« Photojournalism | Main | A lift for Otis »

HRH Hansen's Poodle

Prince of Wales attacks climate change doubters - Telegraph

The Prince said Chile was witnessing the terrifying effects of global warming, including the shrinking of nearly 90 per cent of your glaciers.
"Ladies and gentlemen, in the light of such evidence, and so much more from across the globe, I find it incomprehensible that there are those who doubt the science of climate change."

I'm sure his Highness has read the scientific papers which show that they have been retreating for over a century -
Glacier%20Lengths.jpg
Source

Here is another fascinating example of an easily understandable one that even he could understand.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office wants to use the Prince's expertise, experience and contacts more from now on in "soft diplomacy" abroad.
Some diplomats feel he is an asset that has been under-used. The Prince's views on climate change and the environment are widely admired by world leaders.
On Thursday, in Brazil, Prince Charles will deliver a keynote speech when he will warn the world has less than 100 months to act if it is to avoid irreversible damage from climate change.

It is a shame to see him reduced to being wheeled round as a useful idiot spouting spoonfed views to prop up the increasingly discredited agitprop of the consensus.

Comments

Hold on there!

There has been global warming, it has been going on for some time, especially the 1930s and 1990s, and not the 1970s and 2000s (roughly, or at least that is what I understand). On balance, there has been warming over the last century or so: slight but noticeable.

There dispute is over cause, and possibly over some aspects of evidence of extent. There is also dispute over future projections and what, if anything, could and should be done.

What Price Charles is reported to have said in the Telegraph article (glacial retreat, with anthropogenic CO2 emissions being the cause, and a 'tipping point' 100 months away) is not refuted by your (otherwise usefully informative) plots of lengths of glaciers. There has been glacial retreat overall since the start of the industrial revolution; the plots show this. The plots say nothing as to cause.

The plots perhaps show that glacial retreat is slowing, even reversing in some regions. This is a "perhaps". It is also, perhaps (the same perhaps), not consistent with Anthropogenic Global Warming being the dominant effect in climate change. It is also, perhaps (a different perhaps), consistent with Anthropogenic Global Warming being an effect (between unimportant and serious) that does not dominate all the other effects.

Claiming certainty for the "perhaps" above against Catastrophic AGW (CAGW) is, in my humble opinion, no more helpful to the case of sceptics (my case and yours) than are the vast number of opposing "perhapses" really helpful to the case of the CAGW supporting crowd.

Eventually, the matter will be resolved, most likely by more and firmer evidence and by better analysis. When that happens, I'd like to be able to look back and say that we (the sceptics) were right to be sceptical, and the others were unscientificly irrational (ie moonbat fanatics). I do not want to have to look back and try to position myself in the narrow gap between two frothing crowds, neither of whom can legitimately claim a proportional, rational and scientific response to the whole issue.

An issue, however, on which I am firm is that it is wrong to take extreme action (against the status quo and its obvious future evolution) unless one has compensating extreme justification that the outcome will be extremely beneficial, and that the downside risks are extremely small by comparison.

Best regards

Hold on there!

There has been global warming, it has been going on for some time, especially the 1930s and 1990s, and not the 1970s and 2000s (roughly, or at least that is what I understand). On balance, there has been warming over the last century or so: slight but noticeable.

There dispute is over cause, and possibly over some aspects of evidence of extent. There is also dispute over future projections and what, if anything, could and should be done.

What Price Charles is reported to have said in the Telegraph article (glacial retreat, with anthropogenic CO2 emissions being the cause, and a 'tipping point' 100 months away) is not refuted by your (otherwise usefully informative) plots of lengths of glaciers. There has been glacial retreat overall since the start of the industrial revolution; the plots show this. The plots say nothing as to cause.

The plots perhaps show that glacial retreat is slowing, even reversing in some regions. This is a "perhaps". It is also, perhaps (the same perhaps), not consistent with Anthropogenic Global Warming being the dominant effect in climate change. It is also, perhaps (a different perhaps), consistent with Anthropogenic Global Warming being an effect (between unimportant and serious) that does not dominate all the other effects.

Claiming certainty for the "perhaps" above against Catastrophic AGW (CAGW) is, in my humble opinion, no more helpful to the case of sceptics (my case and yours) than are the vast number of opposing "perhapses" really helpful to the case of the CAGW supporting crowd.

Eventually, the matter will be resolved, most likely by more and firmer evidence and by better analysis. When that happens, I'd like to be able to look back and say that we (the sceptics) were right to be sceptical, and the others were unscientificly irrational (ie moonbat fanatics). I do not want to have to look back and try to position myself in the narrow gap between two frothing crowds, neither of whom can legitimately claim a proportional, rational and scientific response to the whole issue.

An issue, however, on which I am firm is that it is wrong to take extreme action (against the status quo and its obvious future evolution) unless one has compensating extreme justification that the outcome will be extremely beneficial, and that the downside risks are extremely small by comparison.

Best regards

It was a most annoying article, complaining that there are climate change denyers is stupid. The climate is always changing, that is what it does. It is not fully understood either, so anything we do in a burst of panic could well result in worse consequences. Man is a puny beast, he cannot stop the tides and he most certainly cannot stop climate change.

Derek

The planet has constantly moved in larger climate cycles than what most people realize.
we only take note of the smaller, more seasonal cycles.

when romans could grow grapes outdoors in the UK did was their a ridiculous amount of industrial growth like what we have now, NO
when in the middle ages they had the same warm period, did they have the same industrial growth that we now have, NO

is global warming/climate change research linked to big funding, also benefitting certain wealthy individuals as well as organisations connected with goverments, YES
are people like the prince being used so that unscrupulous people can fleece by force the general populations of the west, YES

bring back prince john, at least we could hide up north a lot easier from his robber barons.

What HRH with his well-known tibetan inclinations should be advocating is that we look toward a fundamentally unknowable future with confidence nonetheless that Nature, in the form of ourselves, WILL form responses to Her own processes that over the long-term shall ensure the contined existence, and increase, of Nature's hard-won selfawareness -- in our species. This alone is what the 'evolution' lathering is about after all. I for one expect that our emergence as a critter is /the/ critical 'tipping point', and not this other Chicken Little hokum. (What the hysterics and deniers alike are degraded by is their projected and infantile, deliberately [!] unconscious, denial of their own duty one-by-one to shut up and die, individually and alone as may be, but with as much dignity possible also, when the time comes for us all, regardless of which doubtless insulting circumstance the World WILL go on!)

Thanks for the link to the Glacier Length charts.
They will make a nice addition to my next post on
the global warming scam.

Psuedo-scientists driven by grant money greed have
concocted a modern hoax that outdoes the Piltdown man.
I wonder if it will take 30 years to discredit the hoax this time.

May I offer out another point of view?

I first saw the 200 year CO2 level graph in Feb 2000, and, being an old radio technician, instantly recognised the set of data points as being those of a runaway positive feedback reaction. My blood ran cold, and the hairs on my arm stood up, as they do now, still, if I think of that curve and it’s time span.

In electronics the moronically and oh so disarmingly cutely named 'tipping' point would be reached in about .1-1 sec, and when it does the most highly stressed component in the circuit would melt down or explode. A fuse would be included in the power circuit which would melt before the runaway occurred. Nowadays every chip has an electronic fuse.

The earth has no fuse.

From those data points only I estimated that if CO2 levels reached 450-455 ppm, the reaction would be irreversible.

I am also aware of the hysterisis effect in any such reaction. Totally remove an influence and the reaction continues to a higher level before stabilizing at some higher value, before starting to drop back.

My estimate of that effect combined with the curve’s slope suggested that if the world production of CO2 could be *equalized with the planet's CO2 absorption rate by 2015-2016, then around 2035-2037 the rate of increase of CO2 levels would *start to level out, and what I consider from my old knowledge to be the critical PNR (point of no return) of 455 ppm would stabilized at by about 2050. From there time would be available for more rational and time consuming research.

The utterly critical date is the equalizing date of 2015-2016. Miss that & we can forget it. 100 months away, plus or minus.

Having no other training other than a second working lifetime spent in high altitude cockpits where one observes much, I agree absolutely with Prince Charles' 100 months estimate, applaud it strongly, and am glad he made it. He has the media's ear where I don't. All the nit pickers and refuters in the world cannot counter my awareness that if CO2 levels do finally run away, that no nit picker in existance will be able to forcast what will happen, & nor can I.

So unless you all want to be in an amazing physical experiment, I suggest you stop bickering and picking at the threads, and apply your obvious intelligences to also attempting to work out how the hell we can get more time to work out what the hell is going on.

And drop the 'global warming' obsessions. That may well be a very minor side effect.

Post a comment