Climate Deniers take note

[DodgyAgent]

[QUOTE=pjclarke;1854120]


Academics are not that well paid but pretty sure none of them moonlights behind a counter.[/QUOTE

They are not well paid but from a personal political point of view they make a name for themselves if they are working on such a critical subject. Take climate change away from them they will simply disappear into conducting research on hazards of smoking.

There is a considerable clique of conference circuit who make a reputation for themselves from writing books and talking. The planet would be a far better place if these people were gainfully employed picking strawberries.

[EternalOptimist]

Genuine question, BB. You raised Easterbrook. What do you make of the critique summarised by pj?

PJ likes to have an authority. The same way a religion has a pope.

The ultimate authority in climate science is the data. And the data says it hasnt warmed since before my kids were born

[pjclarke]

You should never confuse temperature with heat ...

Global Warming at 4 Hiroshima Atomic Bombs Per Second

[EternalOptimist]

using hype and frightening the children is never a good idea. especially at Christmas

[pjclarke]

Ah, but just suppose that the mainstream, peer-reviewed, consensus scientific view turns out to be correct:-

Abstract: We assess climate impacts of global warming
using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We
use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate
data, and simple representations of the global carbon
cycle and temperature to define emission reductions
needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous
impacts on today’s young people, future generations,
and nature. A cumulative industrial-era limit of
,500 GtC fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC storage in the
biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the
Holocene range to which humanity and other species are
adapted. Cumulative emissions of ,1000 GtC, sometimes
associated with 2uC global warming, would spur ‘‘slow’’
feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4uC with disastrous
consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to
restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat
uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible
effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given
current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act
of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Responsible
policymaking requires a rising price on carbon
emissions that would preclude emissions from most
remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase
down emissions from conventional fossil fuels..

Source Hansen et al (2013).

and we sat on our hands (as the deniers and delayers apparently want us to). What would our children make of us then?

[DodgyAgent]

Ah, but just suppose that the mainstream, peer-reviewed, consensus scientific view turns out to be correct:-



Source Hansen et al (2013).

and we sat on our hands (as the deniers and delayers apparently want us to). What would our children make of us then?

The age old tactic of the fanatic is to frighten people and to pretend to speak on the behalf of the most vulnerable. You are in good company here.

I think our children would rather we invest in science, conquering space, living to 1000 years of age than listen to zealots like you who wish to return the human race back to the era of the stoneage.
Japan has decided to stop spending money on trash like wind power and stopping people doing things. instead it is investing into new technologies to find new sources of energy.

[EternalOptimist]

Ah yes Hansen. the atmospheric expert who pointed out that Mars had a thin atmosphere containing 95% CO2 and was colder than a deep freezer
Venus has 97% CO2 in a thick atmosphere and is at 900f

proving with absolute clarity that atmospheric composition has nothing at all to do with temperature,
then concludes that temperature is determined by atmospheric composition

[BlasterBates]

I meant this (or is this the guy in the shop or did you mean a different critique):

We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic [...] Easterbrook's views are filled with misrepresentations, misuse of data and repeated mixing of local vs. global records. Nearly every graphic in the hours-long presentation to the Senate was flawed, as was Easterbrook's discussion of them. […] more than 100 years of research in physics, chemistry, atmospheric science and oceanography has, via experiments, numerous physical observations and theoretic calculations, clearly demonstrate - and have communicated via the scientific literature - that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas; its presence and variations in Earth's atmosphere have significant and measureable impacts on the surface temperature of our planet. Alternatively, you can take Easterbrook's word - not supported by any published science - that the concentration and effects of carbon dioxide are so small as to not matter a bit.

In a specific example, Easterbrook referred to a graph of temperatures from an ice core of the Greenland ice sheet to claim that global temperatures were warmer than present over most of the last 10,000 years. First, this record is of temperature from a single spot on Earth, central Greenland (thus it is not a "global record"). Second, and perhaps more importantly, Easterbrook's definition of "present temperature" in the graph is based on the most recent data point in that record, which is actually 1855, more than 150 years ago when the world was still in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and well before any hint of human-caused climate change.

As the active faculty of the Western Washington University Geology Department that he lists as his affiliation, we conclude that Easterbrook's presentation clearly does not represent the best-available science on this subject, and urge the Senate, our state government, and the citizens of Washington State to rely on rigorous peer-reviewed science rather than conspiracy-based ideas to steer their decisions on matters concerning our environment and economic future.

aha you mean the buffoons in the Geology dept

Rebuttal to the attack on Dr. Don Easterbrook | Watts Up With That?

Note that they're not all professors of Glaciology.

The question you need to ask yourself is if he's wrong, how did the Vikings farm in Greenland?

If you can answer that convincingly I'll believe them.

[pjclarke]

In other words, you're going to ignore the questions posed by Old Greg and myself, and misdirect with one of your own.

During the medieval warm period, parts of the globe were as warm or warmer than today, unlike today other parts were colder. Greenland was in a geographical hotspot and so the Vikings made use of the ice free seas to colonise the island.

This is well known, but rather proves the point that Greenland cannot stand in for the whole world.



from Mann et al (2009)

If you remember, Easterbrook's claim is that the world was warmer than today 'for 90% of the past 10,000 years.' so Greenland 1,000 years ago is not all that relevant...

Now, about that '1855=present day' fiasco?

[doodab]

The age old tactic of the fanatic is to frighten people and to pretend to speak on the behalf of the most vulnerable. You are in good company here.

Isn't this exactly what you do?

I think our children would rather we invest in science, conquering space, living to 1000 years of age than listen to zealots like you who wish to return the human race back to the era of the stoneage.
Japan has decided to stop spending money on trash like wind power and stopping people doing things. instead it is investing into new technologies to find new sources of energy.

Who is saying go back to the stone age? We aren't going to colonise space if we're dependent on oil for day to day life are we, cos most planets won't have any.