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!”.
Daniel L. Taylor (10:55:05) :
You should look up heat pumps. Which is the most common form of heat for new homes in most of the US. Even in colder climes, dual fuel is common.
K,
You are right that wind power is not new. Which is why we know so much about how much it costs. The only reason wind power comes even close to being competitive is because of the tax subsidies offered for it.
In other places, it’s being put in because the law requires it, not because it makes any economic sense.
I’ve been wondering if we could use all those electric cars the environmentalists want us to buy as a form of storage for wind and solar power.
If there was a mechanism so that the chargers for your electric car would be activated only when the wind was blowing sufficiently, or the sun was shining strong enough.
Of course if there wasn’t enough wind and sun to charge your car, then you’d have to walk. Or hitch a ride from someone with a conventionally powered vehicle. But you’d be helping to save the environment …
The utilities already have boxes that you can connect to your home electric water heater that can be used to turn off the water heater in times of high demand. We had one in Atlanta, the bribe was a small break in our electric rates.
I’ve read that in recent decades, remote oil fields have stopped flaring the methane produced by their fields, and started piping it to market. (In the past, the price of methane did not justify the cost of a pipe.) If the flares were like the ones I’ve seen, I’d be surprised if the flare acheived 100% burn.
Additionally, over the last few decades, small releases that used to be considered safe, have started to be flared as well.
Tom Klein (14:30:18) :
I for one will contest your point 3.
Due to the quality of the temperature tracking system, (as documented by our good host, and others) we really have no idea how much the earth has warmed over the last century. Though it is quite likely substantially less than 1 degree.
“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.”
What enemies would that be? From all the polls, we are tolerated to respected by the people of Iraq.
Could you be talking about those inflamed by the Jihadist philosophy? Those guys hated us from decades ago, nothing we can do, short of dying, will stop that hatred.
poet,
So if the US was rescuing your land from a muderous dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of your neighbors, and in the process, ACCIDENTALLY killed your family.
You would hate the US forever?
I’m glad the VAST majority of Iraqi’s don’t suffer from your shortsightedness.
Please document where this alleged empire you keep rattling about is.
FatBigot,
Maybe it’s just another example of American exceptionalism 8), but American scientists discovered why a baseball can be made to curve several years ago. Unless the laws of physics operate differently on a cricket field (always a possibility), I suspect this explanation would work there as well.
Hey Allen, long time no scenes. Too bad TCS has pretty much stopped creating new articles.
If baseball means anything, FB is right about cricket and humidity. Anyone throwing a knuckleball knows how much better the thing knuckles the less humidity there is.
Spin and composition (and no doubt the state of the wicket and all) weigh in, but if those things do, then so must air density and composition for the exact same set of reasons.
For that matter, many scientists refused to believe a curveball curves until the science section of the New York Times said otherwise. Anyone who stood up to a plate in the modern era could have told them that for free. Even on TV you could see a rising fastball and good curve drop like it was falling off a table.
The MythBusters proved that balls stored in moist air prior to the game do not fly as far after being hit as balls that were stored in dry air.
Moist air could also affect the bat.
Evan Jones – Thanks for your post:
“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.”
My question: How much CO2 does human activity add to the increasing levels of this gas in the atmosphere? I’ve read a figure of 3.5%, but have no idea if this is even in the ballpark.
Many thanks.
Global warming hoax letters to congress and UN:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_ … i-moon.pdf
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/message_to_Congress.pdf
Jim Arndt, my volcano explanation is most definitely not a “strawman.” It is pulled directly from notes from a lecture in one of my introductory atmospheric science classes when I was an undergrad. As a matter of fact, those mechanisms were on the final for that class…
old construction worker, the MWP is a somewhat disputed notion. Yes, it occurs rather obviously in temperature records from Europe, but not very prevalently in other records from the time. However, the LIA is a rather simple deduction. The explanation you’ll find in any introductory atmospheric science textbook is that the LIA happened in a period with three important features: First, it was a period of relatively low sunspot activity. However, this is considered the “minor” cause. A bigger cause is the fact that the LIA was marked by a prolific era of volcanic activity. Although vulcanism causes warming over the longterm due to outgassing, over the short term is can cause substantial cooling. Vulcanism is the primary reason why the seasons varied wildly from year to year occasionally during the LIA. Finally, there is anecdotal evidence that the Gulf Stream may have been significantly different during the LIA, failing to bring temperate weather systems to the high latitude in Europe that we see them now.
Smokey, you’re ridiculous. Your semantic argument about the word “denialist” is BS of the highest order. It doesn’t even warrant a refutation. Your post demonstrates, once again, a strawman that skeptics love to play. AGW is not about “runaway climate change” or “cataclysmic destruction.” Just because that’s the spin that propagandists put on it doesn’t mean it has even a shred of credibility. Very few climatologists agree with Hansen’s notion that there are “tipping points” which spell certain doom for the climate and the atmosphere.
You see, what you’re doing is a mighty fine bit of handwaving. Distract everyone from the real argument at hand and replace it with some specious, ludicrous issue. You don’t actually even make an attempt to refute AGW – you propose that because the issue has become politically hyped, it must be intrinsically false. Careful, your cynicism is showing!
I think there might be a few more posts addressing me, but I’ll some them all up here:
Many of you need to do your homework before contributing to the discussion here. I usually post about the most basic topics in atmospheric science – the response I made about the Alaskan volcano is a good example, as is the premise of Arrhenius’ discerning of a “greenhouse effect.” These are basic things. We’re talking the first introductory course in Atmospheric Science, if not covered beforehand in high school physics, earth science, and chemistry courses. I strongly recommend that some of the skeptics engaging in debate with me go out and buy a college level meteorology or earth science textbook to brush up on their basics before they continue to spout ridiculous claims and arguments.
REPLY: Ok this argument about the word “denier” is over, you’ve both made your points. No more discussion on it. Now I’m going to make a pojnt, you wrote:
Then why are they letting him get away with this garbage and not calling him out on it? A lie of omission is still a lie. Either they are a bunch of cowards afraid to refute Hansen for fear it will “hurt my position” like so many of our phantom posters who don’t put their name behind their arguments, or they let it alone because it “helps the cause”. It’s like selling insurance; the best way to get people to buy it is to make them scared of the consequences.
Either way, the lack of professional integrity is stunning, and disgusting.
Syl, WRT the weight of atmosphere, there is a very neat demonstration at
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/11/all-the-water-and-ai.html
which was originally done by ADAM NIEMAN / SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY.
For further reference, the human race, if allowed the space of 6ft x 2ft x 1.25ft, (not comfortable, but who’s offering comfort) will occupy 0.663 of one cubic mile or 2.7 cubic kilometres. You couldn’t even show that on the same scale.
And to follow on, there is, on average, at any one time, some 20 trillion tonnes of CO2. Good luck to anyone trying to bottle that much.
If I may wander slightly OT, I see that this presentation by the four scientists engendered a response about coal and natural gas. But there was no mention of oil. This piques my curiosity in view of this latest interesting article claiming that oil is in fact NOT a fossil fuel but is created deep in the earth’s crust where calcium carbonate and iron oxide react under tremendous pressure to continuously produce oil. Curious to hear what your geologist readers think about this ‘out there’ theory.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3952
Paul (05:28:54) “The more moisture in the air, the more dense the air … ”
I don’t want to carry this too far but humid air is LESS dense than dry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity#Humidity_and_air_density
In general, lower air density decreases aerodynamic effect. I would expect more swing in dry air. OTOH, in aircraft operations, density altitude calculations don’t input humidity. I don’t know why. Maybe it drops out algerbraically or its effect is small compared to that of temperature and pressure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_altitude
@counters
“the MWP is a somewhat disputed notion. Yes, it occurs rather obviously in temperature records from Europe, but not very prevalently in other records from the time.”
The MWP is a LOT more established then you believe and a LOT more global.
Check out the MWP Project at http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
“DAV (10:15:08 ) :
Paul (05:28:54) “The more moisture in the air, the more dense the air … ”
I don’t want to carry this too far but humid air is LESS dense than dry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity#Humidity_and_air_density ”
Oops, my bad! 🙁
Speaking of Climate Change, since the viewership of this blog has taken off, the climate here has gotten quiet heated at times.
The major attraction of this venue over the dozens of other venues available to me is the civility I found. I think that is what made it so successful.
My strong recommendation is for people to ignore the trolls and stay focused on the facts and science.
Just my $0.02 for what it is worth.
counters
RE: “First, (MWP) was a period of relatively low sunspot activity. However, this is considered the “minor” cause. A bigger cause is the fact that the LIA was marked by a prolific era of volcanic activity.”
Would you kindly site any sources you have for these two assertions?
Counters:
WRT your MWP sources. I hope you’ll cite them as well as site them. (Sheesh! Can’t spell anymore.)
volcanic activity?