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

Climate Tricks 13: Block Skeptics and Keep Fooling the Public

One common practice of the man-made warming leaders and campaigners is to block off people who often question their religion. I have confirmed that once more two days ago when I checked my twitter account. I have observed earlier that after questioning several tweets by Greenpeace Philippines, they blocked me from following them, I posted it here, Greenpeace is Blocking You, November 19, 2011.

When I checked again last Monday, this is the result.

Cowards, as usual. They only need people who will pat them in the back as "planet saviors". Well, at least I sent them this tweet, "cowards in debates..."

Another cousin or sibling in cowardice but sibling in climate alarmism and noise is the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), their WWF-Philippine office also blocked me. No tears guys, sorry.

Oh, the perennial Philippine "climate negotiator" for two decades or more, Dean of the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG), Atty. Tony La Vina, also do not like me questioning his "save the planet" mantra. But at least I sent this tweet to him, "Warming fanatics blocking me..."

Climate Tricks 11: Coal and James Hansen, RE Law and the WWF

Way back in 15 February 2009, the head of NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Dr. James Hansen, proclaimed these scary scenarios:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

A year ago, I wrote to Gordon Brown... causing more warming. As species are exterminated by shifting climate zones, ecosystems can collapse, destroying more species....


Our planet is in peril. If we do not change course, we'll hand our children a situation that is out of their control. One ecological collapse will lead to another, in amplifying feedbacks.


practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years - if carbon dioxide continues to increase at current rates. Coral reefs, harbouring a quarter of ocean species, are threatened...


Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more. We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher....


Coal is not only the largest fossil fuel reservoir of carbon dioxide, it is the dirtiest fuel. Coal is polluting the world's oceans and streams with mercury, arsenic and other dangerous chemicals. The dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is the pretence that they are working on "clean coal" or that they will build power plants that are "capture-ready" in case technology is ever developed to capture all pollutants.


The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death....

Can one believe that?
* coal is the single biggest threat to civilization
* climate nearing tipping points, destruction of more species
* planet in peril, ecological collapse will lead to another
* all the glaciers could be gone in 50 years (by 2059)
* sea level 75 meters higher (about 25 storeys high building, gasp!)
* death trains, coal power plants are factories of death.

Wow, one wonders if it was an objective scientist or an environmental priest who wrote that.

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 Tricks 5: CO2, Clouds and Positive Feedback

One of the key themes of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or "man-made warming" or later revised to "man-made climate change", is that more human emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) via fossil fuel burning, more coal power plants, etc., results in more warming. suggesting a high climate sensitivity. Such sensitivity is reflected in the cloud formation in the atmosphere, saying that more CO2 results in less clouds and hence, more solar energy penetration on the planet's air, land and sea surfaces.

Dr. Roy Spencer (www.drroyspencer.com) made a good illustration about this in his presentation during the 2nd International Conference on Climate Change (2nd ICCC) in NYC in March 2009 that I was able to attend.  This is how the feedback theory works.

Now, here is the data summarized in a chart/illustration, still part of Dr. Spencer's presentation. Should be mind-boggling for those who believe that only human factors, not natural factors, can influence the planet's climate.

Get that? More low-level clouds, more cooling. Less clouds, more warming. In his concluding slide, Dr. Spencer said,

The Bottom Line...

The IPCC Has IGNORED Natural Variations in Clouds …which has led to…

The ILLUSION of Positive Feedback (aka a “sensitive” climate system)

The CLAIM that only CO2 can Explain Global Warming

The FAITH that Earth’s cloud cover never changes, decade after decade, century after century.

Ouch, that hurts! At least to believers of "only human activities cause global warming".

Now, there is this interesting article about this subject in WUWT:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/09/declining-global-average-cloud-height-a-significant-measure-of-negative-feedback-to-global-warming/

Declining global average cloud height: “A significant measure of negative feedback to global warming”

Posted on February 9, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Guest post by Dr. Pat Michaels – reposted (with permission) from World Climate Report

A new paper just published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roger Davies and Mathew Molloy of the University of Auckland finds that over the past decade the global average effective cloud height has declined and that “If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming.”

Davies and Molloy are quick to point out that part of the decline from 2000 to 2010 in cloud height is due to the timing and variability of El Niño/La Niña events over the same period, however, there still seems to be evidence that at least part of the decline may remain even when El Niño/La Niña variability is accounted for.

Figure 1 (below) shows the history of the effective cloud height, as determined by Davies and Molloy from satellite observations, from March 2000 through February 2010.

Figure 1. Deseasonalized anomalies of global effective cloud-top height from the 10-year mean. Solid line: 12-month running mean of 10-day anomalies. Dotted line: linear regression. Gray error bars indicate the sampling error (±8 m) in the annual average (source: Davies and Molloy, 2012).

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.

Earth Hour 3: Letter to WWF-EH Campaign Leaders

Last week, after posting here http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/03/earth-hour-lunacy.html, I wrote to WWF's Earth Hour leaders, Atty. Gia Ibay, Earth Hour Philippines National Director, and Gregg Yan, Earth Hour Philippines Communications Head. Their names, positions and email addresses were given in their website here. This was my letter:

from Nonoy Oplas
to "Atty. Gia Ibay" , Gregg Yan
date Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:21 AM
subject Earth Hour lunacy

Hello,

Since I criticized the WWF's Earth Hour campaign, I thought you should see it,
http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/03/earth-hour-lunacy.html

I am also ready for any debate on climate science and policy should you wish to organize one.

Fyi and thank you.

Nonoy Oplas

As I expected, zero reply from them. I assume they are super-busy telling people to switch off their lights this coming Saturday night so that they can help "save the planet." But for me, absence of reply for serious critic of their major programs is lousy. And would signal cowardice to debates.

Last November 15, 2010, I posted here, Climate stupidity 5: Warming leaders evade debates. I wrote,

... I also gave a talk last November 2009 at the Rotary Club of Makati Dasmarinas, and the organizers asked me to be a reactor to the head of WWF, Mr. Lory Tan, who will be their speaker the next week. I said "go-go-go." But a few days before his talk, I was advised not to come because it might cause "divisiveness" in the club. I think it was a diplomatic way of saying that Mr. Tan does not want a debate, Like Al Gore, like IPCC head Pachauri, like Leonardo di Caprio, etc.

This year is an unfortunate year for the warming alarmists and Earth savers. Global temperatures remain in the negative temperature, like the global sea surface temperature (SST). Data as of March 17, 2011, from Dr. Roy Spencer's Global SST Update Through Mid-March 2011

The Philippine government's weather bureau, PAGASA, advised that This time, expect a cooler summer. "Robert Sawi, PAGASA chief forecaster, Sunday said he expected the summer months this year to be “cooler” than last year due to the La Niña weather phenomenon."

And here is the El Nino Modoki Index (EMI), 2010-11 upper graph, 1981-2011 lower graph. Red represents warm, El Nino period, blue are cold, La Nina period, in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Data is from WUWT's ENSO page.

For the global lower tropospheric temperature update and graph, check my earlier paper, Warming absent, politics present more than two weeks ago.

Is the current La Nina ending soon, and the world will resume its "unequivocal warming" trend, of more drought, less rain, less snow, less typhoons, and more melting of polar ice, more increase in sea level height?

Based on the latest ensemble forecast for Nino 3.4 region, the answer is NO. While La Nina is projected to end around June this year, the rise will be a weak one, up to about +0.3 C until the end of the year, versus the -1.5 C temperature anomaly the past few months. Data is from the same WUWT ENSO page above.

Now here's another measurement and projections for the current La Nina, from the Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) of NOAA.

The answer to the above question is a more definite NO. The graph shows the Multivariate Enso Index (MEI).

NOAA projects a "well above 50%" chance that La Nina will continue until next year. The black line represents the current La Nina, and it's still in the -1.5 C colder than normal. The NOAA paper noted that "During the next few months, the MEI may very well stay stronger than Niño 3.4 since the latter is not normalized to account for weaker variability during this time of year."

So this coming Saturday, another lunatic campaign called "Earth Hour to save the planet" will be staged to keep scaring and fooling the public of a "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" (CAGW) and its cousin, "man-made climate change."

The above EMI graph shows that the Earth's climate is in a pure, simple, natural cycle of warming-cooling-warming-cooling. But some nuts keep telling us that there was only "unprecedented warming" in the past and "unequivocal warming" into the future.

Keep scaring and fooling the public so they get lots of donations and funding. Yeah, right.