Prince Charles lays into climate change deniers.
Discussion
kerplunk said:
Well maybe I've been reading too much Leif Svalgaard, but it appears to me most solar-climate theories are a lot more tenuous than GHG-climate theory
The theories you refer to are well-established in the peer reviewed scientific literature, in particular Svensmark and Bucha for solar eruptivity forcing mechanisms, Shaviv for the impact of eruptivity collectively as an amplification of irradiance, and Newell et al on the data side. This is all set out in various PH climate threads to which you contributed so all that Leif Svalgaard must be messing with your memory.So let's look at the data instead. When we do that, solar is visible as a causal signal whereas carbon dioxide is not, for all the theory supposedly hanging off it. Which should come as no surprise as this wonderful carbon dioxide theory cannot explain what's happening in the climate system, as Trenberth of the IPCC pointed out.
Newell et al: changes in the Sun's activity has influenced trends in temperature this (20th) century more than any other factor and the authors show that there is less than one chance in a thousand that the solar influence is simply an accumulation of random changes. Based on data, not gigo plus faith, this beats the IPCC's bogus 95% confidence level in their own faith allowing them to see an invisible signal.
turbobloke said:
So models are wrong, and data is right, as happens.
Maybe. But remember, he who is focused on data to the exclusion of all else is focused in the past. If there are going to be problems they will be in the future, not the past, and the point which concerns many of us is that if we know things might go seriously wrong as a result of a known risk it is prudent to take action to control that risk.People who invest regularly on the stock market know that you can stare at data until the cows come home but it's impossible to predict what's going to happen next. So they adopt prudent strategies to limit the risks. Yes, there is a "cost" attached to those strategies but that cost is worthwhile - because by the time you can actually see things have gone wrong it's too late to do anything about it.
turbobloke said:
The theories you refer to are well-established in the peer reviewed scientific literature, in particular Svensmark and Bucha for solar eruptivity forcing mechanisms, Shaviv for the impact of eruptivity collectively as an amplification of irradiance, and Newell et al on the data side. This is all set out in various PH climate threads to which you contributed so all that Leif Svalgaard must be messing with your memory.
Not forgotten! Svalgaard's contributions in the comments at WUWT (and climateaudit) have been an eye-opener for this layman though. He's a concise communicator and an exemplar of proper scientific scepticism imo.I'm afraid he doesn't seem to think much of Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray theory (or perhaps I should say GCR-climate theories in general).
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 21st February 18:19
Ozzie Osmond said:
turbobloke said:
So models are wrong, and data is right, as happens.
Maybe.
There's no maybe about it.
Ozzie Osmond said:
But remember, he who is focused on data to the exclusion of all else is focused in the past.
Data also covers the present.Ozzie Osmond said:
If there are going to be problems they will be in the future, not the past, and the point which concerns many of us is that if we know things might go seriously wrong as a result of a known risk it is prudent to take action to control that risk.
There is no risk from carbon dioxide, there are no effects visible in global climate data arising due to carbon dioxide. You're always free to make things up.Ozzie Osmond said:
People who invest regularly on the stock market know that you can stare at data until the cows come home but it's impossible to predict what's going to happen next.
Even the IPCC agree with you on that.In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
[IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774]
However, looking at data can tell you what's happened in the past and what's happening in the present, and there is no causal human (carbon dioxide) effect visible in global climate data past or present.
Ozzie Osmond said:
So they adopt prudent strategies to limit the risks. Yes, there is a "cost" attached to those strategies but that cost is worthwhile - because by the time you can actually see things have gone wrong it's too late to do anything about it.
You can only do something about it if there is established causality. Without causality, there's no link between the supposed cause (mankind) and the supposed effect (global warming). No causality has been established.At every temperature shift examined which has data with sufficient time resolution, temperature changes first then carbon dioxide changes afterwards. This means that carbon dioxide was not the cause of the temperature change, not once. Ask James Hansen.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Maybe. But remember, he who is focused on data to the exclusion of all else is focused in the past.
Theres a good reason for that Oz, the data has no inclination to tell a lie.Ozzie Osmond said:
If there are going to be problems they will be in the future, not the past, and the point which concerns many of us is that if we know things might go seriously wrong as a result of a known risk it is prudent to take action to control that risk.
"If", "might", maybe possibly, bang goes the 95% certainty statement then.Ozzie Osmond said:
People who invest regularly on the stock market know that you can stare at data until the cows come home but it's impossible to predict what's going to happen next. So they adopt prudent strategies to limit the risks. Yes, there is a "cost" attached to those strategies but that cost is worthwhile - because by the time you can actually see things have gone wrong it's too late to do anything about it.
So what strategies are you suggesting we invest yet more taxes in then Oz?Should we be focussing all our resources on the dreaded soon to resume warming, you know, death valley stuff which we were promised?
Or perhaps invest in mitigating effects of a cooling planet?
Or a wetter one?
Or a windier one? erm, pretty much the whole gamut of weather we already see then...
Go on pin the tail on the shonky some more....
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
The theories you refer to are well-established in the peer reviewed scientific literature, in particular Svensmark and Bucha for solar eruptivity forcing mechanisms, Shaviv for the impact of eruptivity collectively as an amplification of irradiance, and Newell et al on the data side. This is all set out in various PH climate threads to which you contributed so all that Leif Svalgaard must be messing with your memory.
Not forgotten! Svalgaard's contributions in the comments at WUWT (and climateaudit) have been an eye-opener for this layman though. He's a concise communicator and a exemplar of proper scientific scepticism imo.I'm afraid, he doesn't seem to think much of Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray theories (or perhaps I should say GCR-climate theories in general).
From memory of his articles on various sites he focuses a lot on TSI which isn't appropriate but is very IPCCesque.
turbobloke said:
Agreed that high impact debate is good but even if Svalgaard holds himself as an authority and you do too, appeal to him and his opinion isn't worth more than zero and even less when the data disagrees with him and you.
From memory of his articles on various sites he focuses a lot on TSI which isn't appropriate.
I think it's probably fair to say he's generally sceptical of 'low-energy' stuff having large effects on climate.From memory of his articles on various sites he focuses a lot on TSI which isn't appropriate.
He usually contributes in the comments at WUWT whenever the subject is solar.
Here's a fairly recent article on Svensmark where you'll find him commenting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/04/svensmarks-c...
"This does not seem to be much of a confirmation of a correlation that has not held up over time in the first place."
turbobloke said:
There is no risk from carbon dioxide......
So you say. But why should anyone believe you? I certainly don't.turbobloke said:
there are no effects visible in global climate data
Neither is there anything visible in stock market data to suggest that any particular investment strategy for 2014 will not be 100% successful. But anyone with any sense will hedge the risks, not just plough on thinking "last year went well so 2014 will obviously not see a downturn.kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
Agreed that high impact debate is good but even if Svalgaard holds himself as an authority and you do too, appeal to him and his opinion isn't worth more than zero and even less when the data disagrees with him and you.
From memory of his articles on various sites he focuses a lot on TSI which isn't appropriate.
I think it's probably fair to say he's generally sceptical of 'low-energy' stuff having large effects on climate.From memory of his articles on various sites he focuses a lot on TSI which isn't appropriate.
He usually contributes in the comments at WUWT whenever the subject is solar.
Here's a fairly recent article on Svensmark where you'll find him commenting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/04/svensmarks-c...
"This does not seem to be much of a confirmation of a correlation that has not held up over time in the first place."
The correlation and indeed causation from solar eruptivity to climate is clear: the order of events is correct (unlike carbon dioxide level changes) the correlation at +0.96 is almost +1.0 (unlike carbon dioxide levels and temperature) with the only deviation due to the exceptional 1940s El Nino. Finally there are valid mechanisms that account for the link.
There are two papers linked by Svalgaard at the article. One appears not to look specifically at lower level cloud formation, but cloud formation in total, whereas the Svensmark mechanism relates to low level cloud. The other doesn't appear to examine high energy cosmic ray flux but looks at the cosmic ray soup.
Similar failings are present in many papers said to challenge the Svensmark mechanism. In addition, solar eruptivity forcing doesn't occur by the Svensmark CRF-LLC-albedo mechamism alone, and there is no consideration at all of the Bucha auroral oval mechanism which has been shown to be involved in jet stream and other atmospheric circulation shifts. Like the CRF-LLC-albedo mechamism, the auroral oval mechanism is in the literature. Svalgaard doesn't mention it. All of this is already covered in PH climate threads.
Ozzie Osmond said:
turbobloke said:
There is no risk from carbon dioxide......
So you say. But why should anyone believe you? I certainly don't.turbobloke said:
there are no effects visible in global climate data
Neither is there anything visible in stock market data to suggest that any particular investment strategy for 2014 will not be 100% successful. But anyone with any sense will hedge the risks, not just plough on thinking "last year went well so 2014 will obviously not see a downturn.Ozzie Osmond said:
turbobloke said:
There is no risk from carbon dioxide......
So you say. But why should anyone believe you? I certainly don't.You should indeed take nobody's word for it. However you take the IPCC word for something else. This is inconsistent, and very telling.
Look at the data, it's the only way, and the data is in keeping with the position I take, but not with your position.
This just popped up on my FaceFart Feed. Just another example, I suppose, of corporate troughers draining the last few millions from the twitching corpse that is AGW.
Answer here
Article said:
Communiqué signed by 70 companies calls for "rapid and focused response" to threat of rising emissions
Unilever, Shell, BT, and EDF Energy are among 70 leading companies today calling on governments across the globe to step up efforts to tackle climate change.
The companies, which have a combined turnover of $90bn, say the world needs a "rapid and focused response" to the threat of rising global carbon emissions and the "disruptive climate impacts" associated with their growth.
In a communiqué coordinated by The Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group, the signatories demand governments put in place policies to prevent the cumulative emission of more than a trillion tonnes of carbon, arguing that passing that threshold would lead to unacceptable levels of climate-related risk.
The statement urges political leaders to set a timeline for achieving net zero emissions before the end of the century, design a credible strategy to transform the energy system, and create a plan to tackle the global economy's reliance on fossil fuels, especially unabated coal power.
The intervention follows the publication of a renewed warning from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the world is on track for dangerous levels of warming and needs to urgently strengthen efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and enhance climate resilience measures.
The report is to be followed by a further update from the IPCC, which will explore the actions and technologies needed to cut emissions and mitigate climate change.
Niall Dunne, chief sustainability officer at BT, said the communiqué highlighted the wide-ranging corporate support that exists for ambitious action to tackle climate change risks. "We need to get beyond the concept that progressive climate change policy is bad for business: it can be a huge driver of innovation and create opportunities for growth and prosperity," he said. "Conversely, there isn't an organisation I know of which isn't already being impacted by climate change at some level. Collective responsibility across governments, business and civic society is vital to ensure the world is on track for net zero emissions before the end of the century."
My bold in the above quote. It raised the question as to WTF has Chuck got to do with corporate advocacy of AGW mitigation?Unilever, Shell, BT, and EDF Energy are among 70 leading companies today calling on governments across the globe to step up efforts to tackle climate change.
The companies, which have a combined turnover of $90bn, say the world needs a "rapid and focused response" to the threat of rising global carbon emissions and the "disruptive climate impacts" associated with their growth.
In a communiqué coordinated by The Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group, the signatories demand governments put in place policies to prevent the cumulative emission of more than a trillion tonnes of carbon, arguing that passing that threshold would lead to unacceptable levels of climate-related risk.
The statement urges political leaders to set a timeline for achieving net zero emissions before the end of the century, design a credible strategy to transform the energy system, and create a plan to tackle the global economy's reliance on fossil fuels, especially unabated coal power.
The intervention follows the publication of a renewed warning from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the world is on track for dangerous levels of warming and needs to urgently strengthen efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and enhance climate resilience measures.
The report is to be followed by a further update from the IPCC, which will explore the actions and technologies needed to cut emissions and mitigate climate change.
Niall Dunne, chief sustainability officer at BT, said the communiqué highlighted the wide-ranging corporate support that exists for ambitious action to tackle climate change risks. "We need to get beyond the concept that progressive climate change policy is bad for business: it can be a huge driver of innovation and create opportunities for growth and prosperity," he said. "Conversely, there isn't an organisation I know of which isn't already being impacted by climate change at some level. Collective responsibility across governments, business and civic society is vital to ensure the world is on track for net zero emissions before the end of the century."
Answer here
Page said:
The EU CLG was convened by The Prince of Wales in 2007, bringing together business leaders from a cross-section of EU and international businesses who believe there is an urgent need to develop new and longer-term policies for tackling climate change. The group is focused on the changes necessary to ensure long-term economic prosperity, competitive advantage and corporate sustainability at an EU-wide level. In Summer 2012, the EU CLG met with a large delegation of senior EU officials led by José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, and Commissioners for the Environment Janez Potočnik and for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard.
Surely idiocy such as this should be outwith the remit of not just a member of the RF, but next in line to the throne?
kwit. Anything that plops out of his inbred mouth needs to be treated with contempt, caution and derision in equal measure. 
Our next head of state says that 'one of the major reasons' for the Syrian civil war/ISIS etc is climate change. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq0yFsYNMtg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34897796
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq0yFsYNMtg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34897796
Drought is indeed very likely to have contributed to civil war in Syria, however how much of that is climate change and how much is water management is another matter - there are a number of large dams on the Euphrates, including a big one in Turkey. Turkey has in the past been in dispute with Syria over this.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff