Monday, July 19, 2010
Stepen Schneider dies from Heart Attack
It may seem strange, but this sad news is not yet in the mainstream media. I saw it on RPjr's blog and here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
In an e-mail to GWPF, Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory board of GWPF. His letter reads : " I have bee...
-
Lennart Bengtsson sent me this manuscript and asked for publication. Maybe a few words about who Lennart Bengtsson is are in order. He i... -
CLIMATE CHANGE ARBITRATION BIAS AT WIKIPEDIA by Alex HARVEY h/t GoRight Recent events in the labyrinthine world of the Wikipedia c...
-
In a previous thread, we were discussing the claims of desmoblog.com, which presented leaked e-mails and documents supposedly originating ...
-
The discussion on the thread " hottest year on record " has moved away from the original topic and has focussed on the merits, an...
-
I have a short piece in Nature Geoscience with the title 'Climate change as a wicked social problem'. Here is the link http://rdcu....
-
Das Umweltbundesamt hat eine Broschüre herausgebracht mit dem Titel: " Und sie erwärmt sich doch. Was steckt hinter der Debatte um den ...
-
With the fifth assessment report soon to be released by the IPCC the pre-publication buzz is well underway. A while ago unauthorised dr...
-
Some readers have expressed their interest in discussion about the recent paper on climate reconstructions methods A statistical analysis of...
-
The Guardian has a short article on this issue. Damian Carrington reports that '2016 will very likely be the hottest year on reco...
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
9 comments:
Too bad, I was beginning to enjoy his outlandish statements, but I'll stop there; "del mortis nil nisi bene."
Why should it be in the news?
Scientists die every day.
Even the serious ones often do not get mentioned in the news when they pass away.
Schneider and those who think like him are perhaps not as important as they would like to believe they are.
sad news... :(
@Werner the mainstream media is doing fine, they have a lot of reports.
of course I did not know Prof Schneider, but my favorite video with Prof Schneider is an old one. I found the link to it last year shortly after Copenhagen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB2ugPM0cRM
I was merely pointing out that before the mainstream media caught up with this news it was in Schneider's Wikipedia entry. Is this developing into a real time encyclopedia?
@3,
For sure Stephen Schneider was important, not least because his opinion was influential for many scientist. He also run a a journal, Climatic Change, that is widely read.
One may not agree with him in all accounts, but it is not accurate to belittle him.
@Eduardo
Oh, I hope, I did not belittle him. By no means, that was my intent, in contrary. I know Stephen Schneider, some of his papers, some of his interviews, sometime I will read some his books. He seemed to me as a very passionate fighter, I know how deniers distorted a famous quote from him in a very disgusting way, he always fought against distortions of science, I am not sure, he also thought about how to "translate" science to "normal" people. I think is an important point especially in climate science because of the big political impact. I think, from the outside, he did some important work in climate science, too. I did not know him personally, or attended a talk with him or so, of course. So, I do not have any connection. However, again, I did not want to belittle him.
Many people wrote about him, he could translate science to "normal" people. Based on the interviews I watched, I can agree.
PS: @Rainer, sorry, that I called you Werner ;).
oh, sorry. I was addressing #2, P. Gosselin
Myles Allen has an obituary on today's Guardian, you can read it here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/21/stephen-schneider-obituary
Teil1
@Hans Von Storch,
Danke für die schnelle Antwort. Ich versuche die wissenschaftliche Aussage in eine für Laien (mich) verständliche Aussage zu verwandeln.
"Da die warmen Jahre alle heute stattfinden bedeutet dass die Klimaerwärmung wahrscheinlich keinen natürlichen Ursprung haben kann".
Da gibt es 2 Merkmale :
1) warm und
2) gehäuft
M.E. bedeutet das vor allem, dass es heute global wärmer ist als 1930- 1960.
Es würde aber auch bedeuten, dass die Erwärmung von 1930 bis 1960 (ungefähr) keinen natürlichen Ursprung gehabt haben könnte, weil damals auch schon die warmen Jahre der vorigen 50 oder sogar 100 Jahre alle in einem Zeitraum von 15 Jahren stattfnden.
Ich verstehe nicht, wieso auf dieses "gehäuft" so viel Wert gelegt wird. Gehäuft treten warme Jahre in wamen Zeiten auf.
Und wenn uns Klimarekonstruktionen auch glauben lassen, dass das Klima von Jahr zu Jahr früher extrem schwankte, sagen uns die heutigen Messgeräte, dass die Globaltemperatur seit 15 Jahren ungefähr konstant ist. Auch von 1900 bis 2000 ist die Globaltemperatur immer sehr stark mit dem vorigen Jahr korreliert.
Dass sich die warmen Jahre heute häufen sagt dem Laien also dass es heute wärmer ist als noch vor 20, 30, 50 und 100 Jahren.
Wie wahrscheinlich eine solche Warmphase ist und welche Ursachen sie hat, darüber sagt eine solche Statistik m.E. (mit Verlaub) aber nichts aus.
Man müsste doch erst einmal die Normaltmperatur unter gleichen Voraussetzungen kennen. Bzw. müsste man die normalen Klimamechanismen verstehen.
Dass z.B. die Alpengletscher ihre grösste Ausdehnung der letzten 10.000 Jahre ausgerechnet vor 200 - 400 Jahren hatten ist m.E. (mit Verlaub) genauso statistich signifikant und deswegen eigentlich durch natürliche Mechanismen unerklärbar wie die heutige Erwämung.
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)