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!”.
@counters
I would be interested in knowing what volcanoes erupted during LIA?
Perhaps you are thinking of Huaynaputina (VE6) in 1600? I doubt it cause the LIA as Mount Pinatubo (VE6) in 1991 was about the same size and didn’t have an extensive or long lasting impact on global temperature.
Mount Tambora (VE7) did erupt in the middle of the Dalton Minimum (1815) and that was a pretty big eruption as they go, but it was not during the LIA. This was the year without a summer they discuss in Weather 101 for freshman.
Now, Toba (VE8 ) or Yellowstone (VE8 ) going off could plunge the world into an ice age, but these were VERY big eruptions.
so, please source your ‘era of prolific volcanic activity during the LIA’.
@Bill P
I suspect someone is using Wikipedia for a primary source on LIA which tries to portray that the LIA is not solar, but fails to provide any supporting evidence for causes or non-causes and restricts the event to the NH.
The LIA is still one of the many thorns in the side of AGW. As is the MWP. The editorial control of climate articles at Wikipedia is well known to skeptics. Unfortunately, many less knowledgeable individuals are taken-in by the authoritative tone of the articles there and don’t take the time learn the full picture.
Several people sound well-versed in earth sciences. I’m particularly interested in records of volcanic activity in the 13th and 14th centuries. Dates and identities of the volcanoes if they are known. Thanks.
I have to add, I’d be surprised if the 11-year sun spot cycle info can be resolved to the kind of detail Counters suggests for the early part of the LIA (14th century). I don’t even see grand minima ascribed to specific decades prior to the 1600’s.
Paul (10:46:30) : (in re: humidity and air density) “Oops, my bad!”
Not to worry. Common intuition: water sinks and air rises so humid air must be heavier than dry. It’s one of those counter-intuitive things.
AGW is not about “runaway climate change” Then what exactly is AGW about, counters? Please, give us the latest spin on exactly what AGW is (you guys keep moving the goalposts you know), and while you’re at it, your mathematical proof of it. You can’t, because there isn’t any, but go ahead and try. We keep having to remind you (you must have a short attention span) that NO ONE here disputes that there is a greenhouse effect. Got that, counters? NO ONE.
[…] Watts Up With That? has the scoop: 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. […]
There is only one way to kill the global warming cult. Form a global cooling cult! You can’t fight fire with fire, you can only fight it ice.
counters,
“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”
It is only disputed if you use Mannian PCAs from his famed Hockey Stick. In Mann’s reconstruction, niether the MWP nor the LIA occured -the global temperatures were near static until the 20th Century. There’s not enough bandwidth to cover all of the issues with Mann’s MBH9X, so I suggest you spend a few days over at Climate Audit.
Until 2001, climate scientists were pretty much in agreement about the scope of both the LIA/MWP. To illustrate that point, you should research the Franz Joseph glacier in New Zealand. The rise and fall of this glacier mirrors that both the MWP and LIA.
You should come to realize that our climate has exhibited fairly wide variations in both the distribution of temperature and precipitation. Those variations preceeded the internal combustion engine and its emmisions of CO2.
Back to the important topic in this thread – cricket and baseball. While the physics of air density is not different between the US and the rest of the world (where we play cricket), the physics of the ball almost certainly is. The single seam dividing a cricket ball into two hemispheres contrasts significantly with the seam on a baseball. The effect of the angle of the seam to the swing or curve of the ball is known in both sports and has caused me personally much grief as I just can’t seem to get a basball to go where I want it to!
Rob
This is an appropriately pessimistic outlook. Sadly, those who need to realize why it is pessimistic, do not understand why it is. A hard rain is going to fall, so to speak.
Dee Norris,
Thanks for your reply. I did find at Wiki, the graph “Solar Activity Events in 14C”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
I’ll take it with a grain of salt.
I was working on my entertainment center about an hour ago and I turned on the TV. It was tuned to the
HitlerHistory Channel. They were running the umpteenth repeat of “Countdown to Armageddon” citing various prophecies, including (— drum roll please —) Global Warming. The program pointed out that proclaiming the end is near is almost a universal pastime. It pointed out that many have made the proclamation in the past who were obviously mistaken but, NOW, people are beginning to see signs that The REAL End Is Near! First, there’s all the usual things that indicated it in the past: war, famine, pestilence, economy shot to hell, centuries old prophecy poems, Mayans unable to count past 2012, … But now we can add: arctic melting, polar bears drowning, Katrina, … and, just for fun, toss in 911, government wiretapping and tort lawyers. Who knows, maybe in a future Doom and Gloom cycle (in about 10 more years) we can add Global Cooling and Impending Ice Age.The only sign I see is an endlessly repeating pattern of “We’re Doomed! Coming to your neighborhood planet soon” but always in the never realized future.
In the past, the “End is Near!” crowd wore sackcloth and drove poster signs but now they wear designer clothes, live in mansions, use enormous amounts of energy (but all Clean Energy, thankyouverymuch), make movies and putter around in private jets. The base message is always the same though, “Repent and Mend Your Ways before it’s Too Late!” Whoever coined, “There’s a sucker born every minute” got it right.
It’s a tough lot being Handsome and Intelligent instead of Rich and Famous. Sometimes I wish I had taken a different career path.
DAV:
Yeah, that’s the s*** right there! Is the Hit- oh, I mean the History Channel going to show it again? If so when? Do they talk about gorebull cooling doomsday coming in the future?
I do hope Mr Watts will allow me one last word on cricket (I’m amazed he hasn’t already blocked me for raising irrelevancies, he must be a very patient and charming fellow).
The point I want to make is by analogy.
Cricket is not a game in which muscle and bravado have much influence. Of course you need a certain amount of physical strength if you are going to catch the spectators’ eyes by hitting the ball out of the ground or throwing it from the outfield to the wicket with a flat trajectory from 60 yards but these are just the things that make the crowd go “oooooooh”.
Bashing the ball out of the ground earns 6 runs, but 6 runs is pointless if that is all you score. Far more valuable is the quiet steady batsman who nudges and nurdles, examines the bowlers’ weaknesses, caresses the ball with elegant timing, find the gaps for a succession of single runs and ends up scoring 100.
Bowling the ball at 90-plus mph is a rare feat, but there is no point bowling at 90mph if your aim is wrong. Far better to bowl consistently at 60mph and be so accurate that the batsman is at risk every time.
So it is with our friend Saint Al of Gore. “Here’s a polar bear” he says … the crowd goes “aaaaaah” (6 runs); “here’s a tidal wave” … “oh no!” (6 runs); “here’s a starving person in a country I’ve never been to because there’s no runway for my private jet” … “oooooh” (6 runs). Fine grandstanding stuff. The rest of his team have their graphs, tables and statistics and they look good because they are batting first, the opposition batsmen haven’t yet taken to the field. They score 200 runs in total. The crowd takes tea and discusses the play so far: “200, that’ll take some beating. This is a difficult pitch, they have dealt with it very well.” Tea is over and the opposition go in to bat.
The opposition start with no runs. It’s not like baseball with 3 outs for one side then the others have a go. The first team bats and gets as many as they can. Their score might look good, but you only know how good it is if you stay to the end of the match and see what the opposition batsmen can do.
By his own reasoning Saint Al’s innings is over, he has told us so because he has told us that the science is settled and the debate is over. But he cannot speak for the opposition, he can only declare his own innings closed. His team has scored 200 runs and now the other team – the team with no grandstanders, no players who arrive by private jet, the team of nudgers, nurdlers and caressers – has its chance.
The match is just warming up.
REPLY: It’s relevant as stated, gamesmanship to win public opinion is as much a part of AGW as the science. – Anthony
Counters
Thank you for your replay, but that did not ansewer the queation.
What caused the climate change from the MWP to LIA?
Yes, a lot of volcanic activity, but majority started after temperatures started rising again.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
The hockey stick
He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor’s degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.
I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
This speaks volumes about men behine the the sticks and IPCC
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
Q: How long has it been since anyone’s seen a sunspot?
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.
Well, yes, only c. 3.5% of CO2 output is anthropogenic.
BUT (and please don’t hate me) . . .
Natural CO2 (all 200 or so Bil. Metric Tons emitted) is reabsorbed by the oceans and the soils. Also, pretty much all of manmade agricultural atmospheric carbon in reabsorbed by what he grows.
But only c. half of the 7.2 BMTC industry produces is absorbed by vegetation, soils, or ocean. The rest of it (c. 3.5 BMTC) accumulates in the atmosphere.
The Atmospheric sink contains c. 760 BMTC. Bottom line: we are increasing atomospheric carbon by a little under half a percent per year.
As it stands (so far as we can tell) we have added around a third more CO2 to the atmosphere (a little at a time, mostly over the last 60 or so years).
So the IPCC is right about how much CO2 mankind has added to the atmosphere (assuming their measurements and proxies are right–and they may not be).
BUT (you can stop hating me) . . .
Seeing as how the Aqua satellite has thrown positive feedback loops into serious doubt, it would appear that the effect of CO2 is very slight. Even the IPCC says the direct [sic] effects are slight.
The IPCC claims that CO2 triggers positive feedback loops (i.e., two rows of dominoes–water vapor and albedo through THE MELTING ARCTIC ) that vastly increase the slight CO2 effect.
However, The AquaSat indicates that there is NEGATIVE feedback: NO high level increase of water vapor and cooling low-level clouds that INCREASE albedo, thus leading to homeostasis. Which would explain why temperatures have remained flat for a decade while atmospheric CO2 has increased by 4%.
Short answer:
CO2: Man done it. But it don’t mean nothing.
Q: How long has it been since anyone’s seen a sunspot?
‘Bout a month or two, I guess. But those were Cycle 23 spots (small ones). There has only been one official Cycle 24 spot and that was in January. (There was a ghost of a Cycle 24 spot back in 2006, but that wasn’t “official”.)
I don’t even see grand minima ascribed to specific decades prior to the 1600’s.
Here’s what I have on the old “postcard”:
Oort (1010-1050)
Wolf (1280-1340)
Spörer (1415-1534)
Maunder (1645-1715)
Dalton (1790-1840)
Last sunspot was a SC23 event approx 23 days ago, late last month. There were several spots last month and none so far this month.
Bruce Cobb: “I will restate the AGW hypothesis as: the increase in atmospheric C02 caused by mankind increases the greenhouse effect, significantly raising global temperatures, having disasterous consequences.”
The IPCC definition of climate change: “Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/10th-anniversary/anniversary-brochure.pdf
So AGW could be described as climate change that is due to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Nothing there about “disasterous [sic] consequences” though.
Perhaps a more concrete description of AGW would be: “Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.”
BTW, were you able to find any evidence to support your claim on the “Alleviate world hunger” thread: “I repeat, Thatcher used the [AGW] issue to gain political power, beginning in 1979…”
I haven’t been able to find any evidence for this assertion. Perhaps you could throw some light on the matter.
Perhaps a more concrete description of AGW would be: “Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.”
So what we have here is a vague correlation of C02 to temperature of the past century, and the even more vague claim that C02 “should contribute” to future warming. Wow. That is alarming.
BTW, were you able to find any evidence to support your claim on the “Alleviate world hunger” thread: “I repeat, Thatcher used the [AGW] issue to gain political power, beginning in 1979.…”
I haven’t been able to find any evidence for this assertion. Perhaps you could throw some light on the matter
It is from a paper by Richard Courtney: Global Warming:
How It All Began
There are no references given, unfortunately. I have just emailed him, though, so hopefully he’ll send me something. There certainly was motive both for her and her UK party to push AGW.
His statement that “a coincidence of interests usually has a more powerful effect than a group of conspirators. The origins of the scare are political and have resulted in political policies that now threaten serious economic damage for the entire world” seems an excellent description.
[…] mind those scientists that say the earth is now cooling. The momentum of the global warming crisis-fighting machine cannot be slowed […]
Brendan H, if you Google Margaret Thatcher AND global warming, you’ll get a whole heap of hits, including the one that Bruce referred to.