Stephen Schneider explains global warming so even a “skeptic” can get it


Impressive.  Schneider explains, to Australian “skeptics,” how CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, why that’s bad, what the urban heat island effect is and why it does not negate temperature measures that show global warming.  He savages the argument about CO2’s “logarithmic” absorption characteristics negating scientists’ findings.

Sadly, Dr. Schneider died a few weeks after this was taped in 2010.

This is, I see, part 2 of a 4 part series.  Hmmm.  WhHere are the other parts?.

About these ads

6 Responses to Stephen Schneider explains global warming so even a “skeptic” can get it

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Why, it would actually be fun to watch, if the rest of us could just forget how much money it’s designed to cost us!

    Global warming is going to cost us plenty. The cattle industry in Texas this year lost well over $1 billion, and about 30% of Texas herds have been liquidated. Imported beef from Argentina may not be that much more expensive, but Argentina’s ability to raise cattle may be similarly cut off in the near future. Wheat and corn farming in the Midwest is threatened. Several major U.S. ports need to be hardened, and in some cases, relocated, at costs of tens of billions of dollars. Weather-caused disasters, increased in frequency and intensity by global warming, will cost us hundreds of billions, at least, and perhaps trillions.

    Morgan’s the kind of guy who would say we should save the $33 it costs for measles vaccine in the middle of a measles epidemic, failing to look at the increased costs to everyone of the increased deaths and hospitalizations due to the epidemic.

    My father used to tell the story of an experiment he ran with his father. They had a great horse, but it ate too much. They tried to get it to eat less. Once they got the horse to eat less, they wondered how far they could go in their money saving. Eventually they trained the horse to work without food at all. It was sort of a miracle, and they could have made thousands in extra money with the beast — but for some reason it died before they could breed it or sell its services. They would have been millionaires if some mysterious ailment hadn’t felled that horse.

    In Morgan’s world, people are already spending huge amounts of money for weather insurance, better housing, better beach erosion programs, better weather forecasting, failed crops, and increased transportation costs for imports of formerly domestically produced foods and other necessities, and higher energy costs for cooling and heating. It’s not fair to ask those people to pay also to slow global warming, is it?

    Like

  2. John Mashey says:

    Steve was a fine scientist and a marvelous communicator of good science to people of all levels of background. His death was a real loss, not just to those of us who knew him.

    Like

  3. And here was me, thinking the debate was over!

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s fascinating to me that every explanation of global warming is greeted by deniers with insult and ridicule. Were there any science to creationism evolution denialism anti-vaxxers pro-DDT hoaxes climate change denialism, you’d think they’d trot out the science. Especially in response to coolly unemotional responses like Schneider’s, the response should be contrary studies, if there were any.

    Why, do you suppose, Dear Reader, a scientific literature-savvy guy like Morgan would not respond to Schneider’s explanation with reference to contradicting studies?

    Maybe this is more up Morgan’s alley: “Annals of Global Warming: It didn’t start with the hockey stick . . .”

    Like

  5. This is why I subscribe to you.

    The extreme over-simplification of the other side’s viewpoint. BF is right, you’re too timid to explain your perception of it in any great detail, since I think you realize your perception of it is risible and false, and Schneider’s perception of the opposition’s view isn’t any more realistic or any less ridiculous. Here, I’ll do it for you: The reason the skeptics are coming to the wrong conclusion, is something that has to do with simple subtraction. We simply cannot fathom that 1.2 gallons is greater than 1.0 gallons. We, like the Kurt-Vonnegut-lookin’-dude, simply need to read a book to “learn about science,” which means learning about some numbers being bigger than other numbers.

    There ought to be a branch of mental health science to deal with people like you. It’s almost adorable the way, once confronted with a dissenting opinion or even a hesitation to agree with your opinion, you simply explain the theory from the beginning all over again as if simple repetition is supposed to provide proof that wasn’t already provided. Why, it would actually be fun to watch, if the rest of us could just forget how much money it’s designed to cost us!

    Like

  6. Black Flag® says:

    Yes, the “mysterious, yet to be found, never seen before, and yet to be seen” forcing from a little CO2 concentration increase that will turn over the massive negative feedback loops of nature.

    You are bizarre, Ed.

    And still a coward.

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,194 other followers

%d bloggers like this: