I work with a lot of PhD meteorologists and about half are skeptical. I would engage the other half and all but two, when presented with geologic time/temp facts, would say, "I'm not an expert in the field of climatology."
One that continued engage after I pointed out that carbon was many times higher in the past, as in the Jurassic, then asked, "do you want to live in a climate like that?"
I engaged the other, a cosigner of the IPCC, and that person claimed that methane is the real issue and that if Greenland's ice sheet melts, the release of methane could cause a temperature runaway effect leaving the Earth like Venus. I then asked, then why didn't we have a runaway in all the previous times the ice sheet melted? I never heard back.
I contend their knowledge is neither broad nor deep...just narrow and myopic.
Here is a column from 2008 by Friedman of the NYT, who is a far left climate nut. He visited Steffensen's camp. Note that the Danish climate minister and Pauchari from IPCC were visting the camp. So already by 2008 the research theme was that "instability" is a threat that could make CO2 emission very risky. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/opinion/03Friedman.html
I should also point out that Hedegaard is/ was a member of the "Conservative Party" in Denmark. What a joke. She was a huge climate zealot and then got an EU role as a climate czar later in the 2010s.
As Allan Richards points out, Steffensen is in line with climate dogma today and even adds a theory that the instability that he discovered could be exacerbated by CO2 emissions.
This video is 20+ years old and refers to NorthGRIP, which is a program run 1999-2003. In those days you could have an open mind about climate change, as you can see when he talks about the problem that meteo data emerged at the 1875 10k year temp low.
Denmark is very left wing and Steffensen's dress and demeanor shows to me (I lived in Denmark for many years) that he votes for one of the far left parties like the Socialist Peoples' Party. So he is going to mold his research findings around his ideology...... unfortunately.
I should point that Denmark pioneered "green climate taxes" in 1992 (!) after the Rio summit. A As socialists they already had heavy taxes on hydrocarbons prior to CO2 theory becoming dogma. Even in the US, the Kyoto protocol was rejected by the senate 100-0 (or close) in 1997 or 8.
He definitely won't share this 25 year old data if he realizes that you are not "in line" with the dogma!
Since the mid 2000s his data seems to focus on "instability" and far fetched theory that CO2 is going to induce this. Quite odd theory since he finds the instability during ice ages.
He seems to acknowledge the impact of humans in this 2017 interview
Steffensen, in exceptionally eloquent and straightforward language, acknowledges that models consistently point to a gradual global increase in temperatures as a result of the continue widespread combustion of fossil fuels and increased emissions of carbon dioxide. “But that’s assuming the climate plays nice,” he says.
“And we actually know from the ice cores that the climate does not play nice all the time.”
Interviewed by Yale Climate Connections regular videographer Peter Sinclair in Kangeraussuaq, Greenland, this past summer, Steffensen, a professor of glaciology, sees an analogy between the continued emissions of greenhouse gases and the risks posed to the U.S. and global economy by the 2006/2007 widespread sales of subprime loans.
Deeply involved in drilling of ice cores on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets since 1980, Steffensen says in this month’s “This is not cool” video that changes in global heat flows have “come about suddenly” in the past and “are reflected, as a mirror image,” in Antarctic ice cores.
“You see that inside an ice age, the climate is extremely unstable. And you have this sequence of abrupt climate changes that happen, basically, from one year to the next.” He says each cycle lasts “about a couple thousand years…. We had that 26 times in the last ice age.”
Such “whipsaw” climate change have been missing during the past 11,000 years while human civilization has been arising. “So we are assuming that this is standard. Our collective memory refers to this as normal.”
But he is concerned that human activities could be “tipping the climate into an intermediate period of climate changes…. We can face a climate change that happens just as fast as the financial crisis,” Steffensen says. In that case, agricultural activity worldwide could be adversely affected … “the weather will change, and it will not change back” quickly.
“We don’t know where the threshold is,” Steffensen says of the ongoing human “experiment” with climate change. “But we are rats inside the experiment.”
The Climate today is remarkably stable -- the temperature in the last century changing by only a fraction of a Standard Deviation as seen in the past few thousand centuries:
I work with a lot of PhD meteorologists and about half are skeptical. I would engage the other half and all but two, when presented with geologic time/temp facts, would say, "I'm not an expert in the field of climatology."
One that continued engage after I pointed out that carbon was many times higher in the past, as in the Jurassic, then asked, "do you want to live in a climate like that?"
I engaged the other, a cosigner of the IPCC, and that person claimed that methane is the real issue and that if Greenland's ice sheet melts, the release of methane could cause a temperature runaway effect leaving the Earth like Venus. I then asked, then why didn't we have a runaway in all the previous times the ice sheet melted? I never heard back.
I contend their knowledge is neither broad nor deep...just narrow and myopic.
Yes -- the AGW Specious Narrative is a Religion, not Science. Faith in the Narrative, Experts and Models, rather than faith in DATA (Science).
I love it when people make reference to Venus --
-- The atmospheric pressure of Venus is about 100 times that of the Earth; and
-- The atmosphere of Venus is almost 100% CO2, compared to 0.04% on Earth.
A pretty laughable comparison isn't it ? !! The Earth has about 4 millionths the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere as does Venus.
Here is a column from 2008 by Friedman of the NYT, who is a far left climate nut. He visited Steffensen's camp. Note that the Danish climate minister and Pauchari from IPCC were visting the camp. So already by 2008 the research theme was that "instability" is a threat that could make CO2 emission very risky. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/opinion/03Friedman.html
I should also point out that Hedegaard is/ was a member of the "Conservative Party" in Denmark. What a joke. She was a huge climate zealot and then got an EU role as a climate czar later in the 2010s.
As Allan Richards points out, Steffensen is in line with climate dogma today and even adds a theory that the instability that he discovered could be exacerbated by CO2 emissions.
This video is 20+ years old and refers to NorthGRIP, which is a program run 1999-2003. In those days you could have an open mind about climate change, as you can see when he talks about the problem that meteo data emerged at the 1875 10k year temp low.
Denmark is very left wing and Steffensen's dress and demeanor shows to me (I lived in Denmark for many years) that he votes for one of the far left parties like the Socialist Peoples' Party. So he is going to mold his research findings around his ideology...... unfortunately.
I should point that Denmark pioneered "green climate taxes" in 1992 (!) after the Rio summit. A As socialists they already had heavy taxes on hydrocarbons prior to CO2 theory becoming dogma. Even in the US, the Kyoto protocol was rejected by the senate 100-0 (or close) in 1997 or 8.
Yes, I don't know what Steffensen believes.
I'll just focus on his DATA.
He definitely won't share this 25 year old data if he realizes that you are not "in line" with the dogma!
Since the mid 2000s his data seems to focus on "instability" and far fetched theory that CO2 is going to induce this. Quite odd theory since he finds the instability during ice ages.
He seems to acknowledge the impact of humans in this 2017 interview
Steffensen, in exceptionally eloquent and straightforward language, acknowledges that models consistently point to a gradual global increase in temperatures as a result of the continue widespread combustion of fossil fuels and increased emissions of carbon dioxide. “But that’s assuming the climate plays nice,” he says.
“And we actually know from the ice cores that the climate does not play nice all the time.”
Interviewed by Yale Climate Connections regular videographer Peter Sinclair in Kangeraussuaq, Greenland, this past summer, Steffensen, a professor of glaciology, sees an analogy between the continued emissions of greenhouse gases and the risks posed to the U.S. and global economy by the 2006/2007 widespread sales of subprime loans.
Deeply involved in drilling of ice cores on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets since 1980, Steffensen says in this month’s “This is not cool” video that changes in global heat flows have “come about suddenly” in the past and “are reflected, as a mirror image,” in Antarctic ice cores.
“You see that inside an ice age, the climate is extremely unstable. And you have this sequence of abrupt climate changes that happen, basically, from one year to the next.” He says each cycle lasts “about a couple thousand years…. We had that 26 times in the last ice age.”
Such “whipsaw” climate change have been missing during the past 11,000 years while human civilization has been arising. “So we are assuming that this is standard. Our collective memory refers to this as normal.”
But he is concerned that human activities could be “tipping the climate into an intermediate period of climate changes…. We can face a climate change that happens just as fast as the financial crisis,” Steffensen says. In that case, agricultural activity worldwide could be adversely affected … “the weather will change, and it will not change back” quickly.
“We don’t know where the threshold is,” Steffensen says of the ongoing human “experiment” with climate change. “But we are rats inside the experiment.”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/10/humans-experimenting-with-climates-playing-nice/
Yes --
The Climate today is remarkably stable -- the temperature in the last century changing by only a fraction of a Standard Deviation as seen in the past few thousand centuries:
https://timellison.substack.com/p/anthropogenic-global-warming-iv
I wonder how much tribute to the AGW Narrative anyone today in Accademia needs to make in order to ensure their continued .gov funding.
He works for the Niels Bohr Institute. I’d like to think that they are above that sort of thing but you never know.
As I'd LIKE to think that the FDA, CDC, WHO, etc., are not Big Pharma captured-agencies.