Alan Lammey, Texas Energy Analyst, Houston
Four scientists, four scenarios, four more or less similar conclusions without actually saying it outright — the global warming trend is done, and a cooling trend is about to kick in. The implication: Future energy price response is likely to be significant.
Late last month, some leading climatologists and meteorologists met in New York at the Energy Business Watch Climate and Hurricane Forum. The theme of the forum strongly suggested that a period of global cooling is about emerge, though possible concerns for a political backlash kept it from being spelled out.
However, the message was loud and clear, a cyclical global warming trend may be coming to an end for a variety of reasons, and a new cooling cycle could impact the energy markets in a big way.
Words like “highly possible,” “likely” or “reasonably convincing” about what may soon occur were used frequently. Then there were other words like “mass pattern shift” and “wholesale change in anomalies” and “changes in global circulation.”
Noted presenters, such as William Gray, Harry van Loon, Rol Madden and Dave Melita, signaled in the strongest terms that huge climate changes are afoot. Each weather guru, from a different angle, suggested that global warming is part of a cycle that is nearing an end. All agreed the earth is in a warm cycle right now, and has been for a while, but that is about to change significantly.
However, amid all of the highly suggestive rhetoric, none of the weather and climate pundits said outright that a global cooling trend is about to replace the global warming trend in a shift that could begin as early as next year.
Van Loon spoke about his theories of solar storms and how, combined with, or because of these storms, the Earth has been on a relative roller coaster of climate cycles. For the past 250 years, he said, global climate highs and lows have followed the broad pattern of low and high solar activity. And shorter 11-year sunspot cycles are even more easily correlated to global temperatures.
It was cooler from 1883 to 1928 when there was low solar activity, he said, and it has been warmer since 1947 with increased solar activity.
“We are on our way out of the latest (warming) cycle, and are headed for a new cycle of low (solar) activity,” van Loon said. “There is a change coming. We may see 180-degree changes in anomalies during high and low sunspot periods. There were three global climate changes in the last century, there is a change coming now.”
Meanwhile, Madden noted that while temperature forecasts longer than one to two weeks out has improved, “what has really gotten much better is climate forecasting … predicting the change in the mean,” he said.
And the drivers impacting climate suggest a shift to cooler sea surface temperatures, he said.
Perhaps the best known speaker was Colorado State University’s Gray, founder of the school’s famed hurricane research team. Gray spoke about multi-decade periods of warming and cooling and how global climate flux has been the norm for as long as there have been records.
Gray has taken quite a bit of political heat for insistence that global warming is not a man-made condition. Man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is negligible, he said, compared to the amount of CO2 Mother Nature makes and disposes of each day or century.
“We’ve reached the top of the heat cycle,” he said. “The next 10 years will be hardly any warmer than the last 10 years.”
Finally, climate scientist Melita spoke of a new phase in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
“I’m looking at a new, cold-negative phase, though it won’t effect this summer, fall or winter ’08,” he said.
Conference host, analyst and forecaster Andy Weissman closed the conference by addressing how natural gas prices and policy debates would be impacted by a possible climate shift that could leave the market short gas.
This would be especially problematic if gas use for power generation were substantially increased at the expense of better alternatives.
“If we’re about to shift into another natural climate cycle, we can’t do it without coal-fired generation. So the policy debate has to change,” he said. “Coal has to be back on the table if we’re ever going to meet our energy needs.”
As for natural gas: “Next year, may see a bit of price softening,” Weissman said. “After that, fogetaboutit!”.
I’m of the belief that the leaders of the AGW movement and those politicos pushing hard for policy change and carbon taxes have known for years that the cooling pattern would occur in the next decade or so. I think the plan all along has been to then point to the cooling period as evidence that policy change (Kyoto, et al) did indeed work. It would only make any subsequent policy change all the easier, and capitalism would suffer hugely – the intended result. But alas, Kyoto nor any other significant policy change has occurred, and global cooling is showing up slightly earlier than expected. Hopefully, the data of the next few years lends itself to a “game, set, match” conclusion to this tremendously misguided initiative.
Pickens is self-serving? So what? I hope his plan works and he makes a few billion more. The value to him may be profit, the value to the nation would be reduced energy imports.
What he proposes won’t cost much to prove or disprove because it isn’t dependent upon any new technology. Wind power isn’t new, neither is using CNG in vehicles. NG is already piped to most of the country so a new distribution network isn’t needed.
And worrying the cost of electrical transmission is needless. You simply don’t build if the transmission distance will be too far. And it may very well be in some cases. He isn’t saying his plan is universal and will cover the entire country.
DOE and scientists will oppose this. It contains nothing that must be studied for a decade or two before anything is done.
Smokey, that was a powerful and telling story on Pickens and his water dealings. Whew!
I doubt that anyone on either side of the debate has any clue what will happen more than about a week out. Enough with the long range predictions. They are a complete waste of time, no matter who they come from.
The AGWers predictions have certainly proven worthless, being based on the false premise that C02 drives climate. But, that won’t stop them from making their hysterical predictions.
Predictions based on solar science do seem sound, and correlate well to our climate history (whereas the AGW hypothesis does not). Only time will tell, of course. But, significant cooling looks very likely, and indeed, it appears the cooling has already begun.
I hope “Watts Up With That” readers will forgive me for two sins; first for posting off topic, and second for being a bit slow on the uptake, as this court ruling happened in April of 2007. In any event the Supreme Court ruled last year that the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
There are at least two problems with the courts thinking:
1) First of all it seems that the court is of the opinion that carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas:
(From PG 7 of PDF file)
“A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a “greenhouse gas.” (emphasis mine)
Of course readers of this forum are well aware that water vapor is a much more important greenhouse gas, although water vapor is not even mentioned in the court’s opinion. So it seems that the court is not aware of the facts.
2) The court has determined that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act’s definition:
(From PG 32 of PDF file)
“The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air . . . .” §7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.”25 Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical . . . substance[s] which [are] emitted into . . . the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.26””
Apparently the court is unaware that water vapor would also meet that definition and could also be called a “pollutant”.
So the court has specifically determined carbon dioxide to be a pollutant despite the fact that it is a naturally occurring substance and is essential for all plant life. Additionally by the court’s interpretation, water vapor could also be determined to be a pollutant in spite of the fact that it is crucial for all life on land. (No water vapor = no rain)
I don’t believe in AGW gloom and doom and very not likely to believe in global cooling catastrophe.
Throughout history mankind has been preoccupied by climate/weather event.
In North America the local population believe that ritual dance could bring rain when suffering from drought. In other part of the world there were sacrifices of animals, and in at least one instances of famine, the local clergy believe that a hunger strike from the population was a good idea (I’m not making that up).
In our days, it is all about the computer god and co2. Just has the dances did nothing to influence climate, the ridiculous amount of co2 in the atmosphere woud do any good to climate /weather event.
I agree with the first part of Bruce Cobb’s statement that AGW predictions of the climate are essentially worthless. However, he is overly optimistic in terms of predicting climate based on the Sun’s recent and expected behavior. The Sun’s behaviour is notoriously difficult to predict – the NASA panel in 2007 was totally split about the timing and strength of the imminent Solar Cycle 24 and while there is statistical correlation between the Sun’s behavior and the climate these correlations are by no means foolproof and 100% correct. Let us not make the mistake that the AGW people made and declare that we have a total understanding of the climate because some of the indicators point in a particular direction.
T. Boone Pickens – He is rigth about one thing. $700,000,000,000.00 PER YEAR transfer of wealth to other nations is not healthy for us. That’s alot of jobs and tax revenue.
A couple of comments about what is being discussed:
1. If CO2 is a pollutant, and, since I personally emit CO2 every few seconds, then the EPA is going to regulate each me? Perhaps each of us will have to file for a permit to breath? Is not this the logical conclusion to draw from this assumption, I mean if one really believes CO2 is pollution, one would have to logically control all sources of this horrible pollutant? (IMHO: CO2 is plant food, and not a pollutant)
2. I also emit H2O, especially when doing my yard work. So will I need a second permit?
3. What if my wife and I want to have a child? Will we have to file an environmental impact statement and get another permit?
4. About Picken’s plan. If wind generated electricity is cheaper than what I pay now, bring it on. Otherwise, I don’t see the point of lowering everyone’s standard of living. Same with Solar. The engineering limitations are not my concern – both would need to be coupled with an energy storage mechanism to even out the supply (think pumping water uphill into a reservoir using excess electricity and releasing the stored water as needed to make up for shortfalls). But why would I want to pay more for electricity – I already pay $0.17/kwh. I’m happy with coal, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal – doesn’t matter to me, just use what is the most economical and I’m happy – no taxpayer subsidies please.
5. What is it about some people who insist on lowering everyone’s standard of living and attempting to dictate to everyone else what they can and cannot do? Is freedom that difficult of a concept to grasp? I won’t live in a dense urban area, in a 500 sq ft apartment and only allowed to walk or bicycle to where I want to go – and I sure won’t be made to do it. If other’s choice that lifestyle, that is their free choice, but not mine.
6. Some think AGW is about separating us from our hard earned money, and it is, but it is also about separating us from our freedom and rights granted from God, not man.
One feedback mechanism which I have not seen discussed here is the one in which ocean warming causes the release of methane from methyl hydrate which would then cause even more warming. How does one refute this argument? Other than the fact that it requires the ocean to heat up first?
Interesting article!!!
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=74
Not surprized at all that the idea of cooling is alive and well behind closed doors, because industry will always be the best barometer of what is afoot. It’s rather like the way nuclear power got onto the table here in Australia – behind closed doors. That’s where most decisions are made aren’t they? Matty
[…] stating that some of the real atmospheric scientists are starting to discuss the possibility of a much cooler world in a few years: Four scientists, four scenarios, four more or less similar conclusions without actually saying it […]
I wonder where the tipping point will be before the politicians and alarmists wake up.
Pierre, the tipping point may very well be a point in time rather than a particular temperature. It’s been nearly 3 years since Algore said we have 10 years left. There are only 3 possible scenarios for the 7 years left in that decade: it starts to warm again, it continues to cool or it remains fairly static. If the global average temperature is roughly the same in 2015 as it was in 1988, I doubt that the few warmers left will be taken very seriously by anyone.
Yes, indeed, OCW. Though we get some value for that $700 billion, let’s keep those bucks at home every chance we get.
How ’bout develop our own reserves and put a pump on ’em?
Russia sure is… Russia’s Putin tours new rig in Arctic oil drive
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7IFwV9Crl9T3O34vrjPL1hs9z-A
[…] the great Anthony Watts links to this Texas Energy Analyst story reporting that a consortium of climate scientists meeting […]
People are keep buying stock analysis software that supposedly can predict the market. Climatologists create climate models that supposedly predict the future climate. Both are highly complex systems with highly uncertain boundary and parameter values. Both are useful research tools and neither is good at providing accurate results for the far future. People seem to want to believe that they can know the future be it by software, i-ching, or chicken entrails.
Science has always been about accurate measurement, refining the value of things, ensuring the correctness of an experiment, repeatability. This seems to have become lost in the present age. Just keep going till you get a result that supports your dogma.
statePoet1775, we know methane levels in the atmosphere haven’t been rising for 10 years. Note the interesting correlation with observed temperatures.
Release of methyl hydrate as oceans and land warm, is a tipping point argument causing runaway warming.
The best argument against it, is why didn’t it happen at the Holocene maximum when temperatures were substantially higher than at present?
On clouds and particulates/aerosols: Clouds have a big impact on temperatures, which varies a lot by season, local climate and lattitude. Anything that affects clouds is going to affect temperatures.
This is an interesting study from India that shows particulate pollution decreases temperatures in winter when skies are generally clear, but increases temperatures during the cloudy summer monsoon.
http://www.amazon.com/Temperature-trends-twentieth-century-India/dp/B000RR7WWU
Note, this is the abstract. The full study used to be available online and may still be for those interested in searching.
Joe S (11:34:33), and others… True enough, Pickens has every right to make a buck, and he definitely has a head for business. As mentioned, he’s tying the wind farm thing in with the water selling to Dallas.
He’s also using Kelo to use the takings clause for his electricity/water project to Dallas. A private corporation will be taking a whole lot of land from private property owners to sell his energy. Not to mention sucking the Ogallalla Aquifer dry, at a time when it’s already falling dramatically. Furthermore, as the Northern Panhandle (well situated for wind farms) is on the national grid, he (read the taxpayers) are going to have to pay a whole lot of cash to tie it in to the Texas grid, which is it’s own animal.
Top it all off with the fact that he’s condemning a whole lot of land in the wind farm area, having created a whole new governmental organization. One that has five whole members. Who work for him.
He has a big stake in this selling of the idea that we’ve already reached peak oil, and need not drill what we already have. That, and the above listed matters, make me really leery of someone doing the things he is.
Dan (10:56:10) : “I wonder if this will lead to a new class of
d@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@rsskeptic. If these projections come true, how long before a set of “NewD@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@xrsSkeptics” arises to carry ond@ur momisugly@@ur momisuglyingdoubt that the earth is cooling off?”You only need to wander to an AGW site. It’s already in progress. If you can’t find any specific mention make a post and ask about the last 10 years. They are far more emphatic in their position than one would expect from mere doubt.
I don’t think many people appreciate just how devastating an unexpected north american cold snap this winter could be to the financial markets. That’s the reason I watch this story so intently.
Natural gas supply is very closely tied to winter demand. During the summer, most of the gas produced is put into storage, except for what is used to run peak gas plants. btw, everytime a coal plant is shut down or a coal permit is denied, new natural gas plants are built to replace them. That is the only type of large scale electrical generating plant still being built today, since everything else is off the table. T Boone, notwithstanding, wind just isn’t a major player yet.
Right now, gas storage is running about 5 % LESS than last year, even though production has gone up. (those electrical generators are burning gas that should be stored, and this is also the biggest problem with T. Boone’s CNG idea) The amount of nat gas storage is closely tied to expected demand from a normal winter – a warm winter produces lower demand and dropping prices, a colder than normal winter will rapidly put nat gas into a shortage situation, and since supply depends on the previous years storage, it is an impossible situation to remedy short term. In a harsh winter, nat gas prices, currently at about $12/mmcf, could spike to $16/mmcf and possibly even to $20/mmcf. This may not sound like much, but every heating and electrical bill in America would double from last years level the instant this happens and there is no remedy – none at all – in the cards. Oil reacts sympathetically to nat gas prices (there is some switching that goes on, although it is limited) so even though gasoline usage is dropping a spike to $20 nat gas could easily drive oil prices up to $200/bbl midwinter, which would be the final nail in the coffin of this economy – of the world economy in general. The belief that oil and gas prices are currently in a bubble would be shattered as the financial world came to believe that $20 nat gas and $200/bbl oil were the “new normal”. The American economy, as it is currently consituted, can not function at those price levels. Someone wanted to know what would be the trigger that would clue people in that cooling is a real problem – this would be the trigger. Of course, by the time the trigger is pulled it’s far too late to avoid the consequences. In this case, the consequences would be a bullet through the heart of our current economic system.
That’s the nightmare scenario we’re headed for this winter, and I think it has uncomfortably good odds of coming to pass.
statePoet1775 (15:00:34) :
In addition to Philip_B’s excellent answer, I would remind those who raise “what if” scenarios like this, that temperature is not the only variable; there is also hydrostatic pressure, which must be greatly reduced in order to sublimate methane ices.
Philip_B,
Thanks for the reply.
Philip_B wrote: “statePoet1775, we know methane levels in the atmosphere haven’t been rising for 10 years. Note the interesting correlation with observed temperatures.”
Not exactly so. According to an article appearing at http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0423-ghg.html, “Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane — potent greehouse gases — rose sharply in 2007, according to NOAA.
The U.S. weather agency said that global levels of carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, climbed by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tons in 2007. Methane levels increased by 27 million tons after nearly a decade with little or no increase.”
I read a research paper on this earlier this year, but haven’t been able to locate it. More later.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
WWS wrote: “In a harsh winter, nat gas prices, currently at about $12/mmcf, could spike to $16/mmcf and possibly even to $20/mmcf. This may not sound like much, but every heating and electrical bill in America would double from last years level the instant this happens and there is no remedy – none at all – in the cards.”
Peoples Gas in Northern Illinois has already warned its customers that a 25% price hike can be expected.
Jack Koenif, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com