Showing posts with label global cooling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global cooling. Show all posts

Thursday, January 14, 2016

BWorld 38, Climate change and the need for cheap energy

* This is my article in BusinessWorld yesterday.


Climate changes from warming to cooling to warming to cooling, in endless natural and cyclical pattern. A period of global warming for decades is followed by a period of global cooling, which also lasts for decades. So global warming has precedents, it is not “unprecedented.”

There was global warming in the past when there was not even a single car or coal power plant. This chart shows that modern warm period that peaked in the last century was not exceptional or scary. 



Energy policies in many countries have been heavily distorted by governments to fight “man-made” or anthropogenic global warming and climate change.

But how can governments, the United Nations and various environmental groups fight something that naturally occurs, like day and night, like wet-dry or winter-spring-summer-fall seasons, like El Niño-La Niña cycles?

This will be my main argument when I present my paper at the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) Conference 2016, with the theme “Toward Inclusive and Sustainable Energy Development” that would be held at New World Hotel in Makati City, Jan. 12-13, 2016.

The recent extreme or severe flooding and drought that people say as proof of “man-made” warming and climate change is not true. As shown in the above figure, the Little Ice Age from 1200s to 1700s showed severe cooling and flooding, brutal winter for decades and centuries.

In the Philippines, many instances of severe flooding killed thousands of Filipinos many decades ago, which is similar to these reports at the turn of the last 2 centuries. 


 People need cheaper, more stable electricity supply to deal with more frequent flooding and severe monsoon rains. More farmers will have to resort to greenhouse farming, hydroponics farming, elevated fish tanks, to minimize crop losses and stabilize food production and prices. Greenhouse farming can be energy intensive because of the controlled temperature inside the covered structure. The industrial and services sectors of the economy need to expand faster with cheaper and stable electricity, give more jobs to more people, so they can build stronger, concrete houses in good location so they can be spared from more frequent heavy rains and flooding.

Unfortunately, the Philippines still suffers from some form of “energy poverty” compared to many of its neighbors in the region. Even new comer and socialist Vietnam has electricity consumption per capita 2x that of Philippines. 


Moreover, the Philippines has the second highest electricity prices in Asia, next to Japan. So succeeding policy measures should be geared towards reducing the price and expanding power supply, and inventing new schemes that will further raise the price should be the least priority of the government.

To fight energy poverty and high electricity prices in the Philippines, the following are proposed, among many others.

One, take advantage of low prices of fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal, to expand power generation.

As noted in a previous paper in this column, “Paris COP: Emission cut commitment vs energy needs” last Nov. 26, 2015, these countries have more than 90% dependence on fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil) as of 2012: Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Indonesia has 89% dependence.

Vietnam has only 50%+ dependence because 44% of its electricity is from hydro. South Korea and Taiwan have high to modest use of nuclear power.

Two, reduce government bureaucracies, both national and local, in the energy sector. A base-load power plant would require nearly 200 permits and signatures to be constructed. This has become a disease in government, that no one should move or start anything unless they get the bureaucrats’ signatures.

Three, the Renewable Energy (RE) Act of 2008 (RA 9513) should be drastically revised.

In particular, the provisions on feed in tariff (FIT) which means guaranteed higher price, and renewable portfolio standards (RPS) which means guaranteed minimum percentage of renewables, should be removed.

FIT’s introductory price that was passed on to the consumers in the Philippines from February to December 2015 was only P0.04/kWh. That was not sufficient because there have been many wind and solar plants that came on stream, based on calculations by some players. So consumers must be prepared to pay something like P0.13 to P0.20/kWh sometime this year.

Energy precedes development.

We cannot have strong and sustainable growth and job creation if there is not enough electricity for the people and their businesses, and if electricity prices remain high and continue to rise further. 

Bienvenido Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, and a Fellow of the South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET).
--------------

See also:

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Climate Tricks 48, Denying climate cycles

Yesterday, I participated in the two-days Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) Conference 2016. I was one of the panel speakers in the simultaneous discussions and I talked on this subject.


My Outline

I.  Climate change as natural  and cyclical events, not anthropogenic
II. But “man-made” CC means more rains and less rains, more flood and less flood…
III. Renewables to “save the planet”, Germany and UK cases
IV. Expensive electricity + mandatory renewables, Philippine case
V. Towards cheaper, reliable energy sources
VI. Summary and recommendations

I will post only Section I in this article.


Yes, nature including humanity, is about cycles. Birth, procreation, death, creating another generation that will repeat the cycle. Day-night cycle, El Nino - La Nina cycle. The current big El Nino has peaked, so La Nina is coming soon.


The PDO, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) cycle...


Climate changes from warming-cooling-warming-cooling... in endless natural cycles.


CWP was milder compared to MWP and RWP.



There are various types of solar cycles, from  the short-term, average 11-years cycle to multi-decades and hundreds of years cycle. The little ice age (LIA) about two centuries ago occurred during very weak total solar irradiance (TSI), during solar cycle (SC) 4 and 5.


There is also the very long-term Milankovitch cycles.


In one estimate made by systems engineer Dr. Ira Glickstein, he estimated that out of the 0.6 C warming that happened during the CWP that peaked more than a decade ago, "man-made" warming  contributed around 0.1 C while nature-made warming contributed some 0.5 C.


So if people say there is no climate cycle, there is no global cooling, only global warming, they are being dishonest, or duped by the anthropogenic or "man-made" global warming (AGW) alarmism. As I argued in the past, the purpose of climate alarmism is to have more government, more regulations and taxation, more energy favoritism, more costly travel and lifestyle, unless the source of power are the new renewables.
-------------

See also:

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

Energy 43, My paper on climate change and cheaper electricity at EPDP Conf. 2016

My paper abstract has been accepted for presentation in an international energy conference here in Manila, January next year. Happy me :-)


Then I can present in a conference why climate change is natural (nature-made, not man-made) and cyclical (warming-cooling-warming-cooling). And preparing for global cooling phase, we need cheap, un-subsidized, not over-taxed, stable and reliable (available 24/7) energy sources.

Global cooling is more brutal, more deadly than global warming phase. Frequent rising rivers, creeks, lakes and street flood, not rising ocean. Outdoor agriculture and crops will be more exposed to these threats, many farmers will shift to greenhouse and hydroponics farming, indoor cattle growing, fish tank aquaculture, etc. Then there will be higher demand for electricity, cheaper electricity, available 24 hours, 365 days and nights a year.

Here is a portion of my Abstract that was accepted:

Climate Change and the Need for Cheap and Stable Energy Sources

Abstract:

Climate changes from warming to cooling to warming to cooling, in endless natural cycle. A period of global warming for decades is followed by a period of global cooling, lasting also for decades.

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

People can adjust and adapt better under global warming phase as extended drought can be combated by drip irrigation and other innovations in modern agriculture. People in temperate countries prosper more in periods of warmer months as they can grow more food and other agricultural crops.

Global cooling is more dangerous, more fatal, as it is associated with more frequent rains and flooding, longer period and more brutal winter in the temperate countries. Damages to crops, houses, roads and various public infrastructure facilities are high....

The paper will discuss some important data on the climate change debate, briefly review the experiences of UK, Germany and other European economies in their heavy push and various subsidies to renewables like wind and solar.

Relevant and more realistic policy proposals about the future energy mix of the Philippines, energy taxation and regulations, will be explored. 

Conference details here, in case you guys are interested, http://www.upecon.org.ph/epdp/conference/

Among the international plenary speakers will be
1. Frank A. Wolak, Stanford University
2. James Roumasset, University of Hawaii
3. Ujjayant Chakravorty, Tufts University
4. Mark Rosegrant, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),
+ other foreign speakers to be confirmed (TBC).

There are many local economists and energy leaders who will speak too. 

Many friends were happy to see that letter when  I posted it in my fb wall yesterday. Thanks guys. It will be a big conference, registration fee, already subsidized by USAID, will be $133 or P6,000. As a paper presenter, I won't pay (makakatipid :-)) and will have a good opportunity to share my views and data to the participants -- and be grilled by questions, hehe. But I know this subject well, so am not scared.

Good comment from a friend, Selwyn Clyde M. Alojipan:

Congrats, Nonoy. Here's another side issue about CO2 as a greenhouse gas: Excess CO2 is supposed to be absorbed most by the oceans as carbonic acid (H2CO3) and they say this would make the oceans more acidic (ooohh, scary!). However, carbonic acid easily becomes bicarbonate (HCO3-) and carbonate (CO3--) ions that can form chalk (CaCO3)---or sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3)---that are converted by corals and mollusks into their exoskeletons (reefs and seashells). Why are some people so very scared that excess CO2 will make the oceans so acidic it will make the reefs die (?) when excess carbonate will help the reefs build their exoskeletons faster and the zooxanthellae algae embedded within coral tissue will have higher and faster photosynthesis (due to the more abundant CO2) that gives the corals more energy to convert carbonate ions into reefs? Some people are scaring themselves with half-baked scenarios and models that haven't been tested yet.
------------

See also: 

Saturday, August 08, 2015

Climate tricks 43, Interview at Sonshine Radio, DZAR 1026

* These are my answers to the guide questions for a live interview on “ECO-Hour episode,” DZAR 1026 Sonshine Radio Manila, 2-3pm today, hosted by Jomel and Rascille Laranas.


Climate alarmism vs climate realities
  
1.         What is your reaction on the research which said that 72% of Filipinos are very concerned about climate change? Are you one of the 72%? Why or Why not?

à Expected. Many Filipinos and people in the world are stilled hoodwinked by the climate alarmism movement.

2.         Should climate change or global warming be a cause of alarm among us? Or is the media projecting it in a way that will somehow threaten us or push us to action? Can we say that ‘climate change is nothing but a lie’?

à No.CC and GW are true, they are not lies, but they are cyclical and natura. What is a big lie is the adjective “man-made” and forgetting or deliberately, explicitly removing “nature-made.”


Source: Dr. Roy Spencer, Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before, July 19th 2013.

3.         Does it mean that every extreme weather event is NOT caused by climate change? Is the Typhoon Haiyan caused by climate change?

à No. There have been extreme weather in the past – severe cooling, severe warming and droughts. More rains or less rains, more typhoons or less typhoons, they have happened in the past, will happen tomorrow.

4.         You have a study about “Man-made Global Warming” in 2009. Can you tell us what is it all about?

a. Climate change (CC) is true. It happened in the past, happening now, will  happen in the future. Global warming (GW) is true, happened in the past (RWP, MWP, last century warming) and will happen again in the future. Global cooling is also true, happened in the past, happening now.

b. CC is natural (nature-made, not “man-made”), it is cyclical (warming-cooling-warming-cooling), and has precedents (not “unprecedented”). Like wet-dry season cycle, winter-spring-summer-fall cycle, evaporation-condensation hydrologic cycle,

c. Long-term temperature-CO2 relationship, some studies say temperature leads CO2, other studies say it’s the reverse. Common denominator, there are precedents of warm-cool period, lasting for decades and centuries.


Source: WUWT, Euan Mearns,, Vostok and the 8000 year time lag Dec. 27, 2014

5.         Is there a difference between climate alarmism and climate skepticism?

à Yes. Climate alarmism puts heavy emphasis on “man-made” or anthropogenic GW/CC. Climate skepticism recognizes CC but it questions the “anthropogenic” main cause. Nature – the Sun, galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), water vapor, clouds, volcanoes, PDO, AMO, etc. -- play much greater roles in planet Earth’s warming or cooling phases. See for instance IPCC model temp. projections vs. actual temperatures.


6.         If we read that the glaciers are melting in the Arctic region due to global warming, should it really cause an alarm?

à No. Ice and glaciers in the Arctic, in Greenland (and Antarctica) are melting-growing, every year. Part of natural cycle.



7.         What can you say about groups pushing for the mitigation of climate change as part of the 17 new sustainable development goals?

à Mainly the huge money involved. See portions of my presentation at Dr. Alvin Ang’s graduate class on Public Finance, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, 28 January 2015, entitled “Climate Money: Wastes, Distortions and Scientific Dishonesty Behind It.”



Plus the huge perks – frequent climate junkets around  the world, participants are burning huge volume of fossil fuels due to their frequent jet sets. Plus ego tripping, they can dictate to the rest of us what energy source we can use, what we cannot.

8.         How should we view climate change and global warming as Filipinos? Do you think it is okay for politicians to ride on this environmental issue as part of their political agenda?

à CC and GW are natural (nature-made, not man-made) and cyclical (warming-cooling-warming-cooling…). Politicians, and many NGOs and media leaders, academics, etc. – ALL of them ride the alarmism bandwagon.

9.         On Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, is it mere science fiction? About the Pope’s ‘Laudato Si’ – is he just being ‘influenced’ to believe on climate alarmism?

à Al Gore’s something like 10% truth, 90% fiction.
The Pope’s, advising people to take care of the  planet  is good. Advising them to  demonize fossil fuels and  CO2 is wrong. The  Pope and his entourage is among the heavy users of fossil fuels, he travels a lot by jumbo jets, and those jets do  not fly on water but on  fossil  fuel.

10.       According to some groups, ‘coal is the demon incarnate’ for it causes unprecedented increase in greenhouse gases. What is your take on this?

à They keep miseducating and fooling  the  public. If there are no coal power plants in Luzon at this moment, most likely people will be using those noisy gensets that run  on fossil  fuel diesel, or using candles, because of frequent brown outs.

Existing major power plants in Luzon, early 2014. Coal is 4,531 MW, followed by big hydro, 2,445 MW, nat gas 2,861 MW.

-----------

See also: 

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Climate Tricks 37: Climate Money and the Scientific Dishonesty Behind It

This is the 2nd paper that I presented in a graduate class in Ateneo handled by my friend, Alvin Ang. The 1st paper was about some classical theories why government was invented.


People are not talking about several billion dollars of money here, they are salivating at trillions of dollars yearly.


The big handlers of climate money are the following:
Asian Development Bank (ADB),
African Development Bank (AfDB),
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), 
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
World Bank (IBRD/WB)
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),
Climate Investment Funds (CIF),
Global Environment Facility (GEF)




Systems engineer Ira Glickstein made an estimate of how much of the past century's 1 deg F or 0.6 deg C warming, was due to nature and human modernization. His findings, about 0.5 C of it nature-made, and 0.1 C man-made.


The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) also shows warming-cooling cycle.

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. 


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),


--------

See also::

Friday, February 21, 2014

Climate Tricks 26: CO2, Pollution and Climate Junkets

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

Friday, June 28, 2013

Energy Econ 10: Climate Alarmism and FIT for Renewables

* This is my article today in thelobbyist.biz.
------------

One tool used by the campaigners of “man-made” or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its cousin anthropogenic climate change (ACC), is to produce various climate models that show only one thing – an ever-rising global temperature for the planet until 2100 and beyond. Thus, to prevent or limit that from happening, global energy consumption from fossil fuels that contribute to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) level in the atmosphere should be drastically regulated, if not controlled.

How truthful and valid are those UN IPCC climate models’ guesses and projections, that have become basis of many environmental and energy policies in many countries?

Well, the short answer is that they are largely invalid and highly exaggerated, when compared to actual data of the planet’s temperature. For instance, the models projected an average of about 1.0 C warmer than usual for 2013. But as of end-May 2013, we were only 0.07 C warmer than usual, and it is a  declining trend.

Figure 1. Temperature projections vs. actual, 1979-2013



After many governments have poured lots of taxpayers' and energy consumers' money to wind and solar power around the world for many years and decades, these renewables have contributed only 0.5 percent and 0.06 percent respectively, to global energy consumption.

Figure 2. World energy consumption by source, 2010



Source: Total world energy consumption by source 2010, from REN21 Renewables 2012 Global Status Report.
Reposted in WUWT, A LOL ! press release on renewable energy from wishful thinkers at the University of Delaware, December 10, 2012

Why is this so?  Table below provides an explicit answer – the cheapest energy sources are natural gas, followed by geothermal, hydro, conventional coal, nuclear, and biomass. The renewables like offshore wind and solar PV and solar thermal remain as immature technologies that are very costly, and yet are imposed to the people via additional charges to electricity consumers.

Figure 3. Estimated levelized cost of new generation resources, US, plants entering service in 2018
(2011 $/megawatthour)



In the Philippines, the Renewable Energy (RE) Act of 2008 (RA 9513) has imposed electricity cost-raising provisions like the feed in tariff (FIT) and renewable portfolio standards (RPS).  FIT is additional charge to energy consumers and given to RE power suppliers, a form of indirect tax. RPS is a system requiring electricity distributors to source a certain minimum of their energy supply to come from eligible RE resources.

Below is the rate of more expensive electricity for Filipino energy consumers. Although rate approved by the ERC is lower than those proposed by the National Renewable Energy Board (NREB), another bureaucracy created under RA 9513, these rates will still slam energy consumers in the country.

Figure 4. FIT for renewables, Philippines, Pesos per kilowatt hour


NREB Proposed
ERC Approved
Hydro, run of river
6.15
5.90
Biomass
7.00
6.63
Wind
10.37
8.53
Solar
17.95
9.68

Source: Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), rates approved July 27, 2012

Climate change is true. Climate changes from warming to cooling to warming to cooling, in endless, natural cycles. Global warming was true, it did happen during the Roman period, Medieval Warm Period (MWP), last century's warming, see again Figure 3 above. Global cooling is also true, it did happen like during the Little Ice Age (LIA) during the Maundeer Minimum and Dalton Minimum, and is happening now.

The terms "climate denier" and “global warming denier” are idiotic statements. Climate change is true, warming is over, it is now global cooling. But some people do not want to recognize cooling, only warming. They do not want to recognize "nature made" CC, only "man-made" CC.

So if CC is natural and will happen anyway with or without humans, with or without SUVs or bicycles, what is the point of the various “fight CC” bureaucracies, programs and global meetings created by many governments and the UN?

What governments should do is to recognize the cooling phase of the planet and thus, prepare for more heavy rains, more debilitating floods and soil erosion. Once they recognize this, then the most immediate action is to undertake large-scale dredging of sewerage system, creeks, rivers and lakes. This will take huge amount of public money, but it is a more useful public spending than creating more climate bureaucracies and sending many climate officials to many and frequent global climate junkets.
---------------

See also:
Energy Econ 6: Intolerance in Anti-Coal Hysteria, Cadiz Coal Project, September 17, 2012.
Energy Econ 7: Renewables, FIT, RPS and Climate, September 24, 2012 
Energy Econ 8: More Intolerance by the Anti-Coal Camp, September 27, 2012 

Energy Econ 9: Blowin in the Wind Folly, April 17, 2013

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Climate Tricks 20: Cooling Denial

Many people these days complain of the frequent strong rains and heavy flooding this month. Not only in Metro Manila but in various provinces, or in other countries. When I try to explain that this is part of global cooling, many resist the idea or the term itself. They always argue that this is still part of "man-made" or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or man-made climate change (CC). I call this attitude as "cooling denial" and 'nature-made CC denial".

Yesterday, known journalist and Rappler editor, Marites Danguilan Vitug, posted in her facebook wall about the global weather while she is in Germany. See the exchanges after that, removing the last names of the people who commented in her wall. I just want to show some spontaneous comments and ideas on this subject.
-----------

Marites It's incredible that the rains are lashing in India, Canada, France, Germany! A friend's cellar in Bonn was flooded, an extremely rare phenomenon.

Top of Form
Antonio  climate change and will get worse.

Camilo High River, Alberta is now experiencing excessive flooding. (One reason of flooding.... the temperature at the North Pole went high???)

Nonoy Oplas Climate changes from warming to cooling to warming to cooling, in endless, natural cycles. Global cooling is here and ALL the guesses and projections by the UN are all wrong, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
Nonoy Oplas Global sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly, composite for all oceans (Pacific, Atlantic, Arctic, Indian, etc.) and seas in the planet, been mostly in the cooling territory for the past 3 years now, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/global-microwave-sst-update-for-may-2013-0-01-deg-c/


Boyet  baka greenhouse effect ?

Cheryl  Minnesota's winter lasted 8 months. They say this was the worst winter. I am now in Calgary which was hit by a flood yesterday. And yet, the right insists that climate change is a hoax so there is no need to change lifestyles.

Virgilio  The world IS flat!

Lino  I don't know how some people can still deny that climate change is a reality!

Benedict  Ma'am, its true here in Paris!

Maripi  Hindi ka nag-iisa Manila.

Hedwig  Friend's garage in Geneva was flooded, too. 

Sammy  from globalized disaster and calamities, towards globalized resistance against perpetrators of climate crisis...

Nonoy Oplas CC is true. Climate changes from warming to cooling to warming to cooling. In endless, natural cycles. Global warming was true, it did happen -- Roman period, Medieval Warm Period (MWP), last century's warming. Global cooling is also true, it did happen -- little ice age (LIA) during the Maundeer Minimum and Dalton Minimum, and is happening now.
So the term "climate denier" is an idiotic and stupid statement. CC is true, warming is over, it's now cooling. But some scammers do not want to recognize cooling, only warming. They do not want to recognize "nature made" CC, only "man-made" CC.

Meanwhile, global air temp of the lower troposphere, composite for Norhtern + Southern Hemisphere + Tropics, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2013-0-07-deg-c/


 YR        MON     GLOBAL  NH        SH           TROPICS
2013       1              +0.504    +0.555  +0.453  +0.371
2013       2              +0.175    +0.368  -0.018   +0.168
2013       3              +0.183    +0.329  +0.038  +0.226
2013       4              +0.103    +0.120  +0.086  +0.167
2013       5              +0.074    +0.162  -0.013   +0.113

(NH, SH means Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere)

Another stupid and idiotic statement is that the past century's warming was "unprecedented", that no period in the past was warmer than the 20th century warming. Their time scale of comparison is limited to only 150 years or so. But go back to 11,000+ years, see the up-down-up-down in global temp, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/validity-of-a-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-years/


...Let’s look at some specific features of the Marcott et al. curve. As shown in more than 3,000 publications, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is widely recognized to have been somewhat warmer than present Figure 1). In the past 10,000 years, at least six other warm periods of magnitude equal to the MWP occurred; nine other warm periods that were 0.5°C warmer than the MWP occurred; two warm periods that were 1°C warmer than the MWP occurred; and three warm periods that were 1.5°C warmer than the MWP occurred. All of these periods warmer than the MWP clearly contradict the Marcott et al. conclusions. 
 The Marcott et al. conclusions that “Current global temperatures of the past decade … are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history” and “Global mean temperature for the decade 2000-2009 ….are warmer than 82% of the Holocene” are clearly contrary to measured, accurate, real-time data and thus fail the Feynman test, i.e., they are wrong.
Again, the terms "climate denier" and "warming denier" are stupid and idiotic statements. Scammers who benefit from oodles of climate money would want to perpetuate that urban legend.