Government and Taxes: IPCC

Showing posts with label IPCC. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

From Kyotoism to Paris climatism

On May 31, 2011, I made these observations:

Kyotoism, the philosophy that the Kyoto Protocol (KP) of binding carbon emission reduction by many rich and industrialized countries will help "save the planet", is dying. KP was adopted in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and became binding by 2005. It will expire by the end of 2012. Thus, the rush by the UN and many governments to have a new binding agreement that will supplant KP by 2013.

The point organization to prolong climate alarmism -- more environmental regulations, more carbon and energy taxation, more climate bureaucracies and frequent global climate meetings/junkets, more climate loans -- is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC). Thus, there have been huge global climate meetings called the Conference of Parties (COP) in the past, particularly the COP 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009, then the COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010. The next COP meeting will be in Durban, South Africa, this coming December 2011.

Here's the latest update: four countries, the US government (original non-signatory to KP) will be joined by the governments of Japan, Russia and Canada that will not sign any KP part 2. The reason is that "the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world's No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts."

So you have the world's biggest carbon emitters -- China and the US, plus Japan, Russia, Canada -- not signing another round of "Earth-saving" deep emission reductions. The UN officials and bureaucrats particularly involved in climate alarmism -- IPCC, FCCC, UNEP, WMO -- would be panicking by now. If many rich country governments are not convinced of the "urgent necessity" to save the planet, and these same countries have serious fiscal problems like huge public debt, the next move could be the reduction of UN funding, and that might affect all their globe-trotting lifestyle to scare the world.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/kyoto-deal-loses-four-big-nations-20110528-1f9dk.html#ixzz1NqwXnC00

This illustration possibly explains why public belief in AGW is flatlining or may be declining. When there is more drought, less rain, less snow, they called it "man-made warming". When there is more rain, more snow, they still call it "man-made warming."

Meanwhile, this UN Press Release in 2008 was cool, or hotly kidding. It quoted the head of the UN General Assembly that they projected 50 to 200 climate emigrants or refugees by 2010. Where are those millions of climate migrants/refugees last year?

http://www.un.org/press/en/2008/ga10725.doc.htm

--------

Update:
Next month, thousands of climate officials, negotiators and planet saviours will burn tons of petroleum flying from anywhere in the planet to Paris, France, for the UN FCCC meeting, November 30 - December 11. They will mainly talk about climate money, who should give how many billions of dollars to whom, to "save the planet."

One big problem for the planet saviours: some of them will not accept billions of dollars a year. They want trillions of dollars a year.

The climate alarmism movement has successfully dug its own hole and graveyard of disappointment, angst and anger. As the movement paints more scary scenarios, they further raise the cost of preventing that scary and fictional scenario. Now the cost of climate extortion keeps rising.
----------

See also:

Climate tricks 43, Interview at Sonshine Radio, DZAR 1026, August 08, 2015

Climate Tricks 44, Scary predictions in 2009, August 11, 2015

TIME mag. on global warming (3), October 04, 2015

Global warming hits the Arctic, October 11, 2015

Sunday, June 14, 2015

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.

-----------

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Climate Tricks 30: On the term "CC Denial/Denier"

Have a friendly debate today in fb with a physician friend, DiVa. She showed a poster of Mr. David Koch saying he has “given $67 million to climate change denial groups since 1997.”

I commented that the term "climate change denial" is stoopid. I am a skeptic, and I do not deny climate change (CC). It is true. It has happened, it is happening, and it will continue to happen in the future. Climate changes from warming-cooling-warming-cooing-warming-cooling... in endless, natural cycles. CC is mainly natural or nature-made, not man-made.

On the contrary, climate alarmists deny that global cooling can also happen along with global warming. Alarmists deny that CC is cyclical, they deny that CC can be nature-made.

She admitted that CC is both nature- and man-made, but “overuse of fossil fuels is reaching alarming levels…it wouldn't hurt to develop renewable energy.”

Global warming (GW) was true. It did happen -- roman warm period, medieval warm period, past century's warm period. Both GW and CC are true. What is being denied by the skeptical groups is the "man-made" adjective. It should be "nature-made GW" and "nature-made CC" and "nature-made global cooling".

Here's a good chart from Dr. Roy Spencer in a testimony at the US Senate last year. Roman WP and Medieval WP shown. They occurred more than 1,000 years ago, not a single car existed then, "man-made" CO2 emission except breathing almost zero, yet GW happened. Now the UN, Al Gore, etc. say it is mainly anthropogenic and did not mention RWP and MWP.

Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before”, July 19th 2013.

I have no problem with renewables. If people put up solar panels in their houses, or windmills in their farms or backyards, fine. It's their own money. What I dislike is forcing everyone else to subsidize solar and wind, like the feed in tariff (FIT) in the PH's renewable energy (RE) Act.

Even the warming scientists cannot an answer, how much of the recent warming was man-made and nature made? 10-90%? 25-75%? 50-50? 90-10? Assuming they give such estimate (for now it's zero), what explains for the roman warm period, medieval warm period, when there was not a single car, not even bicycles?

If GW will happen even if we throw all the existing cars and planes and malls, and global cooling will still happen even if everyone in the planet is driving a car, what's the point of all those "fight man-made GW/CC" policies? I only see one goal for their activities. More politics, more government, more bureaucracies, more junkets.

In an earlier discussion, a friend Samson P. observed that Climate Variabilities and Extremes (CVEs) has been cited too often by the warming camp as “proof” of anthropogenic CC. Yes, the alarmist groups say that less rain and more rain, less flood and more flood, less snow and more snow, less cats and more cats, they are ALL proof of man-made CC. This is a very dishonest, sigurista argument.

Many climate research have been done that point to the role of natural factors like the Sun, galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), water vapor, volcanoes and geologic movements, etc. on planet Earth's climate. The problem is people won't find what they are not looking for. If they are so preoccupied to find only anthropogenic sources, that's what they will find, no matter how small, then amplify or exaggerate it. In IPCC AR4 (2007), of the 9 factors as contributors to past century's warming, 8 of them were anthropogenic.

Meanwhile, this is very informative. How much of warming in the past century was due to nature, how much from humans? Are GHGs evil or saviour? Without those GHGs, we should need perhaps 1/4 inch thicker skin, otherwise no life as we know it is possible, simply too cold.

Putting Human-Caused Warming in Proper Perspective by Ira Glickstein, April 7, 2014.

And an update last month from Christopher Moncton of Brenchley, April 5, 2014, using global air/lower troposphere temperature data from the Remote Sensing System (RSS),

No global warming for 17 years 8 months

--------

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Climate Tricks 22: Typhoon Haiyan due to Man-Made CC?

The strongest typhoon this year in the planet, storm "Haiyan" (renamed as "Yolanda" by PAGASA) has left the country after it rammed through central Philippines, affecting many provinces like Leyte, Samar, Cebu, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Palawan. As of this morning, casualties have topped 100 dead people, mostly in Taclocan, Leyte.

Some groups naturally seize on this story to say that "man-made climate change" is to blame. When there are less rain and less storms, it's due to "man-made global warming" or "man-made CC". When there are lots of rains, more storms, it's also due to "man-made GW/CC". So the public must send more money to the UN -- IPCC, FCCC, UNEP, WMO, UNDP, etc. The public should also donate more money to Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and other big international environmentalist groups.

A friend posted today that "Dr. CP David (UP National Institute of Geological Sciences or NIGS) goes against Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists and remains a climate change skeptic on GMA News TV today."

I commented that he's a real David, son of my former boss, Prof. Randy David also of UP. CP has shown independence of mind and not swallowed by a corrupt UN, at least in climate and energy policies.

CC is true, global warming was true. CC is purely cyclical and natural, warming-cooling-warming-cooling, with or without humans and their SUVs or bicycles. Nothing to be alarmed except alarmism itself. It is wrong to say that there is only global warming and there is no global cooling.

The head of UP Biology Department, Dr. Perry Ong, delivered a "centennial lecture" in UP in 2008, attacking AGW and "man-made GW/CC" by the UN IPCC. Another friend, Fidel Nemenzo of UP Math Department, once told me that there are many UP natural scientists who are laughing at the IPCC reports. Problem is that they don't get oodles of UN money, also WB, ADB, USAID, etc. money to "save the planet."

When people say Haiyan is the "strongest storm in RECORDED HISTORY", when did they start counting with such history? 20 yrs ago? 50? 100? 1,000, 1 million yrs ago? Chances are they don't know. Just a sound bite, to keep climate alarmism remain alarmist.

And UN IPCC is NOT a scientific body. It is a government and political body. That is why it is "Inter-governmental Panel on CC" and not "Inter-scientists Panel on CC". The head of IPCC was never a scientist. Its head for many years now, Rajendra Pachauri, is a an Indian transport economist or engineer.

The Sun-GCRs-climate link theory is a harder nut to crack, than CO2-climate hypothesis. Like Henryk Svensmark (Denmark) theory,
Svensmark’s Cosmic Jackpot: “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth", April 24, 2012.

A recent critique of IPCC 2013 report,

Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’

by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer, and Willie Soon*, October 19, 2013

Anthropogenic GW (AGW) is religion. In religion, people do not need hard graphs, charts, satellite photos. Ok, they need graphs too, but only those that cater to the belief. If certain scientfic graphs stare them in the face and these data say the allegation is wrong, well, people close their eyes to contrary data and keep believing. That is why it is religion and faith-based.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

That's why Dr. CP David, Dr. Perry Ong, others from UP natural science community have more sence and independence of mind than the UN paid hacks, plus Greenpeace, WWF, other treehuggers. But another friend suggested that skepticism is "crackpotism". Hehehe, product of emotionalism and religionism courtesy of UN's decades-long deception.

Climate Tricks 19: Global Cooling and Resilient Society

Below is a research proposal that I submitted to the East Asia Development Network (EADN) for a regional research competition (RRC) on the theme, "Toward a More Resilient Society". Among the factors that they want to be discussed by research proponents is "disaster risk management in disaster-prone countries" and hence, is related to (man-made) climate change.

Even if I know that this kind of research competition is tailored for the climate alarmists and planet saviours, I still joined the competition. My would-be partner in the research project is my PDE classmate and now Ateneo de Manila University, Economics professor Joey Sescon.

To make the story short, our proposal was not accepted. There should be many factors why, including a big number of research contestants who submitted better-written or better-packaged proposals. Anyway, I am posting a portion of the research proposal that I submitted, below.
------------

How to Improve Resilience in Facing Global Cooling and Financial Turmoil

I. Research Questions and Background

How much global cooling can we expect in the coming decades?

Implications in flooding in the tropics, damages to crops, private properties, public infrastructures, civilian casualties?

Policy options both at the micro and household level, and macro and government level?

Background

Over the past 2,000 years, climate change has shifted from global warming for about six centuries during the medieval warm period (MWP) to global cooling and a little ice age (LIA) for about four centuries, and back to warming over the past century.

Source: Dr. Roy Spencer, presentation at the 2^nd International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), New York Marriott Hotel, NYC, March 8-10, 2009.

(Note: The team leader of this paper has attended that conference, as well as the 4^th ICCC held in Chicago, Illinois, May 16-18, 2010)

Since the start of this century, global temperature has stagnated over the past 15 years, and showed a decline in recent years. Chart below compares temperature projections (by the UN IPCC, different models) vs. actual global air temperature, composite for Northern hemisphere + Tropics + Southern hemisphere, satellite data from 1979 to March 2013, as interpreted and plotted by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing System (RSS). The disconnect between projections (more warming) vs. actual data (stagnation or cooling) is getting wider.

Source: Dr. Roy Spencer, Global Warming Slowdown: The View from Space, April 16^th 2013.

And if we narrow down the reference period over the last 11 years, 2002 to 2013, using land surface temperature + sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies, from HadCRUT3 global mean data, the result is a clear cooling trend.

Source: www.woodfortrees.org/trend

So as the planet enters the global cooling phase, we should expect that the frequent occurrence of heavy rains/snow and flooding in recent years will become even more frequent and severe that can approximate the LIA several centuries ago. Major damages to some public and private properties, high crop damages, high casualty figures from those heavy flooding and brutal winters, can be expected.

This chart shows that the major financial and human losses since the last decade were due to severe flooding and strong hurricanes and storms, other than strong earthquakes and tsunami. Not one major catastrophe was due to severe drought.

Source: The Economist, March 27th 2013, http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/03/daily-chart-20

Policy Relevance of the Research

Recognition of the reality of nature-made global cooling as opposed to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or anthropogenic climate change will enable households and governments to institute more practical and cost-effective policies. Preliminary recommendations to improve resilience against global cooling and frequent flooding, test their practicality would include, among others:

· Households should avoid living in low-lying areas, or leave those areas and move to higher elevation. Or if they live in one-storey bungalow houses, consider building a second or even third floor, to their house.

· Governments, national and local, should invest significantly in dredging creeks, rivers and lakes, big and small, to improve their water catchment capacity. Low lying areas with few residential structures may be cleared of human settlements, be dug and converted to water catchments or mini-lakes.

· Governments to invest in more boats and amphibian vehicles for quick search and rescue work during heavy flooding. Public and private drainage system be de-clogged to minimize street flooding.

· Subsidies or higher energy prices for renewables like wind and solar should be reviewed, encourage cheaper and more stable energy sources that do not require subsidies.

II. Review of Literature

Most literatures talk about AGW and/or anthropogenic climate change (ACC). Little or few literatures on natural climate change (NCC) and global cooling are cited or highlighted in mainstream academic studies. Fortunately, the literature on global cooling has mushroomed recently. Among the important online sources of data are:

Watts Up With That, http://wattsupwiththat.com/

No Tricks Zone, http://notrickszone.com/

Dr. Roy Spencer (famous American climatologist), http://www.drroyspencer.com/

The Hockey Schtick, http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/

The book, Climate Change Reconsidered: Report of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2009, Chicago, published by the Heartland Institute, offers a comprehensive discussion of the physical science basis of climate change and cycles.

Another book, Climatism, deals with clarifying certain misconceptions on climate and human economic activities, and how energy policies should not be distorted.

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

On another note, an interesting paper by Christopher Moncton of Brenchley in WUWT,

HadCRUt4: revision or revisionism? (May 28, 2013) made this observation:

… On the other side of the account, terrestrial coverage has declined sharply over recent decades. For this and other reasons, the HadCRUT4 record takes explicit account of three distinct species of uncertainty: measurement and sampling, bias, and coverage. Combining the effects of these three, the 2 σ uncertainty bounds today are approximately one-sixth of a Celsius degree either side of the central estimate:

…. The discrepancy between the projections in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (red central projection bounded by orange region) and the outturn in HadCRUT4 (bright blue trend-line) is startling. The difference between the observed cooling at 0.86 Cº/century and the predicted warming of 2.33 Cº/century is equivalent to a hefty 3.2 Cº/century.

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

See also:
Fat-Free Econ 20: Flooding and Global Cooling, August 13, 2012
Climate Tricks 16: On GMST, the Sun, GISS, HadCRU, and Coal, September 04, 2012
Climate Tricks 17: STIKE Forum on CC, October 28, 2012
Climate Tricks 18: Severe Tropical and Winter Storms as Proof of AGW, December 29, 2012 Energy Econ 9: Blowin in the Wind Folly, April 17, 2012

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Climate Tricks 18: Severe Tropical and Winter Storms as Proof of AGW

Two days ago, I posted this blog article from NTZ in my fb wall, and I noted that while there are storms in the Philippines and other parts of the tropics, there was white Christmas in many parts of the US and Euurope, and now a deep chill in continental Asia, down to -57 C in Siberia. These are indeed "proof of intensifying man-made global warming."

http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/26/record-cold-grips-vast-area-of-asia-china-sees-temperatures-drop-to-37c/

Then there are more related news reports and stories.

Terrible case of global warming slammed India too. Delhi's temperature dropped to 7C, and in Rajasthan, down to 3.8 C. Could be due to more people, more cars and buses, more malls and houses, more coal power plants, that contributed to this global warming, India version. See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20842932

In the US, they have some interesting stories there.

From WUWT, 61.4 percent of the US covered by snow this week, vs only 18.6 percent last month. Way back in 2000, a senior researcher from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in UK said that "snow would be a rare view in the future". http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/26/a-cool-white-christmas-almost-two-thirdds-of-the-usa-has-snow-cover/

And another heavy winterstorm this week,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20847644

In Europe... temperatures in Russia were 10 to 15 C colder than average, 83 deaths in Ukraine, 49 in Poland in just one day, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20836979.

Fat-Free Econ 20: Flooding and Global Cooling

* This is my article yesterday in TV5's news portal,
http://www.interaksyon.com/business/40229/fat-free-economics-flooding-and-global-cooling
----------

More rains and floods are indicators of global cooling, not warming. Many campaigners of anthropogenic global warming or its cousin, the man-made climate change, argue however that less rain and more drought is an indicator of AGW, even as they claim that more rain and flooding is also an indicator of AGW.

It is irrational to argue that less rain and more rain, less flood and more flood, less typhoon and more typhoon, less snow and more snow, are all indicators of AGW and CC. The argument given by the AGW campaigners is that with a warming world, there is more drought and less rain. Fine. But they later added that a warming planet causes more water evaporation from the oceans, in turn forming more rain clouds that cause heavy rains.

Before probing deeper into the inconsistency and dishonesty of the above claims, let us briefly review the flooding that hit Metro Manila and many other provinces of the country early this week. Interaksyon.com reported that more than 540,000 families or more than two million people have been affected and some 60 people have died of drowning, landslides and related catastrophe.

Below are two charts of the sea surface temperature or SST anomaly, a “deviation from the normal” temperature, as of this week (upper image) and last week (lower image). The Philippines as of August 9, 2012 had a temperature anomaly or divergence of between -0.5 and -1.5 degrees centigrade, meaning colder than normal. This weather pattern also affected many Northeast and Southeast Asian countries, down to northern Australia. El Nino has actually resumed since around June this year after almost two years of La Nina, yet many parts of the Pacific Ocean still have colder than normal conditions.

The lower image shows SST anomaly from another source, as of August 1, 2012 or last week. The Philippines had between 0.5 and 1.0 degrees centigrade colder than normal temperature that time, especially the northern and eastern parts of Luzon. A big part of the Indian Ocean had between zero and 1.0 degree centigrade warmer than normal temperature, or the average SST from 1971 to 2000.

Sources: Upper image: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/anomnight.current.gif, Lower image: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/wksst/5.gif

Determining whether the planet is entering a La Nina or El Nino condition is based on the SST anomaly in Pacific Ocean’s Nino region 3.4 shown in upper left photo below. It comprises the biggest and central part of the Pacific Ocean, which comprises about a third of the planet’s total surface area, and larger than all landmass and continents combined.

Images from upper right clockwise represent the SST anomaly for Nino 3.4 over (a) last five years, (b) last 12 years, and (c) last 62 years. It is clear here that there is no such thing as “unprecedented warming” in the world’s biggest ocean, that it was a natural cycle of warming-cooling-warming-cooling, each phase lasting for a few years. So the statement of AGW campaigners like the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and many other groups and institutions, of “unprecedented warming” or “unequivocal warming” is simply not true, that they have been dishonest to the public.

Source: WUWT’s ENSO Page, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso/

Let us review air temperature, particularly the troposphere, the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere, and the stratosphere, the second layer after the troposphere. From satellite data interpreted separately by the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the Remote Sensing System, global troposphere temperature anomaly, or divergence from the normal temperature, was generally rising from 1979 when satellite data was first gathered. But if one will plot a linear trend starting from around 2000 up to the present, a flat-lining, if not decline in global temperature can be observed.

In the stratosphere though, the trend over the past few decades has been a temperature fall or global cooling at the second layer of the planet’s atmosphere.

Sources (from top left, clockwise): UAH, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif, RSS data, WUWT’s Atmospheric Page, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmosphere/

In combined land surface plus sea surface temperature anomalies as gathered by HadCRUT data sets, the trend from 2000 to the present is flat, or slightly declining or cooling.

Source: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2012/trend

Finally, let us compare the climate projections by the UN IPCC vis-a-vis actual temperature anomaly. Below, the upper photo shows a huge divergence between the two as the global air temperature has started to flatten, then descend in the middle of the last decade.

Lower photo shows a disconnect or absence of “causality” between carbon dioxide emission and global air temperature. As the former keeps rising to nearly 400 parts per million, the global air temperature from January 2002 to July 2012 was declining or cooling by around 0.03 degrees centigrade per decade.

Sources: Upper graph: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/joe-bastardi-weighs-in-on-the-watts-muller-scuffle/, Lower graph: http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

Thus, there is dishonesty on the part of the UN and its climate and environmental bodies – IPCC, FCCC, UNEP, WMO, among the major ones, along with Al Gore, the big environmental NGOs like WWF and Greenpeace.

Before, they were telling the public to prepare for more drought and rising ocean due to the “alarming ice melt/loss” in both the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica. Recently they reversed gear and now say that the public should prepare for more rains. There are many negative implications for the lousy analysis and projections by the warming camp. Among them are the following:

- One, creation of carbon taxes, stricter environmental and energy regulations regarding the use and consumption of fossil fuel and other carbon-emitting vehicles and power plants;

- Two, creation of many new climate bureaucracies. Here in the Philippines, among those newly created bodies purportedly to “fight climate change” aside from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources are the Climate Change Commission, National Renewable Energy Board, NDRRMC, and many other climate offices and bureaucracies at the local government levels;

- Three, contracting billions of dollars of climate and energy loans from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to help “save the planet.” At a time when our public debt is already at a high level, about 40 percent of GDP, expanding the government debt for some phony and unnecessary program is bad public policy.

The government should instead use more money to dredge creeks, rivers and lakes, as we expect more rains and more floods, in fact worse than what we have experienced so far. Global warming and cooling phases last for several decades, not just a few years. Let the strong flood and rain water move faster to the ocean so that flooding of many streets and residential areas in the country will be significantly controlled and minimized.

Lastly, let us build more dams. Projections like lack of water that can trigger future conflict between and among countries and people are unrealistic. What we experience is too much water with more frequent heavy rains. Government need not build more dams. Let private corporations, real estate developers build more dams, small to medium size ones to minimize dislodging upland dwellers and cultural minorities. More dams will impound more floodwater while ensuring steady flow of water for the public, from ordinary households to rice farmers needing more irrigation, or small hydro power plants.

Global cooling will spawn more flooding, possibly more severe and more catastrophic than what we have experienced so far. Let climate realism reverse the damage and uncover the intellectual dishonesty of climate alarmist groups.
----------

See also:
Climate Tricks 11: Coal and James Hansen, RE Law and the WWF, July 18, 2012
Climate Tricks 12: More Flooding is Caused by Warming, July 21, 2012
Climate Tricks 13: Block Skeptics and Keep Fooling the Public, July 25, 2012
Climate Tricks 14: Flooding, El Nino and Arctic Ice, August 08, 2012
Climate Tricks 15: AGW Fiction, Avoiding Natural Climate Drivers, August 12, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 15: IMF and Freedom From Debt, July 01, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 16: Coal, Climate and Government, July 17, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 17: SONA, the Budget and Debt, July 22, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 18: Healthcare Corruption and Physician Entanglement, July 30, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 19: Population Decontrol, Not RH Bill, August 06, 2012

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Climate Tricks 15: AGW Fiction, Avoiding Natural Climate Drivers

After the heavy flooding suffered by millions of people in Metro Manila and many other provinces over early this week, a friend in facebook posted this the other day and dared a debate. I asked his permission to post the exchange in this blog, zero alteration, pure copy-paste, he did not reply, a silent No.

In the spirit of making this debate become more transparent to others who care to read and learn, I am posting portions of the exchanges, but I removed the names. So readers, focus on the message and arguments, not the names. This is the original challenge by S:

Now that things are starting to normalize, I would like to hear anybody who would dispute that climate change is just a political ploy of "watermelon" (their words, not mine) environmentalists to ask more money, and demand more government intervention.

Nonoy Oplas Climate change is natural, warming-cooling-warming-cooling. We're in a period of global cooling, hence, more rains, more flood, and worse to come, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/05/climate-tricks-8-catastrophic-scare-for.html

Government and Taxes: Climate Tricks 8: Catastrophic Scare for Climate Money

funwithgovernment.blogspot.com

S It's a natural cycle, yes. But it is being hastened by human behavior, especially now with increased industrial activities.

PM: we are not in a period of global cooling. ang mga sobrang rainfall ay dala rin ng global warming, tulad ng paglamig ng ibang lugar dahil natutunaw ang mga yelo. kaya lately ay mas ginagamit na ang "climate change" kaysa "global warming" para hindi na ma-confuse.

Nonoy Oplas It's obvious you did not check the paper I posted. Explain the following:
a. absence of causality, if any, between flat-lining global temp while CO2 concentration is rising.
b. rule out explicitly, the effect of natural factors like the Sun and GCRs on climate.

PM sorry, mr. oplas, pero i think you should submit your paper (though puro kopya lang sa kung anu-anong source) to the UNFCCC to prove your point. i've been to their sessions and intersessionals at laging durog sa diskusyon ang mga nagsasabi ng mga sinasabi mo.

Nonoy Oplas PM, explain (a) absence of causality, if any, between flat-lining global temp while CO2 concentration is rising.
(b) rule out explicitly, the effect of natural factors like the Sun and GCRs on climate.
Here's more, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/01/climate-tricks-2-solar-activities-tsi.html

Government and Taxes: Climate Tricks 2: Solar Activities (TSI, Ap index, Neutrons) Don't Matter

funwithgovernment.blogspot.com

Climate Stupidity 25: Wetter or Drier, We Send them More Money

I brought my family once again to my birthplace -- Lag-asan, Cadiz City, Negros Occidental -- last December 26-28, this week. When we took the boat last December 26, Supercat, the biggest of the 3 fast craft companies that ply the Iloilo-Bacolod route, would be tossed partially by the rough sea. Many passengers including my wife, vomited. That day, Iloilo and Negros were dark with thick rain clouds above.

Rains started falling around 3pm, got stronger by 6pm and did not stop until the next day around 8 am, or at least 14 hours of non stop rains.

This is the sight the next day, December 27, in a low lying area just about a hundred meters from the house of my parents. My daughter's nanny in Manila who was also on a vacation with us, lives in one of these houses. They said that they experience this kind of flooding from time to time, about 5x last year, and about once this year.

The river swelled from a big volume of rainwater from the mountains, plus the fact that the river's width is shrinking due to thick vegetation of nipa. My elder daughter did not like watching a flood, she did not want to get out of my back. My younger daughter is being carried by her nanny here.

And one more bad news: we have a full day power outage that day. It was cold, fine, no need for an electric fan. But it was also dark as the thick clouds were still around even if the rains have stopped. Power resumed around 6pm. We watched the news on tv. Turned out that the whole Visayas, from regions 6 to 9, were affected by the heavy rains with many cities flooded. And it extended further south to Mindanao.

Yesterday, I saw this weird news headline with some idiotic pronouncements from Philippine government climate and weather officials:

Climate Stupidity 24: Environmental NGOs as Climate Saviours

The UN FCCC meeting in Durban ended last week. Here's my article yesterday:

http://www.thelobbyist.biz/perspectives/less-gorvernment/1250-environmental-ngos-and-the-climate-racket

Environmental NGOs and the Climate Racket

MONDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2011 08:18

WRITTEN BY NONOY OPLAS

Tags: Less Government

Many environmental NGOs are in the frontline of climate alarmism and scaremongering and in the process, they earn oodles of money from various donors, private and government. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Oxfam and Greenpeace are clearly the top three of these NGOs.

I was scandalized by this analysis of the number of participants in the on-going UN climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa. Out of the 14,500+ registered participants to the two-weeks meeting, nearly 6,000 were from NGOs, nearly 5,000 from governments or country delegations, 1,400+ from media, 1,100+ from different UN agencies, 486 from different international organizations (WB, ADB, etc.), 327 from UN Secretariat, and 278 from “unknown” or non-registered groups. See the chart and longer discussion by Willis Essenbach here,, NGOs: It’s Worse Than We Thought.

Willis exposed that nominally, there were plentier country delegations than from NGOs. But many NGO leaders – at least 14 from WWF, 9 from Oxfam, and from various country-based NGOs – were masquerading as government and country delegates. So that when he reclassified them to where they really belonged, the number of “climate-saviour” NGO leaders is plentier than delegates from country governments. Woe unto the taxpayers of those countries. I will not be surprised if many “Philippine delegates” are actually from NGOs and not from the government. But the list of Philippine delegation to Durban can be a mystery, it’s not even in the website of the Climate Change Commission.

While in Durban, the WWF and Oxfam have conspired to propose a new international tax, a fuel levy of $25/ton, raising bunker fuel prices by 10 percent. Now see how they will indirectly benefit from it, via the so-called “Climate Green Fund”. This chart below and a longer discussion about this new rent-seeking scheme is discussed here, WWF and Oxfam pushing for a shipping tax at Durban COP17 – since when do NGO’s get to write tax laws?

The WWF is making hundreds of millions of dollars per year from donations from different sources. All they do is keep scaring the world, and those gullible enough, rich and poor alike, give them money. Coca Cola for instance, gave WWF $1.64 M last year, and will give a separate $2 M for “polar bear conservation projects”. So next time you drink Coke, you are indirectly giving money to the WWF.

If you withraw money from Banco de Oro (BDO, Sy group), the ATM automatically asks you to donate P5 to WWF or not. If you buy a plane ticket from Cebu Pacific (Gokongwei group), they ask you to donate several hundred pesos to WWF to offset for your “carbon footprint” or not. If you are not careful, you will be hoodwinked and fooled to donating money to the WWF, and this NGO will use the money to further scare you that the end of the world is near, unless you give them more money. The WWF is also among the strong lobbyists for the enactment of the renewable energy (RE) law where one of its goal is to make the already most expensive power rates in Asia become even more expensive, see earlier discussion here Climate Alarm vs. Expensive Electricity.

Meanwhile, here is the temperature anomaly (or “deviation from average temperature”) for all Novembers over the past 10 years. Graphs is from RSS : Coldest November Of The Millennium

Global warming is indeed getting more scary. This early part of December 2011 here in Metro Manila and other provinces is wet-wet. Rainy season is supposed to be from June to October only each year. Now we have rains until December, and most likely until early next year as the current La Nina -- started in May 2010, briefly ended but re-emerged again -- is projected to last until end of 2012, or even longer.

And we need those environmental NGOs to further scare us with their stupid and idiotic formulation that “man-made warming causes less rain and more rain, less snow and more snow, warming causes cooling”.

---------

Meanwhile, just how much extortion do the climate party-goers from NGOs and poorer governments want from rich governments? I thought it was on the several hundred billion dollars only. I was wrong, see this report from WUWT.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/10/latest-extortion-attempt-from-durban-1-6-trillion/
Latest extortion attempt from Durban COP17: $1.6 Trillion

Posted on December 10, 2011 by Anthony Watts

Gosh. Who knew that a massive tax could solve all imagined climate problems?

David L. Hagen writes:

The UN is demanding control over $1.6 trillion per year to control climate. See Section 47 in draft # FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/CRP.39 9 December 2011 #GE.11-71576 at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf

47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend ondefence, security, and warfare. Fifty per cent of that amount shall be for adaptation, 20 per cent for mitigation, 15 per cent for technology development and transfer and 15 per cent for forest-related actions in developing country Parties;

---------

Update: One shocker news to the warmists:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16151310

13 December 2011 Last updated at 12:01 GMT
Canada to withdraw from Kyoto Protocol

Environment Minister Peter Kent: ''Kyoto is not the path forward for a global solution for climate change''

Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the minister of the environment has said.

Peter Kent said the protocol "does not represent a way forward for Canada" and the country would face crippling fines for failing to meet its targets.

The move, which is legal and was expected, makes it the first nation to pull out of the global treaty.

The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming.

"Kyoto, for Canada, is in the past, and as such we are invoking our legal right to withdraw from Kyoto," Mr Kent said in Toronto.

He said he would be formally advising the United Nations of his country's intention to pull out.

'Impediment'

He said meeting Canada's obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6bn (10.3bn euros; £8.7bn): "That's $1,600 from every Canadian family - that's the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent Liberal government".

He said that despite this cost, greenhouse emissions would continue to rise as two of the world's largest polluters - the US and China - were not covered by the Kyoto agreement.

"We believe that a new agreement that will allow us to generate jobs and economic growth represents the way forward," he said....

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

See also:

Little Ice Age for the Next 300 Years?, July 07, 2009
Sunspotless Days, Cooling and Bureaucracy, July 21, 2009
Politics and Money in Climate Hysteria, July 24, 2009
Scientists Speak: No "Consensus" on AGW, July 31, 2009
Sunspotless Days, Cooling and Bureaucracy, August 12, 2009
Sunspots and Politics, August 15, 2009
Solar Minimum and Copenhagen, September 12, 2009

Government and Taxes

About Me