jump to navigation

‘Earth is Set to Enter a 20-year Cooling Period’ February 11, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,

‘Earth is Set to Enter a 20-year Cooling Period’

Dr. Jim Buckee, PhD Astrophysics, University of Oxford

Dr. Jim Buckee says he feels like a heretic, persecuted for his views and treated like an outcast. His crime? Being a climate change sceptic. Next week the former chief executive of the oil and gas firm Talisman, who has a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Oxford, will try to convince others that climate change has nothing to do with human activity.

During a lecture at the University of Aberdeen he will argue that, far from warming, the Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period. Dr Buckee believes human behaviour has no effect on the climate and the vast sums spent by governments trying to promote renewable energy to cut greenhouse gas emissions are being wasted. Far from being a key cause of climate change, he says, carbon dioxide emissions have little or no impact. His views are contrary to those held by governments, the Royal Society – an independent science body – the Met Office and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Instead of human activities being responsible for the warming climate over the past 100 years, Dr Buckee insists there is a natural explanation, based on the activity of the Sun. Solar activity can affect the cosmic rays that reach the Earth’s atmosphere, and this in turn affects the climate, he says.

The “solar explanation” is one shared by many climate change sceptics. Dr Buckee says he is arguing against a tide of popular opinion which verges on the religious. “Any dissension is like a heresy,” he says. “People are stamped on so they can’t be heard. That has religious overtones.”

Dr Buckee believes his views are widespread although not always voiced. “I think it is the dominant view in professional science circles,” he says. “I know lots of people in universities and so on and quite often they have to retire before they can say what they want because it’s so frowned upon.”

Although he spent his career in the oil and gas industry, he denies having any vested interest. “A vested interest would make me shut up because it would drag up controversy,” he says. He adds that, while he was chief executive of Talisman, he did not make his views known, although he would explain them if asked. Dr Buckee’s belief in a solar explanation, a view expounded on a vast array of websites, is familiar to those in the climate change movement, who argue it has been discounted.

In the lecture, Dr Jim Buckee will put forward the idea that solar activity is responsible for changes to the climate. He will say the climate of the past few hundred years is a continuation of a normal process of gradual warming since the ice age 10,000 years ago. During that time, he argues, there have been constant fluctuations. He believes those fluctuations are caused by varying solar activity. When the sun is strong, it deflects cosmic rays from within and outside our galaxy. When the sun is weak, the rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere and cause low cloud, which has a cooling effect. He believes that, after a period of warming, the Earth is now entering a period of cooling that will last until 2030 or beyond. It is just one of the many theories put forward by sceptics, who argue that humans are not responsible for climate change. Read more here.


1. Simon - February 12, 2009

In this article it sounds like there are only 2 debates. Global warming related to C02 and Global cooling related to sunspots.

Is there not a very strong argument for climate change caused by sunspots with cooling periods when there is a minimum and warming when we are in a solar maximium, with a gradual warming with each sunspot cycle.

Is it not possible that the billion dollar campaign for CO2 induced climate change could be a distraction from the uncontrollable effects of the sun and their forthcoming impacts on earth.

Please read the following links and make up your own mind:

Sun Unleashes Record Superflare, Earth Dodges Solar Bullet

Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high

The truth about global warming – it’s the Sun that’s to blame

Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle

Magnetic-Shield Cracks Found; Big Solar Storms Expected


Would be great to get feedback from people on this!

2. John A. Jauregui - June 5, 2009

This is what the Daily Reckoning has to say:

The Daily Reckoning PRESENTS: The Waxman-Markey bill that has been making its rounds on the Hill appears to be the most expensive proposal to hit Congress since the financial crisis. Chris Mayer points out who he thinks will be the winners and losers in this legislation. Read on…

Waxman-Markey Whacks Industry
by Chris Mayer
Gaithersburg, MD

The so-called Waxman-Markey bill snaking its way through the greasy halls of Congress looks likes the most expensive thing to hit the economy since the financial crisis began. Even the normally mild- mannered Wall Street Journal called it “one of the most ambitious efforts to re-engineer American social and economic behavior in decades, presenting risks and opportunities for a wide array of businesses from Silicon Valley to the coal fields of the Appalachians.”

First off, the stated objective of cutting carbon emissions by 83% by 2050 will go down in history as outrageous – akin to when Who drummer Keith Moon drove his Lincoln Continental into the pool at the Holiday Inn. I think members of Congress must be smoking the same thing Moon was.

To show you how patently ridiculous such a goal is, I turn to Questar’s CEO – a man with the unfortunate name of Keith Rattie. Questar is an oil and gas company. Rattie is an engineer. He has been in the business since the 1970s. He walks us through the basic math in a speech he made at Utah Valley University on April 2 called “Energy Myths and Realities.” Rattie uses Utah as an example:

“Utah’s carbon footprint today is about 66 million tons per year. Our population is 2.6 million. You divide those two numbers and the average Utahan today has a carbon footprint of about 25 tons per year. An 80% reduction in Utah’s carbon footprint by 2050 implies 66 million tons today to about 13 million tons per year by 2050. If Utah’s population continues to grow at 2% per year, by 2050, there will be about 6 million people living in our state. So 13 million tons divided by 6 million people equals 2.2 tons per person per year.

“Question: When was the last time Utah’s carbon footprint was as low as 2.2 tons per person? Answer: Not since Brigham Young and the Mormon pioneers first entered the Wasatch Valley and declared, ‘This is the place.'”
“The worst-case scenario here is that the U.S. simply won’t be making steel at some point in the future. The plants will all go to Brazil. China is already the biggest steel producer in the world.”

You can extend this math over the whole country – a growing mass of 300 million people. To meet the Waxman-Markey bill’s goals would mean we have to go back to a carbon footprint about as big as the Pilgrims’ at Plymouth Rock circa 1620.

So I think the bill is absurd. I think it is also a great blow to what is left of American industry. But who cares what I think? As the great Jeffers wrote, “Be angry at the sun for setting/ If these things anger you.” This is the way the world works. Politicians do dumb things. We have to play the ball where it is. And that means we have to figure out who wins and who loses.

Here are some thoughts along those lines…

Agriculture. Agriculture, for whatever reasons, is exempt from the new rules. So farmers don’t have to worry about those manure pools out back or the flatulent cows emitting methane all over God’s green meadows. Those big tractors? Burn up that diesel!

Agriculture is a winner by virtue of not losing, like a hockey team that skates to a tie.

Steel. Big loser. U.S Steel, AK Steel and even foreign steel companies with US operations all get a big kick in the family jewels on this one. Steelmaking emits all kinds of carbon dioxide. The worst-case scenario here is that the US simply won’t be making steel at some point in the future. The plants will all go to Brazil. China is already the biggest steel producer in the world. Now we just handed the country a bunch of new business.

Avoid big steel in the US.

Utilities. Mostly losers. Under the bill, utilities will have to get 12% of their electricity from renewable sources. That means they are going to spend money buying windmills and solar panels. For some of the coal utilities, this is bad news – even though they caught a break when the government made a change to let coal have carbon permits for free to start off with. Gas utilities are better off, as they emit less carbon, but since coal gets some free carbon allowances upfront, their advantage will not be as big as I made out in my letter to you a month ago. (See, the problem with writing about potential legislation is the rules change every week.)

Still, I’d avoid coal producers or coal utilities. They wear big targets on their backs and can’t do much about it, except spend a lot of money. Bad for shareholders. There may be some very good ideas on the picks-and-shovel angle for coal, though. For example, a number of companies will sell equipment to clean up coal. And of course, the solar and wind guys are big winners.

Oil refiners. Losers. This is an industry in which it is hard to make money most of the time as it is. Now, under the new bill, refineries are really screwed. Basically, they are on the hook for about 44% of US carbon emissions. They would be among the biggest buyers of carbon emission allowances. I think with one stroke of the pen, the US government just made the US refining industry that much smaller. Lots of these older refineries will just have to close. US imports for gasoline will rise.

I think the refinery industry already sees the writing on the wall. This is one reason why Valero, the biggest US refinery, has been quick to get into the politically favored ethanol business. It’s also expanding overseas.

Avoid the refineries.

Trading desks. Winners. It figures. As if the government doesn’t help financial firms enough, it is going to hand them a nice tomato in trading carbon credits. The head of Morgan Stanley’s US emission trading desk said: “Carbon, while relatively small, is a critical piece of our commodities offering.” So some financial firms with trading desks in carbon get a nice little payday.

To sum up, this is only the beginning. At the end of the day, this obsession with carbon footprints means that Americans are going to have to pay a lot more for products that use fossil fuels. It means we are going to pay a lot more for energy. Obama and his crew can draw up whatever fantasies they want, but they can’t repeal the laws of economics, which, like forces of nature, win out every time.


Chris Mayer
for The Daily Reckoning

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: