Earth Hour has come and gone in California (8:30 to 9:30 PM PDT) for 2010 without so much as a blip. In fact the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) power usage graph looks much like last year when there was also no discernible difference.
Using the graph provided by CAISO, here’s what Earth Hour 2010 looked like in California, can you spot where everybody turned off their lights?
FYI CAISO says on the graph page that: Sudden spikes in resource curve graph may indicate false data briefly reported by system
Here’s what Earth Hour in California looked like in 2009:
Note the the drop in power you see just prior to Earth Hour is normal. As proof, have a look at the Sunday after Earth Hour from last year:
Some said last year that Earth Hour made a difference. Well Treehugger doesn’t know how to read the graph, and assumes the drop they saw was not business as usual. See that little blip around 0700 on all three graphs? That’s the signature of streetlights all around California automatically shutting off because the photocells get enough light:
From the NOAA sunrise/sunset calculator, San Francisco sunrise on March 27th is: 7:02AM PDT. In Southern California, Los Angeles has a sunrise time of 6:47AM, which is why the “streetlights off” power drop is gradual for about 30 minutes starting before 0700 on the graphs.
If there was a big effect from Earth Hour, you’d see a step event like the street lights at 7AM as everybody turned off their home lights in California at 8:30PM (2030). Plus, the greens don’t seem to realize that no power plants get switched off, so there’s really no CO2 savings. The power plants are run based on demand forecast. Short term spikes from well intentioned stunts really don’t make a blip of difference to CO2 emissions.
Earth Hour is a failure in California and according to Richard North at the EU Referendum, a failure in Britain too.
Feel free to post any power use graphs from other parts of the world in comments.
From commenter Bahumbug in the previous thread:
Here is a wonderful short article by Ross McKitrick regards Earth Hour via Donna Laframboise at nofrakkingconsensus
“The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity…. It invites people to become sanctimonious do-gooders by turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in service of some ill-understood abstract concept of “the Earth,” all the while hypocritically retaining the real benefits of electricity.
…….
I don’t want to go back to nature. Haiti just went back to nature. For humans, living in “Nature” meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance. People who work to end poverty and disease are fighting against nature. I hope they leave their lights on.
……
…through the use of pollution control technology and advanced engineering, our air quality has dramatically improved since the 1960s despite the expansion of industry and the power supply. If, after all this, we are going to take the view that the remaining air emissions outweigh all the benefits of electricity, and that we ought to be shamed into sitting in darkness for an hour, like naughty children who have been caught doing something bad, then we are setting up unspoiled nature as an absolute, transcendent ideal that obliterates all other ethical and humane obligations. No thanks. I like visiting nature but I don’t want to live there, and I refuse to accept the idea that civilization is something to be ashamed of.
Ross McKitrick
Full article in pdf (single page) here
WWF would be better off preaching year round energy conservation than publicity stunts, but unfortunately publicity stunts are what wow the gullible and fill the till.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
finn (02:04:14) :
No, but it was his fault for walking on the street instead of the sidewalk (assuming there was one). And if there wasn’t a sidewalk, it was incumbent upon him to be extra careful and to move off the road when someone approached. It’s common sense, really.
Sure we can see in the dark. It’s dark when I leave my office downstairs at night and walk around the house to the front door. I can see. Not great, but I can see. And again, most areas of the world don’t have streetlights, only urban areas and some suburbs.
You’re making assumptions. I’m trying to take things at face value, lacking more information. As others have pointed out, streetlights don’t always work, and not all streets are lit. If you’re walking IN THE ROAD AT NIGHT it’s your responsibility to not get hit, lights or no lights.
I’m no fan of this stupidity, but blaming the man’s death on the lack of lighting is like blaming accidents on fog. The accidents are due to people not adjusting their driving habits to changing conditions.
Professor Mark Stemen, CSUC
Dear Doctor Mark:
I researched your work on sustainability on the web, and found it to be very interesting. You have obviously put a lot of both thought and energy into the matter. I commend you on the successes you have achieved.
This made it all the more surprising to me that you seem to have come here, not to propound and spread your ideas, but merely to insult Anthony and everyone here.
Surely you must know that this is counterproductive, not to mention childish. Calling people names is so grade school, and you a University Professor … it does your cause no good to behave in such a puerile manner.
If you would like to get some traction here, and to expose your ideas to an audience that might be a bit more inquisitive and less credulous than your average 19-year-old college students, I’m sure that Anthony would be more than happy to offer you a guest post here.
As to people being “ditto-heads”, I am a frequent guest poster here, and despite being very skeptical of the “consensus” I can assure you that there are plenty of people who disagree with me.
That is the nature of science. I put my ideas out into the public arena, and I invite anyone who wishes to try to tear them to shreds. It is alternately a humbling and an inspiring process, a frustrating and a fruitful experience.
Yes, it is raw and ugly at times, but science is a blood sport. It tests the strength of my convictions, stretches my ability to endure insult, and puts my ideas to the most gruelling of tests. I have had my cherished claims totally blown out of the water at times, and had to admit publicly that I was wrong. And at other times, I have seen them fully substantiated, and even expanded.
So I hope you will put your ideas to the same test here at this site. Who knows, we all might learn something, yourself included.
Best wishes,
w.
Tony (19:44:45) :
Where the prosperous West fails, they seem to have managed to do their *bit* in Vietnam.
You might want to take their claim of having saved 500,000KwH with a grain of salt.
Forty years ago, they claimed they’d killed me and my crew.
On three separate occasions.
Willis,
Thanks for your kind offer.
I will limit my contribution to this post because (IMHO) I believe our time is spent most productively working in our local communities, not here posting on the world wide web.
I was dismissive by turn. The original post was rude and condescending toward anyone “gullible” enough to participate in Earth Hour. Anthony takes a www posting from an international organization and uses it to denigrate good people in his home state and his home town. And this is “science?”
His post is followed by the following (excerpted) comments:
“Just ignore them and they will go away.”
“A difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it’s limitations.”
“The people who did turn out their lights must have previously taken the blue pill”
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
“Loony is a good word”
“The reason they act this irrational way is because they are stupid enough to respond to years of thought conditioning.”
“If all the greenies had an ounce of humanity – and common sense – they would be deeply ashamed.”
“During *spit* earth hour *spit* I turned on every light I could find, opened the windows and doors, turned the heat up.”
If is rants like a ditto head, and spits like a ditto head . . .
I agree, science, is a blood sport; politics even more so, especially in person.
In my opinion, Anthony has withdrawn from face to face interactions and chooses to lob dirt clods like this from the other side of his computer screen. He is right that I am POed his blog appears on the local editorial page, and he is right that I choose to make some ill considered comments.
I have my facts straight about him, however, and will stand by them. As you can sense, this is a long running disagreement. We have had exchanges like this in the past and likely will in the future. In the spirit of decorum, I will keep away from WUWT.
Best,
Mark
Mark (07:49:57) :
In my opinion, Anthony has withdrawn from face to face interactions and chooses to lob dirt clods like this from the other side of his computer screen.
According to Mr. Watts, he didn’t withdraw — he was shut out, and provided background information which varies from your statements. Which information, I might add, you haven’t.
He is right that I am POed his blog appears on the local editorial page…
Why? Not a challenge, I’d just like to know your reason. Or is it personal?
We have had exchanges like this in the past and likely will in the future. In the spirit of decorum, I will keep away from WUWT.
[self-snipped in the spirit of decorum]
Cheers,
Bill
Maybe already posted.
This seems to be true:
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/03/30/Cat-sets-fire-to-itself-during-Earth-Hour/UPI-75261269969857/
Too funny.
Cat sets fire to itself during Earth Hour
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, March 30 (UPI) — A cat belonging to the British Columbia minister of the environment set itself on fire with a candle
during the weekend observance of Earth Hour.
Barry Penner and his wife Daris were having a candlelit dinner in Vancouver Saturday when their 5-year-old cat named Ranger brushed against a flame, the Vancouver Sun reported.
“Suddenly there was a poof of smoke,” Penner said.
Penner and his wife bolted to the cat, but the flames had gone out.
The cat didn’t suffer any serious injuries, but Penner said the fright had an effect on Ranger.
“His hair is a little bit singed and his pride is somewhat affected,” he said.
Rather than use an electric fan to clear the smell of burned fur, the couple said they opened windows until the hourlong Earth Hour observance ended.
Doctor Mark (07:49:57), thank you for your response:
We all put our efforts where we think that they will have the greatest effect, based on our interests, our strengths, and our limitations.
Accordingly, your assumption that “our time” is most productively spent in the arena you favor totally ignores the fact that others may not share your interests, strengths, and limitations. For example, community work is often face to face … and Anthony suffers from fairly severe hearing loss. For me, my strength is writing, so I write, I don’t debate. For you to claim that “our time” is best spent on Dr. Mark’s whizbang community method is sadly reflective of the assumed moral superiority of much of the environmental movement.
I am an environmentally conscious person myself, and I have been since I read “Silent Spring” when Rachel Carson first published it. But that doesn’t give me the right or the knowledge to tell others where they should put their efforts aimed at improving the planet. You want to work in the community, fine, I support that wholeheartedly.
You, on the other hand, abuse Anthony for not following your magic path …
When I was a kid, we used to try this one all the time. We’d say “But mom, he hit me first” … it was as pathetic and worthless an excuse then as it is now.
Doctor Mark, you have been ranting and spitting. You excuse it because in your view, Anthony did it first … but ranting and spitting, by you or anyone, is not pleasant. And yes, some people honestly think turning the lights off for an hour is a stupid waste of time, because nothing is accomplished. They may be wrong, but that doesn’t make them “ditto-heads.”
You make it sound like Anthony has “withdrawn” from real interaction and is fighting from some position where you can’t attack him (“lob dirt clods from the other side of the computer screen”). You say
But when you are offered the same supposed advantage, you turn it down … who is the one who is withdrawing here?
You are withdrawing from his preferred area of work … now, I don’t think that’s a bad thing. As I said, to each his own arena.
But I do think it is a bad thing to abuse someone because they don’t prefer to work in your arena.
Also, I absolutely resent the statement that you are doing “actual work” and that none of us are. A huge part of the actual work is educating people and discussing and learning about the issues and the facts. You are a teacher, how can you claim that what Anthony and I and others do on this blog is not part of the “actual work”???
You say that you “have your facts straight about him” … perhaps this claim of “it’s true because Doctor Mark says so” goes over big with the college kids that you teach.
Here, we have higher standards. We like facts. Evidence. Citations. Anthony has specifically refuted your claims. You saying ‘but I’m right’ adds nothing to the strength of your assertions. At present, Anthony is way ahead in the discussion.
For example, you say he “quit” the school board. Anthony says he ran but was not re-elected. On the web, I find this:
See how it works? Evidence. Facts. Right now, I’d say his claim is winning, and your claim that you “have your facts straight” rings kinda hollow …
Finally, the most upsetting part to me is your assumption of moral superiority. As a committed environmentalist, I find the hijacking of the environmental movement by people like you, people who think that those who might disagree with them are not just wrong, but are “ditto-heads” and the like, to be a tragedy of historic proportions. Lots of people hate anything “green”, and actions and statements like yours are a large part of the reason.
I can’t tell you how much abuse I’ve taken from card-carrying self-professed “greens” because I disagree with them about whether CO2 going from 0.03% to 0.05% of the atmosphere is the biggest challenge of this century. I’ve worked all over the world. I’ve seen poverty and sickness and hopelessness that no one should ever have to witness, much less to live.
In Costa Rica, I talked to a guy who was a firewood cutter. I asked where he got wood. He said “The protected forest”. He said he knew it was wrong, but he had to feed his wife and kids.
That is the biggest challenge of this century, people living on a dollar a day, not whether the temperature during extra-tropical winter nights goes up by a degree or two. Environmentalism is a luxury that the poor can’t afford to waste one moment on. The only way to solve it is through development, which takes energy.
So those who are pushing for increased energy prices through cap-and-tax and the Kyoto Protocol and the like are not helping, they are actively harming the environment. In addition to diverting money from real environmental problems, they are reducing the chances of the third world having enough money to fix up their environmental mistakes.
Now, I know you may not agree with that. And that’s fine, different people have different ideas of how to work for the environment, how to clean up the ecological disasters in the poor countries, how to promote environmental awareness.
But your assumption of moral superiority, that your way of community work is the only way for everyone, that your ideas of sustainability are clearly the right way, that Earth Hour is a patently and obviously wonderful thing, and that those who disagree with you are contemptible ditto-heads, is both sad and counterproductive.
I think that turning off the lights for an hour is a pathetic feel-good exercise that makes absolutely no difference in the world. Electricity is a boon to the world, not a bane. I think it is a counter-productive action, because people think they are doing something when they are accomplishing nothing. And that makes them less likely to actually do something real, something that might make a difference.
Now I could be wrong, I have been many times before. But that is my considered, well thought out, and honest opinion.
But you not only disagree with that idea, you are openly contemptuous of those who might hold that idea, myself included.
Your point of view about those who don’t want to dance to your tune is causing immense harm to my beloved environmental movement. Your actions, your contempt, your cries of “ditto-heads”, turn people away from ecological awareness. You are doing good with one hand … but meanwhile, you are studiously ignoring the harm that the other hand is doing.
Enough with the moral superiority, my friend. The way that you are acting is neither moral nor superior, it is destructively counterproductive. We’re all bozos on this bus, fools whose intentions are good … so cut your fellow humanoids some slack here. I’m sure it doesn’t seem like it when you work with college kids at CSU, but the polls show that support for the ecological “green” movement is at an all-time low … you should consider that fact long and hard before you start with the “ditto-heads” …
I wish you well in your community work,
w.
After another drive-by, that is. How professorial.
Mark’s decision to disengage from discussion here, while at the same time criticizing me for what he claims is my “disengaging from community participation” does little to bolster his claims or his credibility.
Up until I formed this blog, Professor Stemen and I got along just fine. In addition to his being PO’d about my blog feed showing up on the local editorial page, I think’s he’s PO’d about the success of it in reaching so many people.
He did make me curious though, and I asked our local newspaper editor, David Little, if he has received any complaints about WUWT being in the blog feed of the editorial page. His answer: “not a one”.
So it’s just Mark Stemen so far.
Mark says I’m disengaged from my community. He also says “he has his facts straight”. That must mean then that Mark knows all about my participation in the local Rotary Club, the projects and donations I’ve made to the community through it, my time with local cub scouts. and all of the donations I’ve made from my local company to local schools and causes. Like the one to the local Science Museum.
Beyond his sustainability efforts, I challenge Professor Stemen to show his local contributions outside of his safety zone at the university.
It is sad that Professor Stemen has to resort to personal attacks over a simple factual issue, which he still hasn’t addressed, and that is the amount of power Earth Hour saved if any.
Willis,
I appreciate your response. I was trying to get off, but since I launched this thread, I feel the obligation to reply.
Blogs are the realm of opinion. I know that, personally, my time is best spent working in the local community, and it is my opinion that it is true universally. I believe that not because it is my arena, but because I believe that what we say face to face has a much greater impact than the drive by comments you get on the web (and yes, mine have been drive by comments).
Now, I understand that that can’t be true for everyone, and that you have different opinion. I am okay with that. There was no superiority intended, but I can see where you go that impression.
I admit that my comments were boorish and in haste, but also understand that I did not come looking for Anthony or WUWT; it just popped up on my screen. I am not new to WUWT, however. I read it often, and have posted here on occasion. WUWT is the most up to date source on current climate issues, and deserves the acclaim it has received for breaking so many stories. I have also read (what appears to be) an increasing number of hit pieces that have no point other than ridicule. This one hit home and I took the bait.
As I wrote earlier, this is not our first exchange, and I could answer each of Anthony’s comments, but this is his house. I have behaved bad enough as it is, and I have no desire to make myself look even worse by presenting facts citations, etc. in rebuttal. I prefer to cut my losses and concede the argument.
I simply ask that you cut this bozo humanoid a little slack as I slide out the door.
Mark (21:25:24) :
I prefer to cut my losses and concede the argument.
I simply ask that you cut this bozo humanoid a little slack as I slide out the door.
With that kind of an exit, I don’t think anyone will object if you slide back in more often.
The real tragedy in the whole AGW thing is that it has polarized so many good people to pick two extreme sides. There appears to be no middle ground where people can actually talk without shouting.
Most of us actually would like to live reasonably within the idea of being ecology conscious, but we don’t impose our views on others unless there is a compelling reason.
Some believe there is a compelling reason and it boils down to this one : “We’re all going to die unless we bring CO2 concentration down to 0.03%.”
So the difficulty with the AGW movement now is that they are proposing theories that are not supported by what has been uncovered so far. Even people who believe there might be some GW but doubt the A component, or perhaps think that GW might be a good thing (for some, or for most) have to pick one of two extreme camps.
And neither one looks like they are very reasonable.
Ignoring all I don’t know about gap between the AGW statistical postulations to the cause and effect side of these global temperature measurements, I do know this one. A lot of politicians globally from either camps like this Cap and Trade or these carbon tax systems.
We can’t ignore that at the core of Cap and Trade lies a goldmine of tax revenue opportunities. At a time when governments are running their countries to the ground with deficit spendings, opportunities to gain more tax revenues can be irresistible.
When we all believe that paying another 10% in the gas pumps or to run electricity in out homes or to run our factories is necessarily so we won’t get wiped out, we will willingly accept this.
But if the justification is false, then we really should be looking at this for what it is : a cruel hoax borne out of false ideology and outright fraud.