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!”.
Looks like at least some businessmen are more interested in an unbiased look at the climate than just a rehash of political correctness. After all, the decisions they have to make today must be based on what the future holds and it’s tough to base such decisions on a love for a particular theory. Let’s just hope that the cooling isn’t too severe or long-lasting.
I can understand the way the experts qualified their projections. I think it’s becoming obvious that the climate system is much more complicated than AGW proponents would have us believe. As an example, here’s something I said on another blog about the effect of aerosols. A study done over the Indian Ocean to assess the impact of the aerosols drifting down from the Indian subcontinent came up with what appears to be a counterintuitive result. They found that the pollution was resulting in warming rather than the expected cooling. This appears to be a regional effect. {Wish I could find that study now.} This suggests that even with something as simple as aerosols a great deal more study is needed to determine how and why they impact climate. The Indian study suggested that the aerosols impacted cloud formation and water droplet formation in the clouds. This just demonstrates that understanding the mechanisms affecting climate are far more complex than AGW proponents would have us believe. Perhaps the aerosols that were in the atmosphere in the Northern Hemisphere from 1940 to 1970 actually lessened the cooling that occurred and their removal happened just at the time that the climate again started to warm due to increased solar activity. The problem with AGW theory is that it treats the climate system as existing almost in a steady state and any warming that happens is a result of increases in a minor trace gas {CO2}. We’ve still got a very long way to go.
I only wish that one of Al (I play a scientist on TV) Gore’s vacation houses gets a ton of snow on his roof this winter on one of his vacation houses (in Maui?) and it caves in!
[...] we are in the great cycle of the climate and have an interesting analysis of the situation. From Watts Up With That website: Four scientists, four scenarios, four more or less similar conclusions without actually [...]
The energy industry would be most interested in what climate is going to do because it impacts demand for their products.
It should be noted that the energy industries don’t really care whether their products are used for air-conditioning in a warming scenario, or heating in a cooling scenario. In business, a sale is a sale, as long as the cheque clears.
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.
That point has been made here repeatedly. The fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide is at the very low end of its range geologically, and has been at a concentration of many thousand parts per million for millions of years at a time in the past [compared with today's less than 400 ppm], without ever causing runaway global warming, falsifies the CO2/global warming catastrophe hypothesis being put forth by James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, the UN and many others.
Whenever I hear anyone in the government, including NASA, GISS, etc., scaremongering about CO2, I can almost feel their hands digging around in my pockets for more loot.
Because that’s what it’s all about, folks: your hard-earned money, and how these scam artists can get at it.
As Leon clearly enunciated, predicting the course of the climate is far more complicated than the AGW crowd has believed.
But here in Indiana we have had the coolest spring and early summer in memory. At the 4th of July parade, people were complaining because they were cold. Never happens. Least not in Indiana.
There’s certainly a growing body of evidence that supports cooling. I wonder where the tipping point will be before the politicians and alarmists wake up.
0.5°C cooler? 1.0°C cooler?
Leon Brozyna:
Good post, but those aerosols you are talking about are soot aerosols, which cool the surface on a cloudless day but warm the atmosphere. They also fall on snow and make it melt faster. However, the more common human aerosols are sulphate aerosols, which have pure cooling effects by reflecting sunlight and MAYBE making clouds brighter by making them dirtier, creating another cooling effect.
That Indian study you are talking about is iffy, as because if it were true the lower troposphere over India and China should be warming faster, but a look at UAH temperature trends, as well as RSS trends, show that India and China have warmed much less than places devoid of significant human impact (Mongolia, North Pole, Siberia, and the Iberian Peninsula, relatively I mean) since 1978. Although the basic physics of the Asian Brown Cloud are correct, it simply does not show up well in the temperature data, especially over India which may be cooling very slightly now.
As for this gathering of scientists, it appears that every month that passes without a clear solar minimum and start for Cycle 24, the more scientists begin to warn of global cooling. I wonder who is next?
Sent to Bill Hemmer, Fox News, cc’d to Dr. James Hansen –
I want to see honest debate in this country about global warming. The raw temperature data in the USA is down dramatically in 2008 by every measure, global temperatures have gone down for the past decade, and yet we hear extreme alarm from the lead scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University who runs the widely discredited GISS temperature measurement system. Dr. Hansen has gone so far as to call for global warming skeptics to be jailed at ABC News, in The Guardian, and at Worldwatch Institute. Dr. Hansen has also claimed that that the Bush Administration has tried to silence him.
I’m offering to put up $10K in prize money for the following type of 1 hour debate between Dr. Hansen v. the Author of http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/about/ and former 25 year television meteorologist. I would like to see American Idol style voting to determine the winner, multi-media presentations instead of simply two guys at podiums and the money going to the winner. The show does not need to be live, and in fact the debate can take place over a period of weeks to ensure the best multi-media presentations, arguments, and rebuttals possible – with no talking over people etc that goes with live debate. Their can be no personal attacks … just data. The debate must not include glaciers, hurricanes, polar bears, coral reefs, frogs dying out, etc. which can all have multiple causes unrelated to Global warming. The debate should be EXCLUSIVELY about the TEMPERATURE of the earth. However, the final 5 to 10 min of the show and voting should be live. Dr. Hansen does not seem to want to have real debates but has taken quite a lot of money for his speaking engagements. Hopefully FOX will have better luck.
The topics of the debate should be
1. The Quality of Dr. Hansen’s GISS Temperature Network which has been the dominate temperature data set of record for anthropogenic global warming advocates.
2. The Differences between Dr. Hansen’s GISS Temperature Network v. satellite data from UAH.
3. The Global temperature record from 1998 to 2008 as compared to Dr. Hansen’s predictions before Congress in 1998 – see graph. As you can easily see, Dr. Hansen was widely wrong as temperatures in 2008 are roughly where they were in 1988.
(Graph from Dr. Hansen’s 1988 Congressional Hearing here)
4. Finally, I would like Dr. Hansen to respond to the great cooling events we have seen in 2007 and 2008 and give an explanation.
5. Both debaters should give an estimate of the expected global temperature record from now to 2018 and then out to 2118 – so we can have this debate again in 10 years.
Sources
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ex=1296190800&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ei=5088
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5228739&affil=wjla
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
Here is Dr. Hansen’s contact info.
REPLY: Here’s Dr. Hansen’s contact info -
Dr. James E. Hansen
Columbia University
750 Armstrong Hall
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA
Phone: (212) 678-5500
It should be noted that the energy industries don’t really care whether their products are used for air-conditioning in a warming scenario, or heating in a cooling scenario. In business, a sale is a sale, as long as the cheque clears.
It should be noted that they have to care because air conditioning is driven by electricity while heating is generally driven by natural gas or oil. Also, there are locations which generally need one, but not the other. So knowing what’s going to happen determines which energy company needs to be ready to supply which product to which location.
I wonder if this will lead to a new class of deniers. If these projections come true, how long before a set of “New Deniers” arises to carry on denying that the earth is cooling off?
There were some who denied that the earth was warming at all, even into the late 90’s, because for them it had become political the moment the Greens took an interest. Only later in the game did they shift to denying only the man-made aspect.
Will we see the mirror image of that from the Greens now? I’ve already had a couple of conversations that foreshadow this. The conversations went like this: “So you deny Global Warming?” Me: “Not while it was warming up I didn’t. Do you deny that its starting to cool back off?
Try it, the stunned stares are worth it. Have one of Anthony’s 2002-present temperature trend charts handy. I know that its statistically premature to be using those things, but where I live I’m surrounded by AGW missionaries, and sometimes I just can’t help myself.
REPLY: Let’s leave the word “deniers” off this website, no matter who we are speaking of. The term was coined referring to “holocaust deniers”. In science, there is no room for such labels, no matter what side of the debate you are on. “Skeptic” is the better word. - Anthony
Speaking of the energy sector and energy gurus… Has anyone seen the TV spots that T. Boone Pickens is running on a plan to increase the amount of wind power and replace oil with natural gas as a transportation fuel?
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.
REPLY: I was thinking the very same thing right after I posted this. I’m inclined to agree. We think we know a lot about earths’ atmospheric and oceanic systems, yet new things are discovered daily. We think we know a lot about the sun’s mechanisms, yet it continues to give us surprising behavior that doesn’t follow solar cycle predictions.
Nature is more complex than many choose to admit. Simple models that don’t consider chaos and complex nonlinear systems just don’t cut it. Man has a tendency by his own arrogance to believe that he can fully understand and conquer nature. Yet if nature wishes to conquer man, she has only to flex a finger the barest of movement. - Anthony
Walter Dnes (09:48:40)
That’s true enough: “a sale is a sale”.
But, it’s easier and more profitable if the object being sold can be transported or delivered without having to deal with crappy weather.
As we have seen this year, cooler temperatures bring some really weird and unpleasant conditions.
From another angle: even with all of their very dedicated machinations directed solely at “proving” global warming, etc., the ipcc Climate Scientists have had such a difficult time even in trying to establish much of a significant “global warming” trend per se that one would tend to get the idea that we are instead in some kind of plateau phase regarding these temperatures - at best.
In my experience, people who think like the ipcc Climate Scientists - that is, unscientifically/subrationally, especially in service of a political agenda or extreme psychological need - not only usually get things wrong, they often get them exactly 180 degrees wrong. So I’m going to be moderately surprised if the global climate doesn’t cool - with the disclaimer that, since the ipcc Climate Scientists are not doing Science to begin with, anything they predict or say is going on now globally - such as catestrophic runaway anthropogenic global warming - has only a [very low] random chance of becoming or being true, so that it’s exact opposite has a similarily less chance of becoming or being true.
Regardless, if the ipcc Climate Scientists had instead done things scientifically, the World of People would have been in a better position by now to decide what doing the right thing for People and the rest of the World - including the “World” itself - actually might be.
Flowers4Stalin
Thanks for the kind words.
Another thing about that Indian study is that it involved the aerosols drifting off the Indian subcontinent over the Maldives, rather than over India itself or drifting toward China. The vast cloud apparently only covered the northern portion of the Maldives, where it seemed the temperatures were warmer than the southern part of the Maldives. If I remember correctly, the main focus of the study was to judge the effect of aerosols on precipitation patterns (their seasonal monsoons) and the temperature finding was an unexpected dividend.
I had another thought about possible effects of aerosols during the cooling that happened between 1940 and 1970. If {and that’s a very big if} the aerosols of the period had had a warming effect, rather than the usually expected cooling effect and lessened naturally cooling that may have happened in that period, then the climate would have been warmer than it would have been normally were it not for the aerosols and, as the climate then turned back to warming just as the aerosols were removed, the resulting bounce would be even greater than expected.
Oh what a complicated web we weave with so many variables.
While I may be a skeptic and doubt the significance of CO2 as a major player in climate variability, I do think we need to keep working to reduce real pollutants. My personal view is that it’s been a mistake to give utilities so much leeway in grandfathering them from current pollution {aerosol} standards.
I guess I’ll always listen to what T. Boone has to say. He’s been around the oil patch a while and has done his share of Wildcatting. Doesn’t strike me as a guy that could easily be fooled.
Maybe he has an angle on the wind turbine farms. I forget the dollar number. But, he’s throwing some big bucks at it. The little I’ve read about them, most recently at the EU Referendum Blog, indicated they’re very expensive to construct and high maintenance. The wind has to be blowing too. Some other kind of power generation has to be spooled up and running to take up the slack when the wind stops.
Several post at EU Referendum on wind turbines. They don’t think much of them at all.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/search?q=wind+turbine
Drew Latta (10:57:47) :
Pickens is promoting wind power because he’s gobbling up the water rights in the Texas panhandle; he’s getting the rights-of-way for his water pipeline to Dallas, and mainly for P.R. purposes, he’s putting windmills on the easements he took from the local ranchers. The windmills won’t make much money, if any. But the water will.
Pickens is a smart guy, but what he’s doing is entirely self-serving. Pay no attention to his song and dance about wind power. Business Week has a recent article on Pickens and his current water/wind scheme: click here.
Has anyone seen the TV spots that T. Boone Pickens is running on a plan to increase the amount of wind power and replace oil with natural gas as a transportation fuel?
I never did like him. Shallow. In Eisenhower’s quaint phrase, “He’s thin, boys. As thin as piss on a hot rock.”
Pachauri supports the Indian energy plan which is pro-development. He has wondered out loud if ’someone didn’t get their sums wrong’ about the IPCC conception of the Greenhouse Effect. I think he’s figured out that the role of CO2 in climate has been overestimated and its boon to the poor underestimated, and may be about to turn the IPCC around on the issue of carbon encumbering. It is in politicians’ better interests to free carbon if the world is cooling long term, and they will all come to realize it.
=====================================
Right, Joe S, T-Bone has been around the Oil Patch long enough to accrue huge interests in natural gas. Also, electrifying where there ain’t any moisture won’t work, and he knows, but hopes you don’t, that transporting electricity is a lot more expensive than transporting natural gas.
==================================
Leon Brozyna:
There was a scientist Patrick Michaels mentioned some years ago (it may have been 2001) that said the warming and cooling effects of human produced aerosols in the troposphere are a wash, because half cause cooling (sulphate) and half cause warming (soot). I have seen a study that says the brown cloud over India and China affects atmospheric circulation and moves precipitation systems to the tropics, cooling them. However, there is another scientist named Stephen Schwartz who says there are major uncertain factors about sulphate aerosols, because he thinks that if enough get into enough clouds and brighten them, there could be significant human induced cooling that is dominant over other human factors, because cloud cover and types of clouds are a crucial, fundamental part of global climate. Of course, Schwartz’s studies are very uncertain because no one has been able to point to a bright cloud and say “Aha! That cloud is bright because of human sulphate aerosols!”
One more thing: aerosols that wildfires send into the atmosphere create a “nuclear winter” on the surface, but ONLY if there are no low-level clouds, or else they would be driven away and cause net warming, especially in the atmosphere. This “nuclear winter” happens in Southern California during Santa Ana season, and produces cooling because there are never low-level clouds during Santa Ana wind events. The cooling can be enough to eliminate air conditioning for a day and prevent record high temperatures during the day, but may trap more heat at night, but the overall effect is probably cooling.
Before y’all put any more money into T. Boone’s pockets, ya might wanna check out what Steven Milloy has to say about his Wind Farm ads:
http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080710.html
Housing prices in Florida are low, no state income tax, no oil fired furnaces, lots of fishing and golf ….. might be time for ya’ll to c’mon down!
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@@@@rsskeptic. If these projections come true, how long before a set of “NewD@@@@xrsSkeptics” arises to carry ond@@@ingdoubt 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
Thanks for the insight on Pickens. Whatever his motivation, he seems to be the only one really talking important issues in the election year political arena.
I don’t think the high wind percentage problem is as bad as the naysayers predict. From hearing some preliminary results on process optimization and real-time forecasting using intelligent systems and data-mining, the systems that are being used to run the current wind generating system aren’t quite to snuff and improvements could easily be made.
I love that there is so much enthusiasm for renewable energy. True story, I was on a flight last year to Singapore from London and got talking to a guy on the plane called Professor David Infield, a very personable chap. He is a Professor of Renewable Energy Technologies and the University of Strathclyde. I still have his business card in my collection.
We were casually talking about AGW theory and the impact of renewable sources would have. He stated that, for example, domestic solar panels are built to last for around 20 years, however, the energy expended to create them at present outways the benefit of the energy they save. He also pointed out that a wind turbine was not the most efficient way either. He said that after you have taken maintenace, construction, calibrating (which has to be done regularly) the beneficial energy they produce was minimal and one of the most least efficient was of generating power.
His thoughts were that we have no real viable technology now to make the switch from fossel fuels to. Nuclear is an obvious choice and very safe choice, but the issue is how to deal with the waste in an evironmentaly friendly manor.
Now, I just want to be very clear, I am reciting this from memory so if I have made an error in quoting David, then please forgive me.
Philip B wrote: ” 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?”
Methyl Hydrates, as described by NOAA are “an ice-like crystalline mineral in which hydrocarbon gases and non-hydrocarbon gases are held within rigid cages of water molecules” (http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/
deepeast01/background/fire/fire.html). Having said that, the oceans would have to warm up substantially to release anything, much less an abundance of methane. Additionally, the oceans have been found to be cooling, not warming.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Going back for a 2nd and 3rd reading of the TEA article, the scariest prediction is by David Melita…
> 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.
What he’s saying is that even though global mean temperatures have been falling off a cliff for the last 6 to 9 months ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/from:1980/plot/uah/mean:12/from:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:12/from:1980/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1980 ) *THE COOLING FROM THE NEGATIVE PDO HASN’T EVEN BEGUN TO KICK IN YET !!!* Think about it for a minute.
Pickens is self-serving? So what? I hope his plan works and he makes a few billion more.
So do I. I don’t mid a bit that he’s self-serving. But he’s thin. And he is talking nonsense when he says, “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis”.
Are we going back to the 1970s? Cooling or warming?
Smokey,
Thanks for your reply too. I look forward to the day when that huge source of methane can be mined assuming we don’t get fusion reactors first.
I hope “Watts Up With That” readers will forgive me for two sins; first for posting off topic,
Horrors. I would never do that. Never, ever, ever ever. Heaven forfend.
The problem with wind is that its not a primary load system. And in financial terms, the utilization/kwh-capacity is < 20% of that of nuclear. Its just cannot compete in the long term. If you have a $ to put in wind or nukes, you will lose your shirt if you put it in wind.
BTW, we were out in West Texas last week and few of the turbines were turning.
When people get their heating bills this fall in the NE it will cause a political firestorm. People will go from $1000 per home to heat to $3000 or more. Expect the cost of Diesel to spike about Sept and the public to erupt in October when they go to fill their heaters.
Aerosols !!!!
I just went back and re-read the 2007, Working Group 1, Chapter 2, section of the IPCC report on aerosols. No data pre-1978 is used. Therefore, the net negative forcing was assumed (and I mean to use the word assumed) so that the cooling between 1940 to 1975 could be forced in the Global Climate Models. This was to make the GCMs simulate the temperature record. The Clean Air Act of 1972 did not all of a sudden reduce the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere.
We are left with comparing post-1978 sattelite aerosol measurements with pre-1978 guesses of aerosol content. I am reminded of the Hockey Stick where a proxy is used up to one point in time and temperature measurements are used after that.
The world has been much hotter and with higher CO2 and and things thrived. Plants love C02. The Medieval Warm was when all the great Cathedral of Europe were built, Greenland was settled, and grapes grew in England. On the other hand we have history of the Little Ice Age when famine occurred. Cooling means that food production is more difficult and northern and southern hemisphere crop growing areas decrease. We already have a food shortage in the world, so let’s pray that warming keeps on rather than slipping into a cool period - as seems to be happening.
I forgot to mention that the last winter in Mongolia has wiped out the nomadic people’s livelihood of stock grazing - they all froze to death. A similar result occurred across the whole of the ’stan countries. People and livestock froze - Kurdistan, Uzbekhistan, Afghanistan etc.
From what I understand there is enough methane in methane hydrate on the ocean floors to meet our natural gas needs for centuries. Why can’t we harvest it and use it before it melts and releases methane into the atmosphere?
David Segesta,
The reason is that it is down too deep and when you release the pressure it comes out of the hydrate state. So you have to harvest and contain at very deep levels to extract it.
Can anyone tell me if any of the global climate models reproduce the El Nino phenomenon? It would seem that any model would be suspect if it does not reproduce such a robust climate oscillation. Thanks for any help.
The Japanese are researching mining ocean floor clathrates, but we are probably years away from commercial viability.
A one year increase in methane doesn’t make a new trend and the article uses a 4 year graph to make the increase more dramatic. On a longer timeframe the rise is much less impressive. Here is a graph that shows a longer timescale. Note, this ends in 2005/2006, so the year referred to above is not included. On the lower graph you can see rate increase in methane emissions has been declining since 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Methane-global-average-2006.jpg
No one really knows why methane levels stopped rising 10 years ago, but programs to capture methane previously released to the atmosphere probably played a role.
Drew Latta (18:46:59) :
The biggest problem with wind is its reliability for a primary system. Until some sort of storage capacity (flywheels, giant capacitors?) is developed, dramatic dropoffs in wind when it’s expected to be blowing can be very influential in the grid. As was mentioned upthread, or in another, we had a major cut to customers this winter when the normally good winds fell to almost zero for several days.
Austin, the turbines normally run pretty well out here (Southern Plains), but yeah, the last week or so, it’s been milder. Every time I go out for a Sunday ride, any direction, there are lots of turbines, and usually going gangbusters. Again, it’s just not reliable yet for a primary system, more like an addition to the coal fired.
Not entirely OT, Xcel Energy announced last week that they are going together with a few other suppliers and are building a medium sized solar plant in Eastern NM. Of the mirror variety, not the photoelectric cell type. The big wigs announcing it mentioned that it and wind are supplimental, not primary, so at least someone has their heads on straight.
The comment above from Mr Paul (timed at 18.50.28) raises a point I have been concerned about for a long time which is the concentration of our Greenie friends on single aspects of the argument rather than the whole picture.
For example, let us ask how much CO2 is produced by a coal-fired power station. Mr Greenie will have the figures readily to hand and will tell you it is so-many tonnes of CO2 for every so-many mega-watts of electricity. He is quite wrong because he is looking only at the time the power station is generating electricity.
To get the full picture we need to look at every stage of the power station’s life. How much CO2 results from building the building? How much results from manufacturing and fitting the working parts? How much results from repairs, maintenance, tests and upgrades? How much results from decommissioning the station at the end of its working life?
These sums are like a company’s fixed costs. On Day 1 of operation each mega-watt of electricity is produced at the “cost” of an absolutely enormous amount of CO2 per unit because all the emissions during manufacture of the plant have been incurred in order to produce the first mega-watt. The second mega-watt produces some CO2 of its own but the average is just about halved because the fixed costs of manufacture are now split between 2 units of electricity not 1. Similarly, the expected emissions from decommissioning will happen come what may, so they all fall on the first mega-watt, half of them fall on the first and half on the second, a third-each when the third arrives and so on. The longer the plant operates the thinner the burden of manufacture and decommissioning are spread and the lower the average becomes. Eventually the plant has to be decommissioned because it can no longer work efficiently or safely. However, as a general proposition, the longer that is delayed the better for the overall CO2 emissions average per mega-watt of electricity.
Equally, it is misleading to say “wind is better because wind-turbines produce no CO2″. We have to ask what happens when the wind-turbine is manufactured, how much maintenance it requires, what new infrastructure is needed to carry the electricity to the user, for how long can it operate, what happens when it is decommissioned, and so on. Only then can we measure the average CO2 per mega-watt and compare on a like-to-like basis with a coal fired station.
Scrapping established power stations prematurely and replacing them with wind-turbines causes both the CO2 emissions from decommissioning the power station and those caused by manufacturing the wind-turbine to be incurred earlier than would otherwise be the case. I am not qualified to say what difference it would make, but Mr Greenie really ought to tell us if he wants to be seen as an honest advocate.
I undertook a very rough-and-ready examination of the difference it would make if I took the bus or train rather than my car on my rare travels from FatBigot Towers here in North London, and was surprised by what I found. This includes my (very rough-and-ready) study:
http://thefatbigot.blogspot.com/2008/06/chicken-licken-and-motorist.html
DS:
The short answer is that if there weren’t cheaper ways we would. Same goes for the more difficult-to-get-at-oil.
Here is a longer answer:
If we ran out of conventional sources of copper TOMORROW MORNING, we could get the stuff out of sediments and seawater–in completely unlimited quantities–for around four times what we’re paying for it now (and the cost would go down over time as unfamiliar methods were improved).
What the methyl hydrate thing means, in effect, is that we will never, ever run out of fossil fuels. It is a virtually unlimited resource. We may never have to go get it. We may “pass beyond” most fossil fuels before we get anywhere near running out of cheaper conventional sources. But if we don’t, well, there it is, provided we are willing to pay for it.
The same basic principle applies to nearly every “non-renewable” mineral resource on earth.
The folks who talk about “running out” of whatever the hell it is they say we’re running out of, simply have no notion whatever of what is going on. As this amounts to 90% of all people, who the schools go to huge expense and effort to miseducate the public on the subject, it is on the remaining 10% of us to spread the reality.
As for the 90%, don’t blame yourselves; it’s not your fault: you have been misinformed. And it’s not a matter of public vs. private education. The private schools are every bit as guilty as the rest.
Furthermore, the intellectual “elite” are even more likely to be thoroughly wrong on this point than the general public. It is the exact same disastrous error that made complete fools of the Club of Rome. Why the world education system didn’t get a clue on this two decades ago is a tale for another day (and partially beyond my ability willingly to comprehend, anyway). It’s not a liberal Vs conservative thing. It is sublimely empirical,
and has been demonstrated thoroughly, comprehensively, and repeatedly.
Well, now you have been informed. So go ye and brood no more. #B^1
Are we going back to the 1970s? Cooling or warming?
Both the ocean-atmospheric cycles and the sun indicate a probability of cooling. There is undoubtedly more to it, but climatology is still in its relative infancy.
But these things go in cycles. There are underlying trend issues which are either not well understood or just plain not even known yet. (Heck, the ocean-atmospheric multidecadal fluctuations hadn’t even been discovered when Hansen made his speech back in ‘88. Now we toss around the acronyms like old pals.)
Anthony,
This is off topic but here I go. Before I say anything else I want to mention that I really enjoy this blog as it is a great source of information. I also appreciate it greatly as it provides a counterbalance to the overwhelming number of articles found in the mainstream media supporting AGW or should I say ACC as I am sure it is soon going to be called. However I was a bit disappointed with your comment which I have pasted in below.
“Let’s leave the word “deniers” off this website, no matter who we are speaking of. The term was coined referring to “holocaust deniers”. In science, there is no room for such labels, no matter what side of the debate you are on. “Skeptic” is the better word.”
I appreciate what you are try to do. However as many commenters on this blog will understand it is misinformation spread by the likes of Al Gore, James Hasen, David Suzuki and Tim Flannery that may lead to the sacrificing of our western economies on the alter of AGW/ACC at the First Church of Radical Environmentalism.
Having checked Wikidictionary, the Macquarie Dictionary, and the online versions of both the Oxford and Websters dictionaries I have found two definitions and two etymologies for the word d***er. The first definition which is irrelevant to your comment states that a d***er is a unit by which the fineness of yarn is measured and originally denotes a French small coin coming from the Latin denarius. (You learn something new everyday!)
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/denier?view=uk
The second which is applicable to your comment is d***er, one who denies. Webster’s online dictionary states that the the term was first used in English literature prior to 1593.
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/denier
As anyone knows, who has looked into the topic of Antisemitism can tell you its presence in Europe predates 1593. However the genocide of European Jews by the Nazis, which is commonly called the Holocaust, did not occur until well over 300 years after 1593 and thus is clearly not the source from which the term d***er was coined.
I realise that you are using the term d***er in a very specific sense as it relates to the AGW/ACC debate. But please lets not sacrifice the English Language on the altar of Political Correctness at the First Church of Irrational Liberal Idealism. After all d***er is a good word to describe anyone who denies something.
By the way Anthony I hope you and yours are safe from those wildfires which continue to burn in California. Oh and keep up the good work with the website and weather station review.
David Segesta,
“From what I understand there is enough methane in methane hydrate on the ocean floors to meet our natural gas needs for centuries. Why can’t we harvest it and use it before it melts and releases methane into the atmosphere?”
Actually David it is already starting to happen but as usual the environmentalists are saying it will lead to an environmental night mare. Check out these links if you want to know more:
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2008/04/23/a-breakthrough-in-fuel-supplying-from-methane-hydrates/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3740036.ece
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/methane-hydrate-extraction-in-japan-could-damage-marine-ecosystems_10037775.html
@Bruce Cobb
I tend to agree with you. Climate has shown quite good correlation with solar activity. But still I would modify your statement from:
“…significant cooling looks very likely…
to:
“…significant cooling looks likely…”
Others in this forum say you can’t predict beyond a week, yet fret about “dead” suns and lack of sunspots.
Personally I wouldn’t rule out both sides of the climate debate being right. AGW may be real, and superimposed on solar trends. AGW probably will simply shift the solar driven trends a half a degree Celsius upwards. I view this as benefit, and not a calamity.
We are already facing huge price rises in energy, up to 40% in a recent BBC report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7461635.stm
If it is true that negative PDO hasn’t yet kicked in, then I’m dreading the price rises when it does!
FatBigot - I love the new coined phrase “Chicken Licken Gases”! Awesome stuff.
Pierre Gosselin:
The warmists are disingenuous when they claim temperatures climbed faster in the 1990’s than TSI increases when the TSI peak of the 1960’s - 1980’s lagged in the seas, knowing full well that the seas constitute 80-90% of GW. It goes to show how utterly incomplete their models have been when they didn’t foresee a temperature plateau from the TSI drop in the early 1990’s possibly coupled w/ increased aerosol albedo/shading.
If the TSI peak of the late 20th C portends a solar crash, then we’re in for a long TSI decrease. Take away -0.3 degrC TSI & -0.3 degrC from soot mitigation and we could be seeing a net -0.6 degrC counter-effect to AGW.
If cosmic rays have even a 1% effect on cloud cover that could add another -0.6 offset against AGW. Now we’re at -1.2 degrC.
If we threw out the bulk of the Arctic thaw of the past 150 years caused by soot deposition, that’d be another -0.15 degrC or a total of -1.35 degrC. And after all, the Arctic thaw is not a problem until possibly thousands of years from now were Greenland to completely fall into the sea!
If we take out the post-Pinatubo UV-B warming of surface ozone, another -0.3 to -0.6 degrC, or -1.65 to -1.95 degrC total offsets (the stratosphere immediately cooled due to post-Pinatubo ozone loss, about -0.6 degrees Celsius, due to loss of UV-warmed ozone — that UV hit the surface, making more ozone as well as warming any already existing).
But what the climate modelers are saying is that we’re headed for +3.0 degrC warming (assuming aerosols are mitigated) all based on the evidence of an ongoing warming trend, presumably all due to GHG.
But if we ignore nearly 1.6 - 2.0 degrees as either a negative forcing or non-critical, then what’s left is approximately equiv. to the amt of warming presumably masked by aerosols, 1 - 1.4 degrees.
And the problem with this is…. ?
All you could find was four…how about the thousands who state otherwise… http://www.enewsreference.com
Taking the long view of things…
Once we topple off the edge of the interglacial, the greens will be screaming for as much CO2 and CH4 release as possible. No doubt someone will seriously propose releasing the methane clathrates to warm the atmosphere.
Come to think of it, if the coming cooling is a repeat of the LIA, someone will propose this as a solution to man-made global cooling.
All vastly entertaining on some levels.
Personally I wouldn’t rule out both sides of the climate debate being right. AGW may be real, and superimposed on solar trends.
Is there some evidence for AGW I’ve missed? Because all of the science I’ve seen shows me that not only is C02 a relatively small player, especially since it’s effect is logarithmic (and thus any additional C02 will have very little additional warming effect), but man’s contribution is only a bit over 3%. So, if you spit in the ocean, then I guess you could say that that additional waters’ effect on sea level was “real”, but the point is, is it in any way significant? No, of course not, and neither is man’s effect on warming via his C02.
We can certainly quibble about whether significant cooling looks likely or very likely as solar science is still young and there is more to be learned. To me though, the evidence points to very likely.
I just love this site.
Thank you so much Anthony for the labors involved in getting this set up.
Comments regarding the current cooling illustrate how valuable this place is. What an array of thoughtful observers.
Yes, we are definitely cooling. Just how much and for how long will be known in the future.
Here is a very thoughtful paper on the implications of any really serious cooling in the future:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/ArchibaldMarch2008.pdf
I really hope Archibald is wrong. I don’t want my granddaughters to have to deal with a world in the grip of a Dalton or Maunder minimum coupled with growing populations.
The minute I saw T. Boone on the the TV talking, I thought, he wants something. Sure enough, all was explained here on this thread. He wants what every believer in free markets and independent capitalism wants: he wants the privatization of profit and the socialization of losses. That is, when there are profits to be made, he wants them. When there are losses, he wants to share with the taxpayer.
So, there’s a tax subsidy about to go away, hmmmh? Can’t have that. So let’s start up a big ad campaign and act like we want to join hands with all the little people of America and do what the big moneyed interests have failed to do: cut oil imports.
We’re seeing exactly the same thing going on with ethanol alcohol. Take away the subsidies and it will all dry up. Never mind the current system leads to huge market dislocations and food shortages for the poor of the world, it’s time to make money.
T. Boone says he knows more about energy than anyone. Modest fellow isn’t he? Then how come he says we can’t drill our way out of this energy crisis when the use of more natural gas (what he is advocating) will require a great deal of drilling for more natural gas?
Thanks everyone for the discussion.
Redneck,
Anthony’s point is that, in the context of the exploration of AGW, the non-scientists among the group that believes CO2 is the ‘one and only overwhelming’ aspect of AGW initiated the use of the term to cast people (even eminently qualified climate scientists as the mental equivalent of those that deny the existence of the occurrence of historical or scientific facts (e.g., the Holocaust, the ’semi-spherical ‘earth), with conspiracy theorists such as the second gunman, and the ‘burning jet fuel could not melt the steel in the WTC therefore it was a controlled demolition’, or by associating them with beliefs that are clearly wrong and anyone holding those beliefs is possibly a few bricks short (flat earth, creationism, etc) . The purpose of this, of course, is to avoid having to deal with the messy implications of the arguments these folks put forth by attacking them personally, thus allowing them to ignore the arguments.
Not that you don’t already know this, but the point is they have changed the usage of the word from benign to malicious and that is Anthony’s point. We should not respond in kind because that makes us no better than they are (aside from the idea that this is NOT how scientific debate is conducted).
In any case there are many different viewpoints among the folks who disagree with the IPCC, personally I’m in the ‘AGW exists, but CO2 is NOT the main, overwhelming driver, there are other human caused influences on climate such as land use change (irrigation, de-forrestation), Urban Heat Island effects, soot/sulphate aerosols, etc that have a greater effect’. So I can’t be rightly classed as a ‘denier’, more of a ‘minimizer’ I suppose.
In any case the issue is, if you are engaging someone in an argument (the scientific kind, not the political/social kind) and they start behaving like a 4 year old there is no imperative that you respond in kind, rather, it is a sign that they believe your arguments have merit and are trying to distract you (i.e., it’s an open admission that you’re winning the argument). So the best course of action is to ignore it and continue on as a professional. Eventually people witnessing the argument realize the truth of the behavior.
Redneck, I love the way you cling to your reference tomes, but honestly, honey, ya’ gotta work on the bitterness part.
====================================
I found a link for John McDonald on Nobel winners and AGW.
As with most other things, he appears to be mistaken in his assertions.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/07/lindau-half-of-nobel-prize-winners-are.html
Wind power is “source of opportunity” power, used when it is available and replaced with conventional power sources when it is not. Its role is commodity replacement, rather than capacity replacement. Comparing the cost of “source of opportunity” power with the cost of reliable power is a “fools game”.
Current wind machines have an availability of ~35% and a capacity factor of ~20-25%; and, current nuclear power plants have a capacity factor of ~90-95% . Even if the cost of the power from each were the same, the value would be substantially different.
Storage is the key to adding value to source of opportunity power, but it is not without its own substantial costs. Picture five wind turbines plus storage capable of containing their total daily output to provide reliable power equal to the nameplate capacity of one of the wind tu