Prince Charles denounces climate skeptics

[Ottawa Blizzard]

Prince Charles has said that climate change skeptics are playing Russian Roulette with their grandchildren's future and asks how they will one day be able to look them in the eye and explain why they didn't do anything.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12403292

[Snow_Miser]

Prince Charles has said that climate change skeptics are playing Russian Roulette with their grandchildren's future and asks how they will one day be able to look them in the eye and explain why they didn't do anything.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12403292

OMG a Prince said that humans are causing Global Warming! It's the ultimate proof...

[Clifford]

I see notes that Prince Charles runs Ethanol (at some mix?) in one of his Austin Martins.

Why am I not seeing him driving around in a SMART Diesel? Or a little scooter?

[aslkahuna]

Ah Yes, the Official Royal Climatologist.

Steve

[Peter M]

Prince Charles has said that climate change skeptics are playing Russian Roulette with their grandchildren's future and asks how they will one day be able to look them in the eye and explain why they didn't do anything.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12403292

there are powerful and vested interests globally that will not stop until every fossil fuels is used to promote their idea of unsustainable growth. Of course by then it will be all over.

[LakeEffectKing]

there are powerful and vested interests globally that will not stop until every fossil fuels is used to promote their idea of unsustainable growth. Of course by then it will be all over.

Stop with the dramatics! You're hurting your OWN cause.......wait....on second thought....continue on!!!!

[WeatherRusty]

Stop with the dramatics! You're hurting your OWN cause.......wait....on second thought....continue on!!!!

The richest corporations in the world are oil and insurance companies. You don't think they are trying to protect their turf on this one. Come on, corporations did the same thing with ozone, acid raid, ddt and tobacco. They're not doing it with AGW?

[Peter M]

The richest corporations in the world are oil and insurance companies. You don't think they are trying to protect their turf on this one. Come on, corporations did the same thing with ozone, acid raid, ddt and tobacco. They're not doing it with AGW?

Corporate interests- especially Koch industries exert powerful control- they are the primary fund giver to the T Party (another right wing fringe group- mostly republicans) Who deny AGW.

[LakeEffectKing]

The richest corporations in the world are oil and insurance companies. You don't think they are trying to protect their turf on this one. Come on, corporations did the same thing with ozone, acid raid, ddt and tobacco. They're not doing it with AGW?

Corporate interests- especially Koch industries exert powerful control- they are the primary fund giver to the T Party (another right wing fringe group- mostly republicans) Who deny AGW.

And many people (both Dems and Repubs) hold a great deal of shares in the oil companies. And as look about the roadways of America, I assuming that just as many Dems drive their various fossil fuel machines around as much as the Repubs do. The points being made may very well be true, but the method of promoting AGW science (while stereotyping an entire industry as "evil") is not working so well.

Find common ground with people, then you might be able to advance portions of your conclusive beliefs, otherwise (as I stated) it's comments like these that drive more and more "skeptics/disinterested" folks away from the doom scenarios....especially when the majority of such people are suffering from a rather cold season!!

[bobbutts]

The drama on both sides is crippling.

AGW drama: Everything is going to melt, all coastal cities underwater, no more crops, mass extinction, mass human death. Must kill economy by taking drastic action yesterday.

Skeptic Drama: AGW is completely fabricated by socialists. We're actually cooling. The atmosphere is not affected. Drill baby drill, subsidize fossil energy.. Cut funding for all alternates.

[EasternLI]

The drama on both sides is crippling.

AGW drama: Everything is going to melt, all coastal cities underwater, no more crops, mass extinction, mass human death. Must kill economy by taking drastic action yesterday.

Skeptic Drama: AGW is completely fabricated by socialists. We're actually cooling. The atmosphere is not affected. Drill baby drill, subsidize fossil energy.. Cut funding for all alternates.

So true. I, for one, think there is not enough up to date data to come to any real conclusion.

[WeatherRusty]

So true. I, for one, think there is not enough up to date data to come to any real conclusion.

Conclusions are not heavily based on up to date data. The direction climate has taken during the past is one aspect of climate research and there are reams of data that are up to date in that regard. However, the importance of long lived greenhouse gases and land use changes are what supports the concept of a warming Earth due to human activity. AGW is based in the physics of the Sun, the atmosphere, the oceans, land surfaces, cryosphere, radiative transfer, atomic physics and so on.

Increasing the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, will cause the world to warm and basic physics gives us an idea as to how much direct warming influence to expect. Historical data and modeling also play roles in establishing how much warming to expect, but those estimates are somewhat less certain.

[wokeupthisam]

Conclusions are not heavily based on up to date data. The direction climate has taken during the past is one aspect of climate research and there are reams of data that are up to date in that regard. However, the importance of long lived greenhouse gases and land use changes are what supports the concept of a warming Earth due to human activity. AGW is based in the physics of the Sun, the atmosphere, the oceans, land surfaces, cryosphere, radiative transfer, atomic physics and so on.

Increasing the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, will cause the world to warm and basic physics gives us an idea as to how much direct warming influence to expect. Historical data and modeling also play roles in establishing how much warming to expect, but those estimates are somewhat less certain.

This is a theory, presented as a fact. There are important qualifying conditions left off, which bring into play other variables of global climate less well understood and more difficult to model with the degree of accuracy needed to make the assertion.

[yhbrooklyn]

Let him fix his teeth before moving on to climate.

[BethesdaWX]

This is a theory, presented as a fact. There are important qualifying conditions left off, which bring into play other variables of global climate less well understood and more difficult to model with the degree of accuracy needed to make the assertion.

For AGW to work, the Scientic Method needs to be thrown out, and the Hypothesis is turned into the Conclusion. Alot of LOL in climate science these days.

[WeatherRusty]

This is a theory, presented as a fact. There are important qualifying conditions left off, which bring into play other variables of global climate less well understood and more difficult to model with the degree of accuracy needed to make the assertion.

You are correct. AGW is a theory, a very well supported theory. Science does not create facts. Science creates theories which are explanations for factual observations.

No one can tell you what the global temp will be in 50 years, 100 years or 300 years. That it will be warmer we can be quit certain of however. If CO2 concentration doubles over pre-industrial levels from 280ppm to 560ppm then we should expect globally averaged temp to eventually become 2-4.5C warmer than the climate average during the Holocene period. All the while climate will still continue to vary due to solar variability, coupled atmospheric/ocean oscillations and anything else that causes the zig zag pattern of even a stable climate.

[BethesdaWX]

You are correct. AGW is a theory, a very well supported theory. Science does not create facts. Science creates theories which are explanations for factual observations.

No one can tell you what the global temp will be in 50 years, 100 years or 300 years. That it will be warmer we can be quit certain of however. If CO2 concentration doubles over pre-industrial levels from 280ppm to 560ppm then we should expect globally averaged temp to eventually become 2-4.5C warmer than the climate average during the Holocene period. All the while climate will still continue to vary due to solar variability, coupled atmospheric/ocean oscillations and anything else that causes the zig zag pattern of even a stable climate.

OK, so lets say this decade ends up 0.1C - 0.2C colder than the previous, as it should...what would you think of that?

[aslkahuna]

OK, so lets say this decade ends up 0.1C - 0.2C colder than the previous, as it should...what would you think of that?

It just means that we have certain factors that are temporarily forcing the climate into a null or even cooling state. Otherwise, the long term trend is warming.

Steve

[WeatherRusty]

OK, so lets say this decade ends up 0.1C - 0.2C colder than the previous, as it should...what would you think of that?

That would depend on the causal nature of the lack in warming. I doubt it would be caused by the Sun as we have already incurred the 0.1C of cooling typically attributed to solar minimum. The negative radiative forcing due to a lengthy solar minimum would be overcome in about 7 years by continued and increasing positive forcing resulting from growing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

If sea surface temperatures were to become cooler than that of recent decades and stay that way, then I suppose a cooling of climate by at least 0.2C could occur. How that could realistically happen however, I have no idea since the energy poring into the oceans from above is not decreasing, rather it is increasing. The total energy going into the oceans is already greater than the energy being lost by the oceans, and if the ocean surface tries to cool more that imbalance will only grow ensuring warming down the road.

Therefor I find it extremely unlikely that this decade will end up 0.1C - 0.2C cooler than the previous, but if it somehow does all that would mean is the inevitable had been further delayed.

[LakeEffectKing]

That would depend on the causal nature of the lack in warming. I doubt it would be caused by the Sun as we have already incurred the 0.1C of cooling typically attributed to solar minimum. The negative radiative forcing due to a lengthy solar minimum would be overcome in about 7 years by continued and increasing positive forcing resulting from growing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

If sea surface temperatures were to become cooler than that of recent decades and stay that way, then I suppose a cooling of climate by at least 0.2C could occur. How that could realistically happen however, I have no idea since the energy poring into the oceans from above is not decreasing, rather it is increasing. The total energy going into the oceans is already greater than the energy being lost by the oceans, and if the ocean surface tries to cool more that imbalance will only grow insuring warming down the road.

Therefor I find it extremely unlikely that this decade will end up 0.1C - 0.2C cooler than the previous, but if it somehow does all that would mean is the inevitable had been further delayed.

Then why would Hansen's '88 thoughts/charts, and subsequent adjustments to such progs., fail to mention/demonstrate or allow for such "lack(s) of warming"?? Smells quite a bit like goalpost moving.....or "AGW causes everything" syndrome. We never heard of "warming in the pipeline" by the warmists until........well.......the warming stopped/slowed!!!

To me, the hypothesis would be basically falsified (as originally stated).....there hasn't (and hint......can't) been/(be) a test to falsify the entity of the hypothesis, other than waiting until 2100.....we've been through this before.....when one deviates from the sci. method....it allows for all sorts of psuedoscience to skew conclusive reasoning, both conscienciously and subconscienciously.

And please stop referring to AGW as a theory.....it's not.....

[WeatherRusty]

Then why would Hansen's '88 thoughts/charts, and subsequent adjustments to such progs., fail to mention/demonstrate or allow for such "lack(s) of warming"?? Smells quite a bit like goalpost moving.....or "AGW causes everything" syndrome. We never heard of "warming in the pipeline" by the warmists until........well.......the warming stopped/slowed!!!

To me, the hypothesis would be basically falsified (as originally stated).....there hasn't (and hint......can't) been/(be) a test to falsify the entity of the hypothesis, other than waiting until 2100.....we've been through this before.....when one deviates from the sci. method....it allows for all sorts of psuedoscience to skew conclusive reasoning, both conscienciously and subconscienciously.

And please stop referring to AGW as a theory.....it's not.....

I don't think it is an abandonment of the scientific method when the causal nature of the warming resides in the PHYSICS of greenhouse warming.

There is warming "in the pipline" because we detect a PHYSICAL radiative imbalance at the interface where Earth absorbs and emits energy.

It is a theory because it has a very well supported PHYSICAL basis.

[BethesdaWX]

That would depend on the causal nature of the lack in warming. I doubt it would be caused by the Sun as we have already incurred the 0.1C of cooling typically attributed to solar minimum. The negative radiative forcing due to a lengthy solar minimum would be overcome in about 7 years by continued and increasing positive forcing resulting from growing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

If sea surface temperatures were to become cooler than that of recent decades and stay that way, then I suppose a cooling of climate by at least 0.2C could occur. How that could realistically happen however, I have no idea since the energy poring into the oceans from above is not decreasing, rather it is increasing. The total energy going into the oceans is already greater than the energy being lost by the oceans, and if the ocean surface tries to cool more that imbalance will only grow ensuring warming down the road.

Therefor I find it extremely unlikely that this decade will end up 0.1C - 0.2C cooler than the previous, but if it somehow does all that would mean is the inevitable had been further delayed.

I love you bro.

I have this post saved.

[BethesdaWX]

Magnetic Flux 10/BE concentration.

Solar irradiance vs temperature correlation

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Correlation

The above diagram shows the comparison of temperature trends from 1979 through 2004 of climate models and actual satellite and radiosonde observations, expressed as degrees Celsius per decade versus altitude and atmospheric pressure. The left panel shows four radiosonde results as IGRA, RATPAC, HadAT2 and RAOBCORE. The thick red line shows the mean of the 22 computer model results, and the models' 2 times standard error of the mean are shown as the two thin red lines. Temperature trends from three surface measurement datasets are identified in the legend by Sfc and are plotted on the left axis. The RSS and UAH analysis of satellite data are plotted on the right panel at two effective layers: T2lt represents the lower troposphere with a weighted mean at 2.5 km, T2 represents the mid troposphere with a weighted mean at 6.1 km altitude. A trend is the slope of the line that has been least-squared fit to the data. Synthetic model values corresponding to the effective layers of the satellite data are shown in the right panel as open red circles.

An essential place to compare observations with greenhouse computer models is the layer between 450 hPa and 750 hPa atmospheric pressure where the presence of water vapour is most important, and is called the "characteristic emission layer". In this layer, the observations are all outside the 2 times standard error test. The radiosonde and satellite trends are inconsistent with the model trends at all altitudes above the surface. Douglass et al. conclude that “Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.” Therefore any projections of future climate from the models are very likely too high, and these projections should not be used to form public policy. See the paper "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions" here.

While air temperature may fluctuate from year to year as heat is transferred between the air and oceans, if CO2 is causing global warming by the IPCC hypothesis, the ocean heat content must increase monotonically provided there are no major volcanic eruptions. Ocean heat content is a much more robust metric than surface air temperature for assessing global climate change because the ocean's heat capacity is greater than that of the atmosphere by many orders of magnitude. For any given area on the ocean’s surface, the upper 2.6 m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it! According the IPCC models, all major feedbacks are positive so there is no mechanism that would allow the heat content of the Earth to decline.

[LakeEffectKing]

I don't think it is an abandonment of the scientific method when the causal nature of the warming resides in the PHYSICS of greenhouse warming.

There is warming "in the pipline" because we detect a PHYSICAL radiative imbalance at the interface where Earth absorbs and emits energy.

It is a theory because it has a very well supported PHYSICAL basis.

Drawing conclusions on a hypothesis, without ever encountering passable/falsifiable tests IS an abandonment of the scientific method....no matter how strong the physics, evidence or BELIEF. Go back through the steps of the scientific method.....you'll see that the error was the hypothesis itself and how it was crafted.

I'm assuming that the "expert" climatologists knew about the potential of energy imbalance and the storage therof back when prognostications were being crafted, yet no mention of such, while barfing out the gloom....tipping points (err.....by 1995 it'll be too late......oh we mean 2000.....um 2005.....ummmmm no, it's not too late yet.....but by 2010 it will be......we REALLY need to get serious....by 2015........ )

Go check on how a hypothesis becomes a theory.....after MANY (arbitrary) tests have been passed with NO (ZERO) falsifications/failures. AGW, as crafted, cannot be tested as per the scientific method, with our current knowledge and abilities......I mean, they base a huge portion of historic temp data on tree ring proxies, that FAILED them in recent years (since 1960)....

Every era/generation/time period has it's scientists that think they have NAILED "it" (it meaning whatever super precise discipline that they have chosen to study and expand.....yet every era/generation also has many many failed hypotheses, but we never hear about most of them.....AGW won't fail....it won't pass....it will morph to whatever is happening.....and we have seen it already many times. It's getting absurd....

[BethesdaWX]

Drawing conclusions on a hypothesis, without ever encountering passable/falsifiable tests IS an abandonment of the scientific method....no matter how strong the physics, evidence or BELIEF. Go back through the steps of the scientific method.....you'll see that the error was the hypothesis itself and how it was crafted.

I'm assuming that the "expert" climatologists knew about the potential of energy imbalance and the storage therof back when prognostications were being crafted, yet no mention of such, while barfing out the gloom....tipping points (err.....by 1995 it'll be too late......oh we mean 2000.....um 2005.....ummmmm no, it's not too late yet.....but by 2010 it will be......we REALLY need to get serious....by 2015........ )

Go check on how a hypothesis becomes a theory.....after MANY (arbitrary) tests have been passed with NO (ZERO) falsifications/failures. AGW, as crafted, cannot be tested as per the scientific method, with our current knowledge and abilities......I mean, they base a huge portion of historic temp data on tree ring proxies, that FAILED them in recent years (since 1960)....

Every era/generation/time period has it's scientists that think they have NAILED "it" (it meaning whatever super precise discipline that they have chosen to study and expand.....yet every era/generation also has many many failed hypotheses, but we never hear about most of them.....AGW won't fail....it won't pass....it will morph to whatever is happening.....and we have seen it already many times. It's getting absurd....

I never realized how awesome you are

[WeatherRusty]

Drawing conclusions on a hypothesis, without ever encountering passable/falsifiable tests IS an abandonment of the scientific method....no matter how strong the physics, evidence or BELIEF. Go back through the steps of the scientific method.....you'll see that the error was the hypothesis itself and how it was crafted.

I'm assuming that the "expert" climatologists knew about the potential of energy imbalance and the storage therof back when prognostications were being crafted, yet no mention of such, while barfing out the gloom....tipping points (err.....by 1995 it'll be too late......oh we mean 2000.....um 2005.....ummmmm no, it's not too late yet.....but by 2010 it will be......we REALLY need to get serious....by 2015........ )

Go check on how a hypothesis becomes a theory.....after MANY (arbitrary) tests have been passed with NO (ZERO) falsifications/failures. AGW, as crafted, cannot be tested as per the scientific method, with our current knowledge and abilities......I mean, they base a huge portion of historic temp data on tree ring proxies, that FAILED them in recent years (since 1960)....

Every era/generation/time period has it's scientists that think they have NAILED "it" (it meaning whatever super precise discipline that they have chosen to study and expand.....yet every era/generation also has many many failed hypotheses, but we never hear about most of them.....AGW won't fail....it won't pass....it will morph to whatever is happening.....and we have seen it already many times. It's getting absurd....

Just what exactly are we talking about here? Could you enunciate what you consider to be the hypothesis? Is it the prediction of temperature in your mind?

I don't think AGW is a single theory. It is a collection of many concepts from many different fields of study. Most of these are very well established in there own right, some are more speculative and less well known. At the end of the day, we have a scientific pursuit which is warning us of the potential for significant environmental disruption. Can it be proven in detail? Probably not. Can we use this science to understand the general direction we are heading and approximate the degree of change given the current state of the science? I think we can.

Let's look at the radiation imbalance which informs us that the globe is currently warming. Any body which is warming, be it a rock, a body of water or a whole planet will be absorbing more energy than it is emitting. All matter at a temperature constantly radiates away energy and wants to cools in the process. If at the same time that body is receiving higher energy than it is radiating away at it's current temperature the net result will be for the object to warm. This is not climate science, it is thermodynamics which I believe you will agree is established to better than a hypothesis. That the Earth exhibits a positive radiative imbalance tells us the globe is warming and will continue to warm as long as that imbalance is positive.

[BethesdaWX]

Just what exactly are we talking about here? Could you enunciate what you consider to be the hypothesis? Is it the prediction of temperature in your mind?

I don't think AGW is a single theory. It is a collection of many concepts from many different fields of study. Most of these are very well established in there own right, some are more speculative and less well known. At the end of the day, we have a scientific pursuit which is warning us of the potential for significant environmental disruption. Can it be proven in detail? Probably not. Can we use this science to understand the general direction we are heading and approximate the degree of change given the current state of the science? I think we can.

Problems arise when you and other warmists cannot accept that your hypothesis is just that..a hypothesis, and that there is a large amount of evidence that directly contradicts the AGW views.

There are many hypothesis out there, all have some support. There really is no "evidence" of AGW, just as there is no "evidence" of natural cycles, because we can attribute anything to a causation.

See my post above.

However, when data flies in the face of a theory...and you cannotaccept that, there is a problem.

This is absurd!

[LakeEffectKing]

Just what exactly are we talking about here? Could you enunciate what you consider to be the hypothesis? Is it the prediction of temperature in your mind?

I don't think AGW is a single theory. It is a collection of many concepts from many different fields of study. Most of these are very well established in there own right, some are more speculative and less well known. At the end of the day, we have a scientific pursuit which is warning us of the potential for significant environmental disruption. Can it be proven in detail? Probably not. Can we use this science to understand the general direction we are heading and approximate the degree of change given the current state of the science? I think we can.

Let's look at the radiation imbalance which informs us that the globe is currently warming. Any body which is warming, be it a rock, a body of water or a whole planet will be absorbing more energy than it is emitting. All matter at a temperature constantly radiates away energy and wants to cools in the process. If at the same time that body is receiving higher energy than it is radiating away at it's current temperature the net result will be for the object to warm. This is not climate science, it is thermodynamics which I believe you will agree is established to better than a hypothesis. That the Earth exhibits a positive radiative imbalance tells us the globe is warming and will continue to warm as long as that imbalance is positive.

Answer to 1st bold:

"The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (anthropologically induced) will increase the greenhouse effect, significantly raising global temperatures and having disastrous global consequences."

2nd bold:

Confidently concluding that we "must" curtail our CO2 emissions...or 'else'.....is quite different from the featherly language you have chosen to characterize the "pursuit"......

And to your last paragraph; much of that imbalance that we currently observe: A.) May not be as accurate as we assume, based on current observational methods. B.) Our ability to accurately measure a much more, ("molecule for molecule") efficient absorber/radiator of IR and reflector of UV (water vapor) is not precise enough to know confidently the degree it (as well as other GHG's) can contribute to said imbalance. D.) or some degree of both.

If YOU want to break down AGW into seperate, testable hypotheses....I'm ALL FOR IT! First step in the Sci. Method is to craft such a hypothesis in a way that is testable.....not "morphable" or ambiguous or so broad that just about ALL observations/data "are within expectations"......The current "snowless winters are soon to come" vs. "Snowier than normal periods are consistant with....blah ....blah..." example is....well a perfect example....

[ORH_wxman]

If YOU want to break down AGW into seperate, testable hypotheses....I'm ALL FOR IT! First step in the Sci. Method is to craft such a hypothesis in a way that is testable.....not "morphable" or ambiguous or so broad that just about ALL observations/data "are within expectations"......The current "snowless winters are soon to come" vs. "Snowier than normal periods are consistant with....blah ....blah..." example is....well a perfect example....

It was in the 2001 IPCC report that winters would become noticeably warmer and less snowy. It took less than 10 years to change that idea.

[LakeEffectKing]

It was in the 2001 IPCC report that winters would become noticeably warmer and less snowy. It took less than 10 years to change that idea.

And, I'd assume that "winters would become noticeably warmer and less snowy....." is the type of testable hypotheses that Rusty touts, but wants to avoid, because of the EXACT reason why many skeptics are skeptical....our inability to standardize the parameters in the VERY complex climate engine as we test one (CO2).

Our atmosphere is in constant flux, and the forcings that go into our climate system not only change over time, but change as other countless parameters change or are added or subtracted. (Fly in a spider web analogy comes to mind).

Predictions are hypotheses.....whether they are weather forecasts, climate forcasts, or forecasts of ANY expected response from an experimentally idealized interaction of 2 or more parameters....testablility allows for those "expected results" to acquire increased confidence level in understanding such interactions.