Stephen Schneider, R.I.P. Options

[Omega892R09]

A Eulogy to Stephen Schneider

Remembering Stephen Schneider

Stephen H Schneider - recent talk

Stephen Schneider in 1979

He fought with courage against the illness that was destroying him and at the same time fending of character assassinations from deniers - the usual suspects, one of whom appears to have again stabbed at him when he is gone - that should tell you what sort of person that attacker is.

And before you come on with quotes from Schneider taken out of context then realize I know what that is about and so will you if you bother to study the material via those links.

[tumetuestumefais...]

Almost everything in this science of CAGW is too overstated - in 1979 Stephen Schneider was telling us the CO2 will rise +20% at the end of century and in middle of 21st century "will double".
In fact now we have 2010 and CO2 have risen 13.7% since 1979, 5.5% since 2000. So he overstated the figure - 2.4 times than actually was the reality.
It reminds me the fishermen who show me using their hands how big the fish they caught was to win attention. It is more like an activism than a serious science...

[Omega892R09]

Almost everything in this science of CAGW is too overstated - in 1979 Stephen Schneider was telling us the CO2 will rise +20% at the end of century and in middle of 21st century "will double".

And that quote comes from where?

Taking stuff out of context is a recognised denier trick done by Plimer, Monckton and Lomborg to name but three.

Whatever.

In fact now we have 2010 and CO2 have risen 13.7% since 1979, 5.5% since 2000. So he overstated the figure - 2.4 times than actually was the reality.
It reminds me the fishermen who show me using their hands how big the fish they caught was to win attention. It is more like an activism than a serious science...

And you remind me of the blind man who cannot recognise that he is touching an elephant because he is only holding the tail.

You may well be an exceptionally gifted particle physicist but unfortunately you seem oblivious of the other multiple strands of evidence which support the fact that global warming is real and already creating demonstrable climate change. Explain otherwise the melting of the cryosphere, changing precipitation patterns, migration of species with the extinction of those which cannot.

Myopia seems rampant around here.

[tumetuestumefais...]

And that quote comes from where?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB2ugPM0cRM

[Omega892R09]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB2ugPM0cRM

Just testing that you actually watched it.

So. How far off was he? Orders of magnitude?

There was a post of your some while back where you went on about solar output at the start and made many erroneous statements. Firefighting the many here as I am I am afraid that my health went down before I could reply and then the thread vanished into the background. I have not forgotten it and had a reply worked out in thought. Time is pressing on me again now but I'll be back.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jul 23 2010, 01:16 PM

[tumetuestumefais...]

Just testing that you actually watched it.

So. How far off was he? Orders of magnitude?

There was a post of your some while back where you went on about solar output at the start and made many erroneous statements. Firefighting the many here as I am I am afraid that my health went down before I could reply and then the thread vanished into the background. I have not forgotten it and had a reply worked out in thought. Time is pressing on me again now but I'll be back.

How far off was he?
You're maybe so time pressed Omega you haven't even read my original post:
link to the post where I wrote the actual numbers quite clearly.

Just little about the solar activity. We have long time dispute about this with my friend from BNL who is Hansen's friend and has a very simmilar attitude to the whole issue as you have. (It doesn't mean we aren't friends anymore.)
Now it looks like the sun activity reality is still off lower the latest predictions. From the recent example of SC24 prediction it looks like the NASA is quite completely unable to predict next solar cycle, it looks like their solar model doesn't work at all, and they've had arbitrarily changing their prediction from SC24 maximum at 140 spots in 2010-2011 made in 2006 many times to the latest at half of it in 2013-2014. But the reality looks even gloomier. It quite clearly now looks like SC24 would be at average 50-60 spots maximum in 2014-2015 which means so lower PSI in the important spectres that the whole effect of the anthropogenic CO2 on global temperatures not just would be erased but the cooling is very likely over next at least 15 years. (And note even Bilderberg was already having talks about it this year in Sitges according to leaked agenda). We also now know thank's to the Czech researcher Vit Kremlik the IPCC hasn't any renowned solar scientist on the board at all, not one. So the climatology of the CAGW is clearly unable to work with the real solar science at all and if there are some predictions in this regard they're clearly off reality, prefering their black-box models. Hopefully it will change and somebody would finally start to pay attention to Niroma RIP (who exactly predicted the end of the SC23), Archibald, Svaalgaard etc. Because it is mainly a political problem - We don't know really, how serious the CAGW issue is, I'm quite skeptical about it, but more due to lack of decisive, credible information and the suspicious megalomaniac global socialist agenda around it. If indeed the climate is highly sensitive to the CO2 (which I seriously doubt from available mesurements, but I'm not completely convinced about the opposite), but the solar activity would continue to decline as we see predicted by the people who were unlike the official agencies right about the SC23 end, then the next period of low solar activity can completely mask the CAGW effect and when the solar activity would eventually come back to the levels of the last half of the century (which can be even two, three SC's from now), there could be too late to mitigate CO2 to stop the runoff. On the other hand it can give us needed time to adaptation, mainly the major restructuralization in the energetics needed to booth develop the realy sustainable energy sources (I'm of the simmilar opinion in this as Hansen - 4th generation nuclear R&D is almost only option due to developing population and technology use in the 3rd world and my opinion from the praxis is it would be developed only if there would be deregulation not more regulation applied) which we need anyway and curb the carbon energetics which is unsustainable, polluting, more and more expensive anyway and having unexpected potentially fatal externalities as we clearly see now in the GoM. But politically the real cooling due to the very low solar activity very likely comming which is so scandalously disregarded and downplayed by IPCC and leading climatologists can considerably shaken the public belief in the climatology as a whole and the proposed policies, even some of them are vital ones without regards to if there is CAGW or not could not win the public support. That's why I consider the activist overstatements from the side of the ardent warmistas be so dangerous if one considers the real social and political dynamics and the possible direst consequences.

[Omega892R09]

Hopefully it will change and somebody would finally start to pay attention to Niroma RIP (who exactly predicted the end of the SC23),

What peer reviewed journals has he published in?

Archibald, Svaalgaard etc. Because it is mainly a political problem

Sure there is a political, or rather finacial motivated power-brokering aspect to this but the emphasis in this area is very much with the deniers and delayers. Why else would Fox blowhards be so down on climate scientists?

More on Svalgaard to come - hitting the quote ceiling again!

Come on Tume, it isn't difficult to locate information on the ideology drive coming from the likes of Heartland, CATO, CEI etc and more in Canada. Do a little honest rersearch not just into the science but also who is paying for the gravy train that Monckton et. al. like to keep sucking at.

We don't know really, how serious the CAGW issue is,

CAGW? Could you expand that. I get the gist and doubt that it is Citizens Against Government Waste.
I became rather tired of trying to find the exact expansion over at Climate (Un)Realists.

I'm quite skeptical about it,

I had noticed.

the suspicious megalomaniac global socialist agenda around it.

And there you reveal your ideological colours as you did before with talk about 'warmist fairy tales'.

If indeed the climate is highly sensitive to the CO2 (which I seriously doubt from available mesurements,

The clues started with Tyndall so I don't know what measurements you are using - chalk marks are no good for this stuff.

On the other hand it can give us needed time to adaptation, mainly the major restructuralization in the energetics needed to booth develop the realy sustainable energy sources (I'm of the simmilar opinion in this as Hansen - 4th generation nuclear R&D is almost only option due to developing population and technology use in the 3rd world and my opinion from the praxis is it would be developed only if there would be deregulation not more regulation applied)

I agree with both points there and this is where I diverge from Joe Romm's take on nuclear. If done right it poses no threat of nuclear weapons proliferation.

I recently read Nuttall's Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power: Technologies and Policies from the Future of Nuclear Power

I had great difficulty getting hold of this book via lending libraries as my local one made all sorts of moans about the charges for inter-library loans. This will only get worse as spending cuts take hold (thanks Goldman Sachs, Fanny Mac and Freddie May - or whatever they are called - daft names both). Sadly I cannot afford to buy my own copy at the moment - too many other pressures (also as a result of banker induced pain).

But politically the real cooling due to the very low solar activity very likely comming which is so scandalously disregarded and downplayed by IPCC and leading climatologists can considerably shaken the public belief in the climatology as a whole and the proposed policies, even some of them are vital ones without regards to if there is CAGW or not could not win the public support. That's why I consider the activist overstatements from the side of the ardent warmistas be so dangerous if one considers the real social and political dynamics and the possible direst consequences.

Oh! Please Tume. It is recognised, as I wrote before, that the GHG signature is now clearly in charge and cooling is very unlikely on a global basis and regionaly mostly if NOC is upset enough to cause a massive change in flow.

Anybody who has looked at IPCC AR4 knows well that solar influences ARE considered as this extract from Part 2 'Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing' of
'Climate Change 2007 The Physical Science Basis'

2.7.1 Solar Variability
The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002).

and I don't see AR5 being any lesser supported on this topic.

More to come.