Energy 87, Europe's rising electricity prices as more wind and solar are added

More wind and solar plants, more expensive electricity. This is shown in Europe (this graph), shown in the PH. Feed in tariff (FIT) rates will rise from 4 centavos/kWh in 2015, 12.40 centavos in 2016, to 23-25 centavos/kWh this year.

Source: http://euanmearns.com/green-mythology-and-the-high-price-of-european-electricity/

Another data from Euan Mearns. Left chart is for industrial customers, right chart for household/residential customers.

Source: http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/

A friend commented that "We should treat the subsidies as state support to explore alternative energy sources."

It is not "state support" but "consumers support". The state, the DOE or Malacanang or Congress have no money of their own. It is ultimately the consumers who pay for more expensive electricity, including those who (a) do not support more subsidies to REs in Luzon-Visayas, and (b) consumers in Mindanao who are not even members/part of WESM because Mindanao grid is not yet connected to Luzon-Visayas grids.

Imagine if only Luzon-Visayas consumers pay for FIT here, the price would have been about 18 centavos/kWh last year and could be 28 centavos/kWh this year. Remember also that these are just "intro prices", first 3 years of FIT implementation with 17 more years for existing RE plants and with with RE plants added to the grid plus FIT price escalation, expect 30, 50 centavos/kWh or more in the coming years, FIT alone. Eh current WESM prices are only about P2.80/kWh, why do we pay P9+, P10+/kWh for wind and solar? Fluctuating pa every minute, every second.

Look at Europe again, the charts above. They have the longest system of subsidies for renewables, perhaps for the past 20 or 30 years. RE prices coming down? No, the opposite happens, (a) prices keep rising, and (b) grid instability rising, they are talking of blackouts soon in UK, Germany, Denmark, etc. because of more wind and solar added to the grid.

Meanwhile, more news reports about RE in Europe.

(1) "The cost of the botched renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme to the Northern Ireland taxpayer will be £490m." http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38414486

(2) "The way the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme was set up in Northern Ireland meant the subsidies offered were greater than the cost of the fuel.[The scheme was run by offering £1.40 for every £1 spent on heating.]" http://www.thegwpf.com/renewable-energy-scandal-rocks-britain/

Many "more RE to save the planet" advocates say that REs like wind and solar are attaining "grid parity" and getting cheaper, more competitive. If this is true, subsidies can be cut or removed but when subsidies are cut, those REs shrink. No subsidies, cheaper electricity for consumers mean these REs will die. Case of UK. 

(3) "The U.K.’s renewable and low-carbon energy sector shrank by 8.7 percent last year, partly because of cuts to subsidies. The sector, from wind farms to electric vehicles, turned over 42.2 billion pounds ($52.5 billion) in 2015, provisional figures by the Office for National Statistics showed on Friday. That’s lower than the 46.2 billion pound recorded in 2014." 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-16/u-k-clean-energy-sector-shrinks-after-government-subsidy-cuts

Energy rationing, like food rationing, toilet paper rationing in socialist economies. May soon happen in industrial and former imperial power UK. And the "planet saviours" will jump with joy?

(4) "The British Infrastructure Group, led by former Conservative minister Grant Shapps, warned lights could go out across the country next winter because there is not enough spare capacity in the system to cope with higher demand. There is just 0.1 per cent spare electricity in the current system, a dangerously small amount of headroom in case of emergencies over the winter months, the report warned."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/19/electricity-bills-set-rise-30-year-power-rationed-amid-shortage/

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

See also:
Energy 84, CCC's anti-coal, anti-fossil fuel lobbying, December 02, 2016 
Energy 85, Trump transition team questions for US DOE, December 17, 2016 
Energy 86, Germany's RE on a wild ride, December 30, 2016

Energy 79, Germany Energiewende's €520 Billion Cost By 2025

Now clearer pictures of the cost of Germany's energy transition to the renewables are coming up, the huge financial burden to energy consumers because of heavy government interventions and cronyism -- subsidies to renewables, taxation and over-bureaucratism of coal, gas and nuke.  See these reports last week.

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

English translation from the original German news report:

German Energiewende To Cost €520 Billion By 2025, New Study Initiative 

Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft, 10 October 2016

The total cost of Germany’s green energy transition (Energiewende) amounts to over €520 billion euros by 2025 in the electricity sector alone. This is the result of a report commissioned by the Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE) on behalf of the Initiative New Social Market Economy (INSM)....

By far the biggest cost driver with a total of €408 billion is the levy to finance renewable energy (EEG levy). The expansion of electricity and distribution networks totals €55.3 billion. The study is the first full-cost estimate which takes all the costs of the energy transition in the electricity sector into account. In addition to the direct costs of subsidising renewable energy, indirect expenditures such as the cost for the expansion of transmission and distribution networks were included in the calculations, as well as offshore liability expenses and network, capacity and replacement costs.

At the end of 2015, 150 billion euros had already been spent on the Energiewende, not including the cost for network expansion. The bulk of the costs (25.000 euros for a family of four) will have to be paid in coming years." -- Translation by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, UK

And aside from expensive, unstable electricity from renewables like wind and solar, they devour the natural beauty of the countryside. Many German environmentalists are now turning 180 deg, from support to attack.

More news reports:

Vahrenholt writes that already today Germany has the second highest electricity price (after Denmark) in Europe and that the so-called renewable energy feed-in tariff will rise from 6.35 €ct/kwh today “to an astounding 7.3 €ct/kwh in 2017“. Germany’s green energy feed-in act generates an additional cost to consumers of some 25 billion euros annually, paid by citizens via their power bill. This represents “a social transfer from bottom to top of immense dimensions“. http://notrickszone.com/.../power-expert-says-germany.../

"often wind parks are approved by politician’s who have a direct interest and business dealings in them, meaning the industry is rampant crony capitalism – the very kind that Germans are typically famous for opposing. For example Rannungen mayor Fridolin Zehner had a wind turbine built where none is supposed to be built – on his own land – thus allowing the honorable mayor to cash in on lucrative leasing fees – to the tune of 10,000 euros annually." http://notrickszone.com/.../germans-media-sobers-up-to.../

"The Institute for Competition Economics at the University of Dusseldorf has calculated the total cost of Germany’s Green Energy Transition. The result: By 2025, an estimated €520 billion euros will be spent. A family of four will pay more than 25,000 euros for the Energiewende.

Seldom was a German environment minister more ridiculed and mocked than Peter Altmaier (CDU): Three years ago, the current Chancellery Minister warned that the cost of the Energiewende could, if nothing were done, “cost the country around one trillion euros by the 2030.”

Major magazines and weekly newspapers from Wirtschaftswoche to Die Zeit immediately snapped that the environment minister must have got it wrong. “Don’t scare the living daylights out of people with horror figures,” Baden-Württemberg’s Prime Minister and Green Party star Winfried Kretschmann demanded." http://www.thegwpf.com/germanys-renewable-energy-cost.../

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

See also:
Energy 76, PEMC reply to my article on AEMO, WESM, September 11, 2016 
Energy 77, South Australia's blackout last September 28, October 08, 2016 
Energy 78, AEMO on the S. Australia blackout last Sept. 28, October 13, 2016

Energy 34: Feed in Tariff Implementation in the Philippines

* This is my guest article in No Tricks Zone yesterday.
----------

The Philippines enacted the Renewable Energy (RE) Act of 2008 (Republic Act 9513) that contains various subsidies to  renewables like feed-in-tariff (FIT).  

While it was signed into law in December 2008, FIT was not implemented until July 2012 because many sectors including manufacturing opposed higher price on already expensive Philippine electricity rates.  But the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Greenpeace and other environmental groups in the country lobbied hard to implement the FIT and the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) was pressured to grant their lobbying, but at a lower rate as requested by the National Renewable Energy Board (NREB).

Figure 1. Proposed vs approved FIT in  the Philippines, Pesos per kWh

(Rates approved in mid-July 2012)

Prior to July 2012, there were not many renewable plants that were put up because of the uncertainty  when the FIT will be granted and implemented . After July 2012, there was certainty and more renewables were put up.

The ERC started public hearings regarding how much would be added to the monthly bill of electricity consumers in the Philippines when FIT is reflected. In August 2014, the National Transmission Corporation (Transco), the FIT administrator according to  the law, said that the forecast annual payout for renewable energy companies  based on the FIT petition would be P8.5 billion ($192.3 million) for 2015 and P10.25 billion ($231.9 million) for 2016. Wow! (Source: Philippine Star)

Last February, Manila Electric Cooperative (Meralco) and  all other electric  cooperatives and  distribution utilities in  the Philippines started collecting the introductory FIT of PHP 0.04 per kWh. If this rate is retained throughout the year, projected collection by Transco that it will distribute to the renewable firms would be PHP2.7 billion.  If the 12 percent VAT is included, this will be a P3.02 billion (US$ 68.3 million, at prevailing P44.2/$ exchange rate) leakage from the pockets of electricity consumers nationwide.

FIT rate will be adjusted and rising through time as more renewables are added to  the country’s power generation mix.

Rising  FIT has happened and  continues to  happen  in Germany, which probably has one of the world’s most elaborate renewables subsidy schemes. The FIT keeps rising as more renewables, wind and solar especially, are added yearly to the energy mix and electricity distributors are forced to buy them even when cheaper electricity from coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro are available.

Figure 2. FIT in Germany, in Euro cents per kWh

Source: BMU Germany’s Electricity Price More Than Doubles…Electrocuting Consumers And Markets, 7 December 2014.

So electricity prices in Germany keep rising. This will happen to the Philippines too, no thanks to RA 9513, the renewables cronyism law.

Figure 3. Cost paid by households in Germany, Euro cents per kWh

Source: BDEW: Germany’s Electricity Price More Than Doubles…Electrocuting Consumers And Markets, 7 December 2014.

What makes FIT a formula  for ever-rising price  of electricity?  

As contained in Section 7 of RA 9513, FIT forces the following:

(a) Priority connections to the grid for electricity generated from emerging renewables such as wind, solar, ocean, run-of-river hydropower and biomass power plants,

(b) priority purchase and transmission of, and payment for, such electricity by the grid system operators;

(c) fixed tariff to be paid to renewables producers  for 20 years; and

(d) compliance with the renewable portfolio standard (RPS).

The RPS as contained in Section 6 of the law, is the minimum percentage of generation from eligible renewable energy resources to be set by the NREB.

So combining FIT and  RPS, this  means that even if cheaper power from say Quezon coal or Sual coal,  Magat or Pantabangan hydro, Sta. Rita or Ilijan natural gas are available especially during non-peak hours, but wind power from Ilocos are available, Meralco and the various provincial electric cooperatives in Luzon grid are forced to buy from the expensive wind power plants.

While many environmental activists were among the groups that opposed electricity price hikes in the past, it is sure they will rein in their noise and militance now that their beloved renewables will be among the major  contributors to rising electricity prices in the country.  Double talk can happen anytime.

Recently, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced 14 RE projects with combined capacity of 304 MW which have been endorsed as qualified for the FIT program. The  DOE has issued certificates of endorsement (CoE) to five biomass, three small hydro, two solar and four wind power  projects.

This means that those power capacity will be dispatched to the grid at a fixed rate over a period of 20 years.

The installations for RE power totaled 750 MW:  run-of-river hydro and biomass projects at 250 MW each, wind power at 200 MW, and solar power at 50 MW, but may soon be raised to 500 MW.

Aside from  FIT and RPS, RA 9513 gives many other subsidies or relaxation of regulations and taxation to the renewable producers, privileges that are denied  to producers of conventional but cheaper power sources. These privileges include: (a) Income tax holiday for 7 years; (b) duty-free importation of RE machinery, equipment and materials within the first 10 years; (c) special realty tax rates; (d) net operating loss carry over (NOLCO) to be carried for the next 7 years; (e) 10% corporate tax rate (not 30%),; (f) tax exemption of carbon  credits; and (g) tax credit on domestic capital equipment and services.

This author is not against renewable sources per se. They are fine, along with geothermal, big hydro, coal and natural gas. What is objectionable is the cronyism and favoritism granted to the renewables  which results in an: ever rising electricity prices in the country. The case of Germany is already a guide for us. The same pattern is happening too in Spain and UK.

Government intervention and cronyism in energy policy is wrong and  counter-productive. Governments should get out of electricity pricing and stop forcing grid operators and electricity distributors to buy from renewables even if their rates are expensive. RA 9513 needs major amendments to remove the FIT and RPS schemes.

------------- 

See also:
Energy Econ 15: Electricity Angsts, Presentation at UP Diliman, March 08, 2014 
Energy Econ 26: Dealing with Power Deficit in 2015, September 19, 2014

Energy Econ 31: Coal, Renewables and Possible Blackouts in Germany, December 08, 2014 

Energy 32: Is the PH Power Supply Ready for the AEC?, January 17, 2015 

Energy 33: Renewables Cronyism, Germany and UK Cases, January 26, 2015

Climate Tricks 27: More Risks and Danger Ahead, Send More Money to the UN

Less rain or more rain, less flood or more flood, less snow or more snow, less dogs or more dogs, it does not matter. They are ALL proof of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or anthropogenic climate change (ACC). To "fight climate change" and AGW, we taxpayers and energy consumers should send more money to the United Nations.
----------

YOKOHAMA - Leading scientists and officials completed a fresh climate report Sunday expected to lay bare the grim impact of climate change, with warnings that global food shortages could spark violence in vulnerable areas.

Part of a massive overview by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set for release on Monday, the report is likely to shape international policy on climate for years to come, and will announce that the impact of global warming is already being felt.

Some 500 scientists and government officials have been gathered since Tuesday in Yokohama, south of Tokyo, to hammer out its wording..

From WUWT,

The IPCC WGII report is out – now the screaming begins anew

March 30, 2014

Also from WUWT,

"Here is the IPCC’s predicted global warming trend since January 2005, taken from Fig. 11.25 of the Fifth Assessment Report, compared with the trend on the dataset of datasets since then. At present, the overshoot is equivalent to 2 Cº/century.

From NTZ,

IPCC Ignores Its Own Data…Attempts To Incite Global GreenCoup d’Etat Led By Alarmist Scientists

By P Gosselin on 31. März 2014

The IPCC’s tone, amplified by the media, speaks volumes: With its latest report, the UN organization is attempting to incite and lead a global coup d’état – with the main focus on Europe and North America...

From Roy Spencer,

Now, I can understand using terms like “possibilities” when it comes to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It’s theoretically possible that the average warming of the last 50+ years was mostly human-caused, and it’spossible that the slight sea level rise over this time was more human-caused than natural (sea level was rising naturally anyway). But we really don’t know.

And the idea that severe weather, snowstorms, droughts, or floods have gotten worse due to the atmosphere now having 4 parts per 10,000 CO2, rather than 3 parts per 10,000, is even more sketchy. Mostly because there is little or no objective evidence that these events have experienced any long-term increase that is commensurate with warming. (It’s possible they are worse with globally cool conditions…we really don’t know).

But the main point of my article is that the IPCC has bastardized the use of the term “risk”. Talking “possibilities” is one thing, because just about anything is possible in science. But “risk” refers to the known tendency of bad things to happen as a result of some causal mechanism.

From Hockeyschtick,

The UN, along with Al Gore, WWF, Greenpeace, etc. are indeed the planet's saviour. To further prove this statement, see here.

----------

See also::
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 

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

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

Global Warming Hits the Philippines, Part 3, January 26, 2014 

2nd ICCC in New York, March 2009, March 05, 2014 

4th ICCC in Chicago, May 2010, March 05, 2014

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

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

Climate Tricks 8: Catastrophic Scare for Climate Money

Here is another proof that the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is mainly about money-money.

A bill in Philippine Congress, called the "People's Survival Fund" (PSF) bill, authored by Cong. Erin Tanada et al in the lower House, and Sen. Loren Legarda and other Senators in the upper Chamber, wants to distribute millions, or billions of pesos of tax money to local governments and possibly environmental NGOs to improve climate change adaptation and mitigation. This is on top of existing "fight climate change" laws and programs. The bill will also create a new bureaucracy, the PSF Board, under a new bureaucracy, the Climate Change Commission (CCC).

And why so? This news was written and published in December 2007, suggesting that by end of summer this year, ie, around 3rd week of September 2012 or just four months from now, the Arctic will be ice-free. Scary.

Original source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

Reposted in:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/the-arctic-ocean-could-be-nearly-ice-free-at-the-end-of-summer-by-2012/#more-63430

This prognosis is similar to another prediction made in January 2007 saying that up to 4.5 billion people could this this year due to "global warming-related causes" -- so guys, take cover! See, Climate Tricks 1: 4.5 Billion People to Die This Year, January 03, 2012.

Meanwhile, here are more recent stories from more realistic, non-alarmist climate change analysis.

Climate Tricks 7: On a "New Ice Age" and Temperature Cheating

After a wet and cloudy March, April this year here in Metro Manila and surrounding provinces was generally hot and often cloudless. There were about three days of cloudy sky, it even rained once. Now the 1st day of May is generally cloudy, dark actually this afternoon. The moth have appeared last night in some places, one of nature's early signs that the rainy season is coming soon. So what happens now, out of supposedly seven months of "dry" season (November to May), we shall have only one month of dry and hot month, last April? Terrible global warming indeed.

I am posting portions of four articles from four climate and scientific blogs that I follow regularly. You'll enjoy them. Cheers.
----------------

(1)  From NTZ,
http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/27/russian-lake-vostok-researchers-say-ice-age-is-unavoidable/

Russian Lake Vostok Scientists Say “New Ice Age Is Unavoidable”

By P Gosselin on 27. April 2012

Someone forgot to tell the Russians that natural climate factors no longer count for anything, and that from the 20th century on man-made CO2 is the sole driver of the climate – now making the Earth only warmer and warmer.

Lake Vostok under almost 4000 meters of ice in Antarctica. Source: US Government.

The German edition of Russian online daily Ria Novosti here writes how a team of Russian scientists in Antarctica has reached Lake Vostok, isolated from the rest of the world by a massive ice sheet for over 15 million years. A team of Russian scientists bored through 4000 meters of ice to reach the lake on 5 February 2012....

(2) From WUWT, 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/a-tale-of-two-altitudes-how-stratospheric-temperature-is-de-coupled-from-the-surface-temperatures/#more-62378

A Tale of Two Altitudes: how stratospheric temperature is de-coupled from the surface temperatures

Posted on April 30, 2012 by Anthony Watts

On the battle between Arrhenius and Ångström.

Story submitted by John Kehr, The Inconvenient Skeptic

Any serious discussion about the Theory of Global Warming will eventually include the absorption band argument that started more than 100 years ago between Arrhenius and Ångström.  One of the arguments presented by Ångström was that the main CO₂absorption band is between 14-16 micron and that band is also absorbed by water vapor (which is correct).  The counter to this by Arrhenius was that it didn’t matter in the upper atmosphere where there was no water vapor.  Of course none of this matters because radiative heat transfer is only 20% of the energy transferred to the atmosphere, but that is generally ignored by both sides of the argument.

At the time there was no way to measure the temperature in the upper atmosphere so there was no way to determine what was going on there, but of course now there are many ways to measure the temperature there.  When I started looking at the annual temperature behavior of the stratosphere and the top of the troposphere I found something very interesting that is as usual, bad for the warmists.

Here is the average daily temperature of the troposphere (at ~4.2 km) and the stratosphere (41 km).

What makes this so interesting is that they are completely out of phase with each other....