players will come in, and the Greens, adaptationists and alarmists will both be happy.

The volume of human-induced CO2 in the atmosphere and in the planet is directly a function of economic activities. That is, we can say that

(human-induced) CO2 emission = GDP size x Emission Intensity (EI)

A country can have less emission intensity due to modern and less polluting technologies but if the GDP size is big, like the US and combined EU GDP, CO2 emission will still be big.

Governments-inspired mitigation policies that target -30 percent (or higher) CO2 emissions within 20 or 30 years can only mean that (a) EI will significantly decline, or (b) GDP size will have to decline, or both. Since (a) cannot happen in a short period of time as various government-initiated distortions discourage the entry of so many investors and businesses into the sector (eg, coal companies closing their operations and running towards solar farms and wind farms production), the unexpected victim or sacrificial goat will be economic growth. Less trips by cars, jeepneys, trucks, buses, ships and airplanes = less pollution.

Earth Hour 4: WWF-EH Censoring Critical Comments

There are several indicators that a group is insecure and unsure of its position, or deep inside it may already recognize that its position is wrong but it has already started lying, and they must continue the lie. One is cowardice to public debates when frontally and explicitly being challenged. Two is censorship, disallowing contrary comments and make it appear that no one is challenging them anyway.

After I posted Earth Hour lunacy part 2, I posted in the comments section of Media Partners of Earth Hour/ page. I wrote there last Saturday morning:

March 26, 2011 at 8:50 am
So, did more Filipinos join this lunatic campaign? http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/03/earth-hour-lunacy-part-2.html

Then I copied it on print-screen as proof as I suspect that WWF will remain allergic to contrary comments and will remain a coward to public debates.

It's now Wednesday or 4 days after I posted in their comments section. Did they approve the comment?

No way. Two otner comments that said "Halleluiah to EH" were posted but my comment is still "awaiting moderation." Yeah, right. Only "pat my back" comments allowed, critical comments are disallowed.

WWF and EH guys, yuhooo! Great job at censorship.

Now let's go back to hard data and facts about climate. Is the Earth really on "unprecedented warming"? No precedents of warm period in the past, only recent warming and climate change due to humanity's modernization and continued use of non-renewable energy, continued high use of electricity?

This is the graph of sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly as of March 27, 2011, in Nino region 3.4, the biggest area of equatorial Pacific Ocean. Data is from Australia's Bureau of Meteorology.

The temperature anomaly (or deviation from average temperature) has increased a bit from its low of about -1.6 C sometime in early January this year, to about -0.6 C as of last weekend. Still in the negative and La Nina territory. Terrible "man-made global warming", sustained cooling of the planet's sea surface, equatorial Pacific, for many months now.

And here is the SST anomaly around North- and South-East Asia as of last Monday, March 28, 2011. Blue is colder than normal, yellow is warmer than normal. Data is from the US government's NOAA

So at the time that the Philippines was making a record of having the biggest number of fooled-by-WWF EH of "catastrophic man-made warming", the Philippines and nearby countries in East Asia were enjoying colder than normal ocean and air. Take note also the cloudy sky everyday in Metro Manila and many other places in the Philippines, even in late March.

And more recent data here to show that "unprecedented warming" and catastrophic "man-made climate change" is 100 percent lie.

Here is a graph of warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycle of Nino 3.4 region in a short period from 2000 to 2011. Cooling in 2000-01, warming in 2002-05, cooling in 2006, warming in 2007, cooling in 2008-mid 2009, warming from mid-2009 to mid-2010, cooling from there up to now. Data is from NCDC/NOAA, incorporated in WUWT's ENSO Page.

"Unprecedented warming" -- anyone, please say that again?

And here is the longer story of warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycle of Pacific Ocean from 1950 to 2011. Data is from NCDC/NOAA., also incorporated in the above WUWT's ENSO page.

For those wondering why all the planet's major climate and oceanography research centers are focusing on measuring temperature changes and anomaly in equatorial Pacific, well Pacific Ocean is the biggest of all bodies of water in the planet, covering about 30 percent of the Earth's total surface area. The Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, Arctic Ocean, other seas, they are also big but not as big as the Pacific. The planet's climate is largely modulated by temperature changes (warming-cooling cycles) in the Pacific Ocean.

"Unprecedented warming" -- anyone, please say that again? If people believe that the planet is really in danger, they should turn off their lights many hours every night the whole year, not just 1 hour per year.

And here is a graph of air temperature (lower troposphere, about 8 kms above sea level) vs. carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere. Air temperature data (blue line) are gathered by satellites and interpreted by the Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the Remote Sensing System (RSS). So the blue line is the average of UAH and RSS data. CO2 concentration (green line) is measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. This graph is from the Friends of Science.

Air temperature data from January 2002 up to February 2011 (red line, best fit) showed a 0.0 C temperature anomaly. Zero warming over the past 10 years after warming-cooling in those years have cancelled each other. Meanwhile, CO2 concentration keeps rising, persistently.

"More CO2 emission causes more warming" -- anyone, please say that again?

The EH is a big project to keep fooling hundreds of millions of people around the world. To keep climate alarmism high on their political agenda. There are tons and tons of money and political power involved in more environmental regulations, more energy taxation, more climate loans, more global climate meetings, more climate bureaucracies.