|
Post by ron on Mar 26, 2009 13:37:48 GMT
You posted a quote from his 1971 paper, where he made the mistake of overestimating the cooling from aerosols and underestimating the warming from CO2, but not his 1975 paper where he corrected the mistake. The full story is available in this article, entitled, "The 1970s Global Cooling Myth": Ohhh, so now you are the ultimate Googlemeister, the world-renowned expert on Stephen Schneider, a guy you didn't even know about until 30 seconds ago? Thanks for at least confirming the very beginning of his role in the global cooling mania of the 70's, and his willingness to parade himself in the forefront of man-made climate change without any solid science to back him up. Oh, and in 1976, Stephen "Holy Cow I'm Still Wrong" Schneider wrote in his book The Genesis Strategy: I guess he was a scientist all about consensus even then, huh? You can even visualize him backpedalling. What a crock. At least read a tiny bit deeper into the SERPs next time, k? I keep hearing Jim Backus' voice... www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui4RJ3Fqy9w
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 26, 2009 15:56:10 GMT
You posted a quote from his 1971 paper, where he made the mistake of overestimating the cooling from aerosols and underestimating the warming from CO2, but not his 1975 paper where he corrected the mistake. The full story is available in this article, entitled, "The 1970s Global Cooling Myth": Ohhh, so now you are the ultimate Googlemeister, the world-renowned expert on Stephen Schneider, a guy you didn't even know about until 30 seconds ago? Thanks for at least confirming the very beginning of his role in the global cooling mania of the 70's, and his willingness to parade himself in the forefront of man-made climate change without any solid science to back him up. Oh, and in 1976, Stephen "Holy Cow I'm Still Wrong" Schneider wrote in his book The Genesis Strategy: I guess he was a scientist all about consensus even then, huh? You can even visualize him backpedalling. What a crock. At least read a tiny bit deeper into the SERPs next time, k? I keep hearing Jim Backus' voice... www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui4RJ3Fqy9wNo, I've known about Schneider for a long time. He's an example of a scientist who changed his mind after re-examining the facts. He used to think that the aerosol effects of cooling would prevail (in 1971) but by 1975 he had already changed his mind. You are selectively quoting from his book. Here's what comes before the quote you selected: So he put a definate number (1 degree for the increase in CO2 from 1975 to 2000). His statement on aerosols was that most scientists thought aerosols would cool the atmosphere, but some hold out that they could have a warming effect. This is true today, 3 decades later. The consensus of scientists agree that the CO2 warming will dominate aerosol effects, which may cool the atmosphere (volcanic eruptions) or warm the atmposphere (atmospherice brown clouds). The forcings from aerosols are still one of the big unknowns in the climate system.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 26, 2009 16:14:43 GMT
No, I've known about Schneider for a long time. He's an example of a scientist who changed his mind after re-examining the facts. He used to think that the aerosol effects of cooling would prevail (in 1971) but by 1975 he had already changed his mind. So you were just playing dumb then. So it's ok for a scientist to be completely wrong, run around like an imbecile trying to scare people based on "completely erroneous" science, switch to the other side while still having the exact same inexact, erroneous immature science and start the crusade from that perspective? He has an opinion that mankind is ruining the planet, and he takes whatever scrap of evidence is available at the time to push his worldview on everyone. Is this the kind of "scientist" you want? Is this the kind of scientist that the world ought to be relying upon to provide truthful fact upon which to base global decisions affecting tens of trillions of dollars and billions of people's development? Personally, I will NEVER believe even a single word coming from the IPCC as long as this cynical bastard is part of that organization. Who knows what he may have done in furtherance of his objectives?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 31, 2009 22:40:25 GMT
Global warming trend now very clear: Lake Superior Will we ever see ice on Lake Superior again? ;D 2001/2 Season 2008/9 Season
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 2, 2009 1:47:04 GMT
Ohhh, so now you are the ultimate Googlemeister, the world-renowned expert on Stephen Schneider, a guy you didn't even know about until 30 seconds ago? Thanks for at least confirming the very beginning of his role in the global cooling mania of the 70's, and his willingness to parade himself in the forefront of man-made climate change without any solid science to back him up. Oh, and in 1976, Stephen "Holy Cow I'm Still Wrong" Schneider wrote in his book The Genesis Strategy: I guess he was a scientist all about consensus even then, huh? You can even visualize him backpedalling. What a crock. At least read a tiny bit deeper into the SERPs next time, k? I keep hearing Jim Backus' voice... www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui4RJ3Fqy9wNo, I've known about Schneider for a long time. He's an example of a scientist who changed his mind after re-examining the facts. He used to think that the aerosol effects of cooling would prevail (in 1971) but by 1975 he had already changed his mind. You are selectively quoting from his book. Here's what comes before the quote you selected: So he put a definate number (1 degree for the increase in CO2 from 1975 to 2000). His statement on aerosols was that most scientists thought aerosols would cool the atmosphere, but some hold out that they could have a warming effect. This is true today, 3 decades later. The consensus of scientists agree that the CO2 warming will dominate aerosol effects, which may cool the atmosphere (volcanic eruptions) or warm the atmposphere (atmospherice brown clouds). The forcings from aerosols are still one of the big unknowns in the climate system. So what does Hansen mean when he said this about aerosols? Straight from Hansen's pie hole: www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/Copenhagen_20090311.pdf We do not have measurements of aerosols going back to the 1800s – we don’t even have global measurements today. Any measurements that exist incorporate both forcing and feedback. Aerosol effects on clouds are very uncertain. Even if we accept the IPCC aerosol estimate, which was pretty much pulled out of a hat, it leaves the net forcing almost anywhere between zero and 3 watts. How can a "consensus" draw a conclusion from what even you say; aerosols are still one of the big unknowns in the climate system? Wow, how could anyone ever doubt the "consensus"
|
|