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 not sure if this is OT or not, but Just in respect to the % concentrations of greenhouse gases, can you guys confirm the following is representative:
Water Vapour = 95%
CO2 = 3.5%
NO2, Methane, CFC’s etc etc make up the rest
No. That is the EFFECT (acc. to Singer, IIRC), not the AMOUNT.
Water Vapor (H2O)
Concentration in Atmosphere: 10,000 ppmv (varies)
Contribution to GH Effect:
Compared with CO2: x0.0051
Overall GH effect:
Total Effect: 95%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Concentration in Atmosphere: 385 ppmv ( 2008 )
Persistence: 50-100 yrs (Or as short as 7 to 10 depending on whom you ask)
Contribution to GH Effect
Compared with CO2: [ x1 ]
Overall GH effect:
Total Effect: 3.6%
Excluding Water Vapor: 72%
Methane (CH4)
Concentration in Atmosphere: 1.772 ppmv (2005)
Persistence: (I don’t know)
Contribution to GH Effect
Compared with CO2: x23
Overall GH effect:
Total Effect: 0.4
Excluding Water Vapor: 7.1%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Concentration in Atmosphere: Current: 0.312 ppmv
Persistence: (I don’t know)
Contribution to GH Effect
Compared with CO2: x296
Overall GH effect:
Total Effect: 1.0%
Excluding Water Vapor: 19%
Other (CFCs, etc.)
Concentration in Atmosphere: Current: 0.027 ppmv
To GH effect
Total Effect: 0.07%
Excluding Water Vapor: 1.4%
This is a very provocative statement and I would like to read more on the subject if you have some recommendations.
The best book for the layman on this I have ever seen is The Next 200 Years by Herman Kahn. There are any number of books out on the basic subject since then, but this is the first and best that tackled the issue directly. It is short and sweet. It is also the book that more-or-less singlehandedly eliminated Limits to Growth as an instrument of policy.
(TN200Y is also perfectly okay with substitutability and looks at solar, wind, etc., as potentially viable alternatives to fossil fuels.)
Thanks Evan. Does the rest of the theory have any basis for reality then?
I believe the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is .0387% not 3.5%. 387ppmv (parts per million by volume).
If it were 1000 times higher (as 3.5% == 3500ppmv would be), people would feel it’s affects, making some people sleepy.
oops, make that 100X
I only wish that one of Al (I play a scientist on TV) Gore’
Now don’t go questioning his credentials. Al happens to be a co-author of nearly every scientific paper ever published.
Alright. unlike the esteemed Anon, he isn’t usually listed as the lead author . . .
Thanks Evan. Does the rest of the theory have any basis for reality then?
That we are not running out of resources or that we are educated to believe we are running out of resources? TN200Y is concerned primarily with the former, which is the important issue. I got the running-out-of-resources regime non-stop in high school (it started even earlier).
Come to think of it, TN200Y comments on (mis)education, too.
finally someones stepping up here! It has already begun as well as the key features that have started it! The Low to non existent sun spots and much colder this year! I wonder what next winter will be like!
Re: Mike Bryant – This might cool things down a little:
Unlikely. For a volcano to have a global effect, its eruption must meet certain characteristics. First, the eruption needs to happen in a part of the world where the prevailing circulation will spread the ash and dust globally. Remember that there is a somewhat dominant poleward shift of the winds within the troposphere due to the Coriolis Effect, so a volcanic eruption needs to be situated within the tropics for its effect to be felt worldwide. Second, the eruption needs to reach the stratosphere. 50,000 feet doesn’t quite cut it, but the point is irrelevant because its not situated in the “right” part of the world. There are other factors, such as the eruption must be vertical, it must be composed of a great deal of water and sulfates, and a couple other things. But think – did the Chilean eruption this year have any major effect? I wouldn’t expect this one too either.
As for the denialist/skeptic rhetoric going on here, let’s be clear: just because “denialist” is a loaded term doesn’t mean it is always being used in a perjorative manner. I typically call Mr. Watts and other people “skeptics” because although they may be skeptical about certain premises of AGW, they usually admit that the basic physical aspects of it are correct. However, there are some people here and elsewhere who deny even the basic tenets of global warming based on the greenhouse effect. Without naming names, some people here and at other blogs on the internet continue to suggest – without any shred of mathematical demonstration whatsoever – that the premise that CO2 could contribute to warming is flawed. Others suggest AGW is a plot by the UN to subvert the United States and establish a socialist global government. These claims are ridiculous, and at their root is a denial of climate science, modern politics, and reality itself.
I’ll respect Mr. Watts wishes and not refer to these people as “denialists” when I’m on this blog. Elsewhere, however, I must call it as I see it. It’s not about lumping you in with holocaust deniers or anything, it’s calling you out on something so trivial that it doesn’t really even warrant a response.
Paul (10:18:13) :
I did modify the numbers which is why the 2004 number matched the graph.
The baseline was adjusted by reducing the Hadcrut numbers by 0.222 so that the actual 2004 number of 0.432 was reduced to 0.21
whenever one speaks of the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (as opposed to a percentage) remember this for context:
According to WikiPedia, the average mass of the atmosphere is…
FIVE QUADRILLION metric tons.
Lower Troposphere Global Average Temperature has cooled ~0.7C since January 2007:
2007 1 0.594
2007 2 0.45
2007 3 0.403
2007 4 0.244
2007 5 0.199
2007 6 0.203
2007 7 0.255
2007 8 0.286
2007 9 0.201
2007 10 0.231
2007 11 0.209
2007 12 0.114
2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.02
2008 3 0.089
2008 4 0.015
2008 5 -0.18
2008 6 -0.114
The world is getting much colder. How much colder? ALL the alleged humanmade global warming since ~1940 or perhaps even since 1900 has been nullified, since just January 2007. Humanmade CO2 emissions have increased more than 700% since 1940, and more than 1700% since 1900.
What does this prove? These facts demonstrate that global temperature has NO significant sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2, which is the main point that climate skeptics have been stating all along.
“The science is settled”, truly, but not as Al Gore has stated. There is in fact no significant humanmade global warming. The warming we have experienced since the mid-1970’s is natural and cyclical.
Global warming, humanmade or otherwise, is the last thing we need to worry about as a society. Global cooling, should it continue to the depths of a Dalton Minimum (as some scientists are predicting), may be the greatest crisis to face humanity in centuries. The irony is that we are likely to be unprepared for global cooling, as our governments continue to obsess on the nonexistent global warming crisis.
Regards, Allan
P.S. Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):
In ~1905, the PDO shifted into its warm phase and the world got warmer.
In ~1946, the PDO shifted into its cold phase and the world got colder.
In ~1977, the PDO shifted into its warm phase and the world got warmer again.
In ~2007-08, the PDO shifted into its cold phase and the world got much colder.
——————————————————————————–
NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING SINCE AT LEAST ~1940
Posted with figures and sources May 24, 2008 at
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
Excerpt:
The evidence to date suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 plays NO significant role in causing global warming.
The best data shows no significant warming since ~1940. The lack of significant warming is evident in UAH Lower Troposphere temperature data from ~1980 to end April 2008, and Hadcrut3 Surface Temperature data from ~1940 to ~1980.
Chart: The global cooling from approximately 1946-1977 coincides with the cool phase of a natural cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the warming from approximately 1977-2007 coincides with the warming phase of the PDO. NASA announced in 2008 that the PDO has again shifted to its cool phase. Significant cooling was experienced in 2007-2008, and is expected to continue.
Furthermore, it is clear that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, from ice core data spanning thousands of years to sub-decadal trends – the latter as stated in my January 31, 2008 paper and previously by Kuo (1990) and Keeling (1995) .
In late November 2007 Pieter Tans described the close relationship between dCO2/dt and temperature, about one month before I made a similar finding. This is a further step forward in our understanding.
Figure 3 from my 2008 paper shows the close relationship between dCO2/dt and temperature, and the approximate 9 month lag of CO2 after temperature.
Finally, human-made CO2 emissions have increased ~700% since 1940.
This data consistently suggests that the sensitivity of global temperature to increased atmospheric CO2 is near-zero, and thus there is no human-made catastrophic global warming crisis.
Allan MacRae, Calgary
May 24th, 2008
——————————————————————————–
Data sources:
LT data: http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
ST data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
My paper: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
Tan’s paper: http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/agenda.html
CO2 data from CDIAC: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2004.ems
——————————————————————————–
Further explanation:
There has been very significant Lower Troposphere (LT) cooling in the past 18 months. This cooling has also been observed in the Surface Temperature (ST), but that data is much less reliable, as further discussed further below.
The average LT global temperature anomaly for the four months January-April 2008 (inclusive) is +0.02 degrees C.
The average LT global temperature anomaly for year 1980 is +0.09 degrees C.
The average ST global temperature anomaly for year 1980 is +0.08 degrees C.
The average ST global temperature anomaly for year 1940 is +0.02 degrees C.
By no significant warming, I mean no net average global warming between 1940 and 2008, as measured by our best instruments. There has been some cooling and warming and very recent cooling again, but not much net change since 1940.
Some observers might want to (erroneously, imo) use the ST data exclusively, to prove that warming has occurred. The 1980-to-present ST data exhibits a strong and misleading warming bias, as demonstrated by Michaels and McKitrick (2007) and others. Although the monthly variations in the ST and LT data match very well, the two plots diverge, with ST rising above LT. I sincerely doubt that this divergence is a long-term reality, since it would suggest that the surface has warmed significantly more than the Lower Troposphere over the past few decades.
For a comparison of ST and LT data, see Figure 1 of my January 31, 2008 paper.
**********************************************************************************
without any shred of mathematical demonstration whatsoever – that the premise that CO2 could contribute to warming is flawed.
It is a single domino. Without a row of other dominoes to knock over (positive feedback), its effects are very limited.
The Aqua Satellite (so far) indicates that that there are more low level clouds (increasing albedo) but less upper level relative humidity (decreasing H2O greenhouse effect). And that this has led to homeostasis rather than positive feedback loops.
This is the opposite of what was predcited by the IPPC.
Of to put it in very crude mathematical terms, that forcing feedback number in the AR4 equation is out to lunch.
[…] An interesting read, for all you Earth-haters Posted on July 13, 2008 by LK While I certainly believe in reducing CO2 emissions and using less energy, if only to be more effecient and spend less money, I also strongly believe in scientific angles, which is why this was so interesting to read. […]
Counters.
Your argument of “skeptics” versus “denialist” is an arbitrary and somewhat
non-sensical distinction. The big difference is the obviously derogatory connotation of the term “denialist” as it compares AGW skeptics to Holocaust deniers. I do not know whether you can make a distinction between “skeptics” and “denialist” based on their degree of acceptance of AGW theories. There are three undisputed scientific observations that no person with a modicum of scientific knowledge has any problem accepting:
1.,Atmospheric concentration of Carbon Dioxide has gone up by about 35% since the industrial era – mostly due to human emission.
2., Carbon Dioxide is a Green House gas and Green House gases make a significant contribution to the warming of the Earth Climate.
3., The Global Temperature of the Earth increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the 20th Century.
The proponents of AGW theory derive the following conclusions from the above undisputed observations:
a., 3., is a direct consequence of 1., and 2.,
b., Continued burning of fossil fuel would lead to catastrophic consequences and we effectively must stop burning of fossil fuels, even if it means dismantling our industrial society.
I vigorously reject b., because it is based on faulty science, namely that further heating by Carbon Dioxide would result in a runaway temperature increase. This would imply that our climate is driven by a positive feedback mechanism indicating a fundamentally unstable climate. Many millions of years of climate history indicates that this is not the case. Our climate is remarkably stable.
I also object to a., not because it may be incorrect, but because it lacks a scientifically rigorous proof that it is correct. We know that there are factors other than carbon dioxide that contribute to warming or cooling. The cooling in the period of 1940 to 1975 and the fairly recent cooling took place while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased steadily. Unless we can identity these other factors that cause cooling and more importantly can quantify them with a reasonable degree of confidence, we cannot determine the warming effect of Carbon Dioxide with confidence.
Now, my question to you Counter, Do I qualify as a “Skeptic” or a ” Denier”
some people here and at other blogs on the internet continue to suggest – without any shred of mathematical demonstration whatsoever – that the premise that CO2 could contribute to warming is flawed. Come off it, counters, no one here says that, and you know it. Guess what that makes you, eh?
Where is your mathematical demonstration of the basic tenet of AGW that C02 drives climate, or has ever driven climate, or is even anything more than a minor player? We’ll wait.
Oldjim (13:08:22) :
Paul (10:18:13) :
I did modify the numbers which is why the 2004 number matched the graph.
The baseline was adjusted by reducing the Hadcrut numbers by 0.222 so that the actual 2004 number of 0.432 was reduced to 0.21
Is this reduction is a normal thing to do? Surely playing with the data in this way is like opening a pandora’s box leaving it open for critism both good and bad. What is the rationale behind this adjustment?
Evan Jones (12:17:33) :
Thanks Evan. Does the rest of the theory have any basis for reality then?
That we are not running out of resources or that we are educated to believe we are running out of resources? TN200Y is concerned primarily with the former, which is the important issue. I got the running-out-of-resources regime non-stop in high school (it started even earlier).
I think you misunderstood me here, I was refering to the theory put forward in my past regarding the the different effects of GHG
Bruce, I already stated that I will not name names, although as you’ve volunteered yourself, let’s dissect your comment. You see, your little strawman is precisely one of the nonsensical ones that I was referring to. No one claims that “CO2 drives climate.” That is an absurd statement on several levels, and it betrays your ignorance of the subject at hand. You see, I’ve been around this debate long enough to know that your phrasing is meant to evoke the Meteorology 101 axiom that “the sun drives the atmosphere.” The concentration of CO2 alters the radiation budget of the Earth’s atmospheric/oceanic system – the greenhouse effect follows through from there. Don’t play semantics when you should be playing logic or mathematics.
If you want a mathematical demonstration, then crack open an astrophysics textbook. The basic premise of the Greenhouse Effect was established by Svante Arrhenius over a hundred years ago, a fact which I remember from my Junior year of High School, where we were taught this little tidbit in Chemistry. You are suggesting that the underlying basic physical premise of AGW is flawed – a premise that is, essential, axiomatic. It is taken prima facia not due to laziness, but because it is an elementary physical concept. The burden of proof is on your shoulders to disprove this effect, not mine to defend it.
Tom Klein, you missed my point: despite whatever connotations the word “denier” has, I highly doubt that any AGW proponents are using that word to captivate upon its baggage. We mean it in the most literal sense. I don’t want to label someone of whom I’ve only read a post, so let me answer your question with one of my own: You seem to object to the premise that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas; do you object to the premise of the greenhouse effect in its entirety? If so, why, and if not, where is your evidence – anecdotal, physical, or mathematical – that CO2 does not act as such? The evidence that CO2 does has clearly been outlined in the scientific canon – I’ll leave it to yo to crack open an Earth Science text book and read up on it.
I searched Google Books and found that pre WWII the word denier was mostly used to describe unbelievers of the Christian faith. Of course, it seemed that it WAS used in a derogatory manner.
It was also a French coin, a measure of fabric and a dealer of products.
Here is a little snippet from the book “The Freeman”.
The Freeman – Page 83
by Francis Neilson, Albert Jay Nock – 1920
“On the other hand, these simple souls may well reflect that the denier is after all, only a denier, and deals in nothing but negations.”
And so it seems to me that “denier” has always been used as a pejorative, even as it is being used today.
In conclusion, from the state of Texas, I say, quit your cussin’ ya’ll.
Counters.
Talking about missing points! Let me illustrate by copying a section from your comment and juxtaposing with a section from my comments.
1., Your comment: “You seem to object to the premise that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas; do you object to the premise of the greenhouse effect in its
entirety? ”
2., The relevant part of my comment:” There are three undisputed scientific observations that no person with a modicum of scientific knowledge has any problem accepting:
1.,Atmospheric concentration of Carbon Dioxide has gone up by about 35% since the industrial era – mostly due to human emission.
2., Carbon Dioxide is a Green House gas and Green House gases make a significant contribution to the warming of the Earth Climate.
3., The Global Temperature of the Earth increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the 20th Century.”
I rest my case
Counters,
Your volcano explanation is a Straw Man. You left out the only important and exclusive component to volcano’s that cause cooling, SO2 period. You are right in that location is important but leave out that it is up to aerosols to do their “MAGIC”. LOL But you need to read up on the last few years of temperature graphs. Look the Maunder Minimum started around 1650 right now add 178.8 + 178.8 and where does that put us? OOOHHH 2007 scary isn’t it, that is the barycentric cycle of the sun which retrograded in 1989 see the solar activity for that year. HUGE solar flares and CME’s at that time. Its all about magnetism and the solar flares and CME’s put up a chart of that to temperature then we can see some action.
Evan,
Thanks for the book recommend. But the next 200 years!? It will take a MIRACLE for us to not destroy ourselves by then. Bush thinks he can limit the spread of nuclear weapons and maybe he can. But who can prevent the development of biological weapons? Here in the South we were working on Yankee specific viruses but decided against them on moral grounds(I noted what a fine Yankee you were).
But seriously, the US has got to quit making enemies or one day they WILL have their revenge and it won’t take a nuke.
counters
I have a couple of questions for you.
What has been the CO2-water vapor sensitivity number for the last 8 years?
What caused the climate change from MWP to LIA?