Stephen H. Schneider

[irivlin]

I'd like to complain about the intemperate language used by "aerobique". This is a discussion forum, not a place to vent one's spleen and be offensive to differing opinions. Whether climate sceptics are correct or not isn't the issue. We (ie sceptics) haven't been given proven facts - we've been given scientific opinion, and we have every right to reject this. It is unhelpful to your own cause if you bad mouth or insult other persons' valid concerns. Please be more thoughtful in future.

[ekirchnerism]

Beware All Absolutists.

[irivlin]

At the moment, I'd have to say I'm not convinced by the scientists. There have been so many "concensus of opinions" in the past which proved to be false. Scientists shouldn't have their views accepted by all as universal truth. The best way to keep these people honest is for people like me to constantly see that everything is proven. The world needs skeptics..... (Going to bed now - it's 11.30pm in Oz). Ian

[werecow2003]

@irivlin The world needs skeptics, but they need to be applying actual skepticism, not just doubt mongering. Unfortunately that's what you see from many of the prominent self-described "climate skeptics" (and by that I don't mean you, I mean people like Anthony Watts or Tim Ball). There's plenty of room for legitimate debate about the finer points (clouds, aerosols), but the people who are now still claiming that it's the sun or that there hasn't been any warming are not wearing a skeptical hat.

[aerobique]

@irivlin

"The world needs skeptics...."

These Scientists ARE sceptics by nature. The "climate sceptics" are not sceptic at all. I ts a bunch of fossil fuel funded or ideological missleaded deniers pushing the most dangerous PR campaign to confuse the public- to block political action.

[irivlin]

Thanks. It'll take me quite some time to get through that wealth of literature but I'll give it a good attempt. Ian

[digitised]

@irivlin Well you dont need to read them, id say take a look at potholers videos since he really makes a brilliant job of explaining it.

This issue is so mired with politics that its sometimes hard for people to hear the real science behind what is going on, there is simply no longer any debate in the scientific community over global warming. Some scientists still have other ideas, but all admit that the earth is getting hotter and they have no good natural explanation for that.

[irivlin]

Climate science is new. Very few have formal climate science qualifications (Schneider doesn't either). Nova can comment without being subject to ad hominem remarks. Read her work, then comment. I've read AGW literature from many authors - some with no science background. - That's OK. If it's correct, I'd accept it.(& Nova's claims can be verified on formal scientific sites). A good scientist is curious and always challenges accepted dogma. Don't believe AGW, just because it's popular. Ian

[digitised]

@irivlin Schneider does, and i explained that. Maybe you need to actually look at what plasma physics is, and look at the body of work which Schneiders papers all relate too. He wrote 450 papers on climate science and worked with experts, debated with experts, challenged experts. If he didnt learn about his field thoroughly at uni (since its almost impossible...) he cut his teeth with the community when he went into research.

Maybe you dont really understand science i dont know.

[digitised]

@irivlin Climate science is not really that new, even the greeks wrote on meterology to some extent after all it was integral to farming and crop cycles. And many people studied sun spots and took temperature data after thermometers and telescopes were invented about 250 years ago. That makes it at last 100 years older than evolution and microbiology,200 years older than particle physics, deep space cosmology, genetics and other fields. And CO2s warming potential was noticed even in 1859.

[irivlin]

Schneider, in my opinion, was wrong about CO2. Solar activity is likely to play a far greater role. The Vostok ice core data shows that high CO2 levels didn't result in runaway temperature rises, as the IPCC computer modeling clearly states would happen. How would one explain this anomaly? In fact, temperatures fell during periods of extreme CO2 (about 160,000 years ago). Dr. Schneider had a financial and political agenda "fueling" his AGW alarmism. (IMHO)

[digitised]

@irivlin Why do you keep saying solar activity is more likely the cause?

It is an undisputed fact that solar output (insolation) has been at unusually low levels for almost 40 years. So much so that skeptics always cut out the 1970s onwards out of their graphs to hide the lack of correlation with temperature changes.

Yes it matched until before then, but like i have stated by the 1970s the greenhouse effect had met face to face with all the cooling effects which were expected.

[irivlin]

It's a fair question you ask. Please read Joanne Nova's 2 excellent brochures on solar activity. Do a google search as I don't think YouTube permit web addresses to be put in these messages.

These are short, very easily read and extremely communicative descriptions. Please, take the time to read them, then let me know what you think. I promise you that you will think differently afterwards.

Best wishes,

Ian

[digitised]

@irivlin Why are you pointing me towards a lady who specialised in skincare products before taking on climate change? Ill be honest i have never heard of her before, but google is telling me shes a biologist and apparently has made several bogus claims about her products or research into ever young skin!

She doesnt seem to have funded research or written and published any peer review papers, she only seems to write leaflets claiming to be a skeptic.

I hate to tell you, but thats not science..

[digitised]

@digitised I will read them but ill be honest this doesnt seem promising, the first page starts with a cartoon about how government wants to take all my money and make me a slave...

Shes also quoted as not reading the IPCC report because its 'too long'.

I will read it and take it as seriously as possible, i will aslo recommend you look at youtube user potholer54. He has made a series on climate change which breaks down more complex issues very clearly and is all sourced from real science papers.

[digitised]

skepticalscience. com / solar-activity-sunspots-global­-warming. htm

This page is really helpful, it shows the solar activity and temperature graphs as well as listing about 15 peer review journal quotes which conclude that there has been no trend in solar activity and temperature for the times of the studies back to the early 1970s. They each link too, so you can read the papers and check the studies if you feel they are bogus or misquoted.

Really the sun is out of the argument here.

[irivlin]

PS, I believe you are in error when you state 26 gigatons. I understood anthropogenic production was about 1/3rd of this figure. Nonetheless, remember that the oceans have capacity to absorb colossal amounts of CO2 (as does vegetation). To suggest that the CO2 will just mount up, denies the earth any capacity for CO2 homeostasis. Anyhow all CO2 produced or in vegetation is exactly the same amount of carbon the earth was originally gifted with 4.5 billion years ago. - Nothing changes.

Ian

[digitised]

@irivlin its about 26 gigatons (and growing) but 15 is absorbed by other systems.

That 8 gigatons combined year on year is making a lot of change considering air only needs a few co2 molecules in every million to increase temperature.

And yes the quantity of carbon is about the same globally, but what counts is where it is distributed. If its locked in organisms like microbacteria, or plants then its not in the atmosphere absorbing solar radiation.

[digitised]

@digitised So if we dig up plants and organisms which have turned into fossil fuels and we start burning them up, we are filling the air with a very efficient heat blanket.

This didnt matter 4 billion years ago since the sun was producing 70% less energy, but earth was not made for life. (unless you have beliefs in a creator god) We exist because many conditions have been met which have enabled complex life. We need to focus on maintaining that and not ignoring our climate impact.

[digitised]

Accoring to all data i am aware of, the solar output in the last few decades has not had any correlation with global temperature despite adding to 2 hot years in the mid 80s and late 90s. The previous decade (2000-10) has measured a decline in solar activity. This means we are getting less heat from the sun, but...temperatures are increasing year on year. We've just had the hottest June globally on record for example. Yet the sun is giving us a let-up, hence it makes no sense to blame it.

[MrGiggleFactory]

What he says 2.20- 3.45 I find interesting. Most want simple answers to reassure us and think that if we vote, we have done our bit and can leave the rest to the politicians&business to take care of us. They will not. Most of us are so wrapped in our day to day stuff we want the simple answers, leave the decisions & responsibility to someone else and not to enter a debate. The last 30 seconds of this is very touching. Intelligent and compassionate man.

[zzebowa]

To quote Schnieder "There is no safe level of CO2". What a stupis statement, ithout CO2 we would all be dead. Clearly, he is an alarmist, who isnt worried about lying in order to create impact.

[pseudotruth]

@zzebowa

Sounds like quote-mining [quote removed from its context], or an invented quote.

Which one is it?

[zzebowa]

@pseudotruth Look it up. 

[anja247]

i listen to him speak and explain (he does it so well) and i think, what a great loss we all suffer at his passing.

[irivlin]

I was commenting on the fact that Dr. Schneider invariably castigates AGW dissenters as not being "suitably quaified" - when he isn't suitably qualified either. (Wrting papers isn't "qualification"). Dr. Plimer, who is a world famous geologist, is admirably qualified to comment on historical effects of climate on the earth. Dr. Plimers views are treated with derision and contempt by Dr. Schneider. Such ad hominem remarks do not constitute good solid science in my view.

[digitised]

@irivlin But this is not a historical issue, and to assume we can simply look at the past and understand what is happening today is misguided.

Temperature changes in the past were causes by natural changes, not human changes. If Plimer was honest he would examine the evidence which shows low solar output from 1970 onwards, high levels of particulates (which both lead to cooling) but we have record high temperatures.

CO2 and the sun are not the only variables, and climate experts know this.

[digitised]

@digitised Right now the suns output is low, and more of that solar energy is being blocked by our polluted atmosphere. This means earth should be pretty cold, however CO2 that we are producing is overcompensating this reduction by trapping more radiation.

If you only look at CO2 historically, yes you will see that CO2 was FAR higher in the past and temperatures were sometimes a bit higher, sometimes a bit lower.

[digitised]

@digitised There were times when the earth was frozen over and stromatolites hadnt evolved, to break down the CO2 rich atmosphere we once had for 4 bn years.

Does that mean that CO2 doesnt play any role? Or does it mean that something else kept earth frozen whilst it was optimal for trapping heat?

The earths orbit wobbles and we drift out from the sun. Volcanic activity can block out the sun for years. The sun can even lower its output so much that earth gets another ice age. Its not just CO2.

[irivlin]

We can't get away from the actual mathematics which are that humans generate no more than 1% of total CO2 production. If we took ourselves back to the middle ages, that would result in an insignificant temperature change - but modern life, as we know it, would be totally trashed. I've met Schneider (R.I.P.) and - honestly - it was impossible to get straight answers from the man. When anyone prevaricates, they're hiding something.......

[digitised]

@irivlin Humans generate about 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, yes thats a small amount but you need to consider the effect that has in regard to how many ppm CO2 makes up of the atmosphere.

We are now matching the highest levels seen in 800,000 years of ice core data.

We have risen 100ppm of atmospheric CO2 in just 120 years, whereas these increases took nature up to 20,000 years historically.

This is not insignificant and the sun doesnt cause this.

[MrGiggleFactory]

@irivlin Writing papers is not a qualification. Regardless of the qualifications of the individual, having them published and taken seriously indicates there is substance and good scientific method and enables the scientific community to test the hypothesis and publish further on the subject. Interesting debate this has got me thinking. I am not sure on what side of the fence I sit. I just know we humans are not living sustainably and we do not treat each other right. What a shame.

[pseudotruth]

@irivlin

Plimer's arguments are serially dismissed by scientists, because Plimer's claims are serially bogus.

Google Heaven and Earth (book) on Wikipedia

Click on 'references' and look up reference 34 -

Enting, Ian G. (June 10, 2009). "Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ — Checking the Claims"

Now, work though Plimer's book along with that pdf, and you will find why Plimer's claims are pure garbage!

[pseudotruth]

@irivlin

Scnneider studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 1972 and was a member of the scientific staff of NCAR from 1973-1996, where he co-founded the Climate Project.

Seems like he knew a great deal more about the climate than Plimer!

[irivlin]

Dr. Schneider changes his views according to the political "climate". 40 years ago, he said we were about to enter an ice age. (Due to excess CO2). When this didn't pan out, he prophesised a global heating Armageddon. Schneider denigrates those people such as Lord Monckton and Dr. Plimer as being "unqualified" yet Schneider is a mechanical engineer, who's doctorate is in plasma physics which is absolutely nothing to do with climate science. This gentleman is NEVER to be believed.

[digitised]

@irivlin Actually if you read his paper he states that cooling would be caused by particulates, not CO2. Pollution can block out sunlight in the upper atmosphere preventing it from reaching us on the ground, this would reduce average global temperatures and could lead to significant cooling.

However around this time global fossil fuel use caught up with the cooling effect of particulates negating his accurate predictions.

Why are you misquoting him? He never said excess CO2 would cause cooling.

[digitised]

@irivlin Dr scheider has a PHD in plasma physics, which makes him an expert with regards to the magnetosphere and ionosphere, which directly interact with the suns solar output. Why is this not relevant to the body of work he has produced in 40 years of study? He has written over 450 papers on climatology, which is more scientific papers than you have ever read on the subject.

Plimer and monckton are unqualified and have not produced any research which refutes global warming. why not?

[floydstinkyboy]

all those folks down below me need to drink a quart of exxon's finest and then, only then, let us know how good it is.

[1123DRB]

blah blah blah blah

[joygarner]

It's just so "complex" that we must hand over ALL control to a murderous few elite banking cartels who already control the issuance of currency, big pharma, big oil, military contracts, big media, big insurance, etc. the biggest REAL polluters, who are pushing this carbon tax, (2 line their own pockets).

We can look out our window and SEE that it's actually getting COLDER. We will NOT lose the ability to trust our own senses b/c of your PURCHASED "science".

[joygarner]

Schneider you are a LIAR. Yeah, we remember what you "knew" in the 70's. Back then you said Co2 was causing COOLING.

You lying sack of sh#$!!!

[DanOblacksmith]

What a repugnant douchebag...

[DanOblacksmith]

Hey Schneider- SUCK MY ASS...

Your global warming scam is so over with.

LOSER !!! HA HA HA !!!

[AtlasObjectivist]

Well doctor, how about an open debate televised on an international level? With an issue this important, why not present the facts from both sides?

The pursuit of policy based on closed door science has the look of fraud.

[digitised]

@AtlasObjectivist Its not closed door, its printed in scientific journals.

Why not go to a library and read climate science publications which stretch back decades and decades?

Or you could try using google, or phoning a university and speaking to a climate expert. Then you could actually do honest research rather than accusing the scientific community of hiding all the information, when it is absolutely available to the public. The whole point of academic papers is to promote knowledge.

[Libertyracer]

Thirdly he also mentions them preaching climate change in the 70s except back then their doomsday chant was of "Global cooling" rather than warming. These guys can't predict the weather on Tuesday much less in 100 years. Their allied govt agencies he mentions just want to use this phony crisis to control us in terms of laws and fines and manipulating energy markets to CONTROL US and TAX US which is what govt always strives to do.

[Libertyracer]

First off America is NOT a Democracy' it IS a Republic doctor. Second he mentions how supposedly some scientists get kickbacks from big corporations but ALL climatologists are hoping to get those block grants from sensationalizing climate change as being supposedly man made so they preach the "fear model" that will make them money. Follow the money and most of it comes from govt grants for research to those preaching the lies of the carbon threat model.