"Report: Obama offers UN climate agreement that doesn’t need congressional approval
The Obama administration is quietly forging ahead with plans to offer up an international commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to fight global warming — without congressional approval.
Reuters reports that the U.S. submitted its vision for a new international global warming agreement to the United Nations on Wednesday, suggesting a “bifurcated approach” of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — placing different emissions targets for rich and poor countries.
“So this is just the latest example of President Obama’s contempt for obeying the Constitution and our laws,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center of Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “In the past, rulers who act as if the law does not apply to them were called tyrants.”
U.N. diplomats are set to meet in Paris next year to hash out a new international climate agreement, though talks last year were stalled by disagreements over how much rich countries would have to pay poor countries to offset carbon emissions and forgo some development.
“There have been, and will continue to be, dramatic and dynamic shifts in countries’ emissions and economic profiles that make such an approach untenable, environmentally and otherwise,” the United States plan said.
Annie Petsonk, international counsel to the Environmental Defense Fund, noted that the U.S. plan was legally different than the Kyoto Protocol — it doesn’t require congressional approval.
The U.S. Constitution says that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” to make treaties with other countries. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol had to be ratified by Congress — and it never was, even though the Clinton administration signed onto it.
But Obama’s plan would rely on individual countries to enforce their own emissions reductions. And since the president has already implemented his own “climate action plan,” the U.S. would not need congressional approval to implement it, since it’s already being done through executive orders. Petsonik said Obama’s U.N. plan was simply an “international counterpart” to his plan to cut U.S. carbon emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 — and not a treaty.
If countries agree to the plan, they would be required to lower their carbon emissions after 2020 and rich countries, like the U.S. and Japan, would be held to the same reduction commitments as poor, developing countries like China and India.
“The only way we’re going to do that is if countries like the United States and France can over time come to a common position, and bring in countries like China and India as well,” a senior administration official told Reuters.
The real question is, can countries like China and India, which are rapidly developing, curb their use of carbon-intensive fossil fuels?
“The U.S. is staking out fairly firm stuff that they want to see,” Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Reuters. “All the major countries, including China, India and Brazil, are expected to be fairly transparent and detailed. That is the clear reading from this.”
Conservatives and climate skeptics don’t agree.
“CEI has warned for several years that the Obama Administration would follow advice from environmental pressure groups and try to sign a new U.N. agreement that ignores the Senate’s constitutional role,” Ebell said.
“It is also worth noting that any agreement Obama negotiates will not take effect until after he leaves office, so that a future President and Congress will be stuck with the damage it does to the economy,” Ebell added. “But without Senate ratification, it should be fairly easy for a future President and Congress to dismantle.”
Follow Michael on Twitter and Facebook
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org." http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/13/r...that-doesnt-need-congressional-approval/
"Published in August 5th 2014: President Obama's Science Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, explains in less than three minutes how the growing number of intense wildfires are linked in part, to climate change. Learn more at http://wh.gov/climate-change "
If the air is filled with nano particles of aluminum it is no wonder that a small fire turns out big.
Professor of Geology and Mineralogy, and Chief Scientific Member, United Institute of Geology, Geophysics, and Mineralogy, Siberian Department of Russian Academy of Sciences. Expert on Global Ecology, and Fast -Processing Earth Events PHOENIX JOURNAL REVIEW VOLUME 47, NUMBER 2 MARCH 22, 2006 http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/060322.pdf
Interesting, when you click on most of the staff names you get info on them when you click onto DR. ALEXEY N. DMITRIEV* you get
This computer belongs to the Laboratory of Condensed Matter Theory at the Department of Low Temperature Physics, the Faculty of Physics, M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, 119899, RUSSIA.
The head of the group is Prof. Alexey Dmitriev [tel. (7-095) 939 59 05, fax (7-095) 932 88 76].
Junior researcher: Mrs. Olga Pupysheva.
Main research directions of the group include:
charge carrier kinetics in semiconductors, non-equilibrium phenomena and relaxation, high fields, electron-hole recombination; low dimensional structures; semiconductor optics." https://forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-10564.html (2004)
"Published in August 5th 2014: President Obama's Science Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, explains in less than three minutes how the growing number of intense wildfires are linked in part, to climate change. Learn more at http://wh.gov/climate-change "
If the air is filled with nano particles of aluminum it is no wonder that a small fire turns out big.
"Climate sceptics should be 'crushed and buried': Sir Paul Nurse attacks politicians who 'distort' facts on global warming Comments were made by new British Science Association president It is believed attack was directed at former Secretary Owen Paterson Mr Paterson, who was sacked by David Cameron in July, has said he believes the negative impact of global warming has been exaggerated He also targeted lobby groups such as that run by Lord Nigel Lawson 'Politicians live in a world where the strength of their rhetoric means much more than scientific content,' Sir Paul said (...)" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...icians-distort-facts-global-warming.html
"Published in August 5th 2014: President Obama's Science Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, explains in less than three minutes how the growing number of intense wildfires are linked in part, to climate change. Learn more at http://wh.gov/climate-change "
If the air is filled with nano particles of aluminum it is no wonder that a small fire turns out big.
During lightning: East Side Lake Shasta - Rainwater test November 11 2008 http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=13348#Post13348 Handwritten in the attachment "test" below: "This is the highest quantity yet detected. This storm was also an extreme lightning event. More metal = more atmospheric conduction" "Shasta County 11-08 East Side Lake Shasta TWO TESTS Single Rain Event AFTER EXTREME LIGHTNING EVENT (1200 Fires started that day) #1 AL815 #2 AL 3450" Originally: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/htm/tests.html
Second attachment below: "The 2008 Northern California Lightning Siege and Decision Support"
"Published in August 5th 2014: President Obama's Science Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, explains in less than three minutes how the growing number of intense wildfires are linked in part, to climate change. Learn more at http://wh.gov/climate-change "
If the air is filled with nano particles of aluminum it is no wonder that a small fire turns out big.
During lightning: East Side Lake Shasta - Rainwater test November 11 2008 http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=13348#Post13348 Handwritten in the attachment "test" below: "This is the highest quantity yet detected. This storm was also an extreme lightning event. More metal = more atmospheric conduction" "Shasta County 11-08 East Side Lake Shasta TWO TESTS Single Rain Event AFTER EXTREME LIGHTNING EVENT (1200 Fires started that day) #1 AL815 #2 AL 3450" Originally: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/htm/tests.html
Second attachment below: "The 2008 Northern California Lightning Siege and Decision Support"
Originally Posted by Denglisch
BARNES, A. A. (1989). Predicting triggered lightning. Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass, U.S. Air Force Geophysics Laboratory. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/23871159
"Abstract: The explosive characteristics of aluminum powder have great significance in preventing and controlling aluminum-dust explosion accidents, especially the nano-aluminum powder. The explosion characteristics of 100 nm and 75 lm aluminum powders were investigated by using a 20 L spherical explosion cavity and a horizontal pipe whose cross-section area is 80 mm 80 mm and length is 8 m. The results show that the maximum explosion pressure and its rising rate of 100 nm aluminum powder gradually increase with increasing concentration of aluminum-powder at the beginning. When aluminum-powder concentration is 1 kg/m3, the maximum explosion pressure reaches its maximum, and then gradually decreases. While when the concentration is 1.25 kg/m3, the maximum rate of pressure rise obtains its maximum, and then decreases. After 100 nm aluminum powder is exploded in pipes, the peak overpressure of blast wave first decreases and then increases to the maximum at a distance of 298 cm from the ignition source, and then gradually decreases. The most violent concentration is about 0.4 kg/m3 which is lower than 0.8 kg/m3 of 75 lm aluminum powder, so 100 nm aluminum powders are more easily exploded. The change laws of maximum explosion pressure, maximum rate of pressure rise and blast-wave peak over- pressure of 100 nm aluminum powders with concentration are similar to those of 75 lm aluminum pow- ders, but these values are much higher than 75 lm aluminum powders under the same concentration, so the aluminum-powders explosion of 100 nm will produce more harms. In the process of production, storage and transportation of aluminum powder, some relevant preventive measures can be taken to reduce the loss caused by aluminum-dust explosion according to nano-aluminum dust.
Keywords: Nano-aluminum powder Explosion pressure Rate of pressure rise Peak overpressure Funding: supported by the Major State Basic Research Development Program of China (No. 2011CB201205) the Open Fund Program of the State Key Laboratory of Explosion Science and Technology (No. KFJJ10-19M) [DOI]: X932 Text: 1. Introduction Aluminum powder is an important industrial raw material and widely used in pigments, paints, fireworks, metallurgy, aircraft and ship manufacturing. With the development of science and technology, new material of nano-aluminum powder em (...)" http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZHKD201105011.htm
"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996 By DAVID ROSE FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 21:42 GMT, 13 October 2012 | UPDATED: 13:59 GMT, 16 October 2012
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.
Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.
Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.
At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.
Flawed science costs us dearly
Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.
The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.
They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.
Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.
And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.
It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.
This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.
But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert. ‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.
‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.
‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.
Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’
Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.
Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’
Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.
Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’
He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.
Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.
Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.
Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.
The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.
So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rt-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
" (...) After a year and a half of postdoctoral research at NASA, Schneider moved to the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR, Boulder, CO) in 1972, remaining a member of the scientific staff until 1996. At NCAR, he co-founded the agency's Climate Project and in 1975 founded the interdisciplinary journal Climatic Change, for which he continues to be the editor. (...) Much of Schneider's time is taken up by what he calls his 'pro bono day job' for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II of the IPCC from 1997 to 2001 and a lead author in Working Group I from 1994 to 1996. (...)" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1276082/
1977: In Search Of... The Coming Ice Age Minute: 19 Second: 50 till Minute: 20 Second: 35
"If an ice age is coming: what can we do to stop it? Nuclear energy might be used to loosen polar ice caps. Sea ice could be melted by covering it with black soot to increase the absorption of sun light. Dr. Stephen Schneider is a climatologist from the National Center for Atmospheric research: 'Can we do these things? Yes. But will they make things better? I am not sure. We can't predict with any certainty what's happening to our climatic future. How we come along and intervene at that ignorance you can melt the ice caps? What would that do to the coastal cities? The Cure could be worse than the disease? Would that be better or worsen the risk give an ice age?' "
S. I. Rasool1, S. H. Schneider1 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate Science 09 Jul 1971: Vol. 173, Issue 3992, pp. 138-141 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138
" (...) Climate Change The President is committed to addressing the issue of global climate change in a manner that protects our environment and economy. Toward this end, the Administration is undertaking a Cabinet-level review of domestic and international policies for addressing this issue.
The United States invited other nations to re-examine global climate change issues, including technologies and market-based systems. Increasing our understanding of the most recent science and further research into the science of climate change will be essential to developing the optimal strategy.
There is increasing awareness of global competition for fossil fuels and their potential threats to the global environment. The United States can diminish both risks by becoming more energy efficient at home, by working with other nations, and by encouraging developing countries to use the cleanest and most energy-efficient technologies. Through educational programs, the United States can encourage developing countries to use advanced U.S. energy technologies, energy management practices, and market-based policies. The United States is uniquely positioned to help emerging nations build energy and institutional capacity and to finance energy-related activities and services. Doing so could prove to be a costeffective investment, for both the United States and emerging economies.
Recommendation: The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct federal agencies to support continued research into global climate change; continue efforts to identify environmentally and cost-effective ways to use market mechanisms and incentives; continue development of new technologies; and cooperate with allies, including through international processes, to develop technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches to address the issue of global climate change. (...)" Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future: Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group. US Government Printing Office. May 16, 2001. ISBN 0-16-050814-2. Retrieved 14 April 2010. http://wtrg.com/EnergyReport/National-Energy-Policy.pdf page 141f
"(...) The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct federal agencies to support continued research into global climate change; continue efforts to identify environmentally and cost-effective ways to use market mechanisms and incentives; continue development of new technologies; and cooperate with allies, including through international processes, to develop technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches to address the issue of global climate change. (...)" loc. cit. page 146
"(...) The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the EPA and DOT to develop ways to reduce demand for petroleum transportation fuels by working with the trucking industry to establish a program to reduce emissions and fuel consumption from long-haul trucks at truck stops by implementing alternatives to idling, such as electrification and auxiliary power units at truck stops along interstate highways. EPA and DOT will develop partnership agreements with trucking fleets, truck stops, and manufacturers of idle-reducing technologies (e.g., portable auxiliary packs, electrification) to install and use lowemission-idling technologies. (...)" loc. cit. page 153
"(...) The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretaries of Commerce, State, and Energy to promote market-based solutions to environmental concerns; support exports of U.S. clean energy technologies and encourage their overseas development; engage bilaterally and multilaterally to promote best practices; explore collaborative international basic research and development in energy alternatives and energy-efficient technologies; and explore innovative programs to support the global adoption of these technologies.
The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct federal agencies to support continued research into global climate change; continue efforts to identify environmentally and cost-effective ways to use market mechanisms and incentives; continue development of new technologies; and cooperate with allies, including through international processes, to develop technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches to address the issue of global climate change. (...)" loc. cit. page 163
"How the EPA ignores the public and science By Tom HarrisAugust 10, 2014 | 6:38pm
The Environmental Protection Agency ignored both public opinion and science in writing its new economy-slamming regulations restricting carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants. Although EPA head Gina McCarthy testified otherwise before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last month, the EPA’s public consultations were a sham, clearly designed to give only the results desired by the agency. Notably, none of the EPA’s 11 'public listening sessions' last year on the new rules were in the states that will see the worst electricity-rate hikes under the regulations. The EPA’s more recent public hearings in Atlanta, Denver, Washington and Pittsburgh were stacked, too. The agency let 'anti-warming' activists largely crowd out ordinary citizens who might disagree. In Pittsburgh, it even let green groups set up tables and distribute literature in the federal building that hosted the hearing. It seems the EPA didn’t even consult with utilities that actually burn coal to produce electricity. Had it done so, it would realize that the proposal that coal plants increase their combustion efficiency by 5 percent or more is naïve: Utilities will have a tough time beating 1 percent. Nor is the EPA willing to listen to the many scientists who question its 'global warming' narrative. While dozens of US officials attended last year’s UN climate conference in Poland, a dog-and-pony show in support of the received wisdom, no one from the Obama administration has ever attended the International Conferences on Climate Change. The last (ninth) ICCC in Las Vegas this July featured presentations from 64 of the world’s leaders in climate science, economics and policy development: Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, the recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his satellite-based temperature-monitoring work, explained that scientists know almost nothing about global warming: 'We don’t know how strong global warming is, what it’s caused by, whether it makes severe weather worse, when it started, when it will end and whether it’s good or bad.' The science is simply too immature — that’s why the standard 'climate change' models can’t explain why global temperatures have been flat for 17 years. Dr. William Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, one of the world’s foremost experts in tropical meteorology, was even more forthright: 'There is no scientific justification for the CO2 global-warming hypothesis. The ocean, not CO2 increase, is the primary driver for climate change.' Dr. Fred Goldberg, director of the Swedish Polar Institute and a leading authority on polar history and exploration, discussed how the extent of Arctic glaciers and sea ice have been highly variable over the past millennium. Though “warmists” have cited some recent retreats in sea ice as evidence of man-caused warming, Goldberg showed that ice retreated dramatically in the 1920s — prompting US Weather Bureau fears of “a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard-of-temperatures in the Arctic zone.” But temperatures dropped again and the ice came back. By 1977, Goldberg noted, fears of a coming ice age dominated the press. To understand future ice conditions, we need to understand what the sun is doing, he said. Coming to such an understanding is the goal of the research of Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg and the 2013 gold medal winner from the European Scientific-Industrial Chamber. Abdussamatov has concluded that we’ll see dangerous global cooling over the next few decades as the sun weakens. Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen of the department of geography at the University of Hull, editor of the journal Energy & Environment ( http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61313975 , Denglisch) and a past expert reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, summed up the politicization of climate science: “The research agenda involving climate has covered all disciplines and has perverted, undermined and weakened the whole research sector of the Western world.” So McCarthy was spouting nonsense when she told the Senate committee, “If left unchecked, [man-made climate change] will have devastating impacts on the United States and the planet. The science is clear.” No: Serious scientists question virtually every aspect of the climate scare. Indeed, the science is quickly becoming less clear as we learn how complex the system really is. If McCarthy was being sincere when she expressed concern about the welfare of America’s most vulnerable citizens, then she’d welcome input from the world’s leading experts rather than shunning those whose opinions she finds inconvenient. Instead, the EPA is intent on regulations that will drive energy prices through the roof, throwing millions out of work, while having no measurable impact on the environment. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition (climatescienceinternational.org)." http://nypost.com/2014/08/10/how-the-epa-ignores-the-public-and-science/
Roy Warren Spencer, University of Alabama, NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement American Meteorological Society’s Special Award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29
University of Alabama 301 Sparkman Drive Northwest Huntsville AL 35899 USA roy.spencer@uah.edu Phone: +1 256 961 7960 http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/
JOSHUA B. HALPERN et al COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS" International Journal of Modern Physics B Volume 24, Issue 10, 20 April 2010 http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X
GERLICH GERHARD; RALF D TSCHEUSCHNER REPLY TO "COMMENT ON 'FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS' BY JOSHUA B. HALPERN, CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE, CHRIS HO-STUART, JOEL D. SHORE, ARTHUR P. SMITH, JÖRG ZIMMERMANN" International Journal of Modern Physics B, v24 n10 (20100420): 1333-1359 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/4640225609 http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/gerlich-reply-to-halpern.pdf
"U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements Date: 12/06/2006
Statement of Dr. David Deming University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy Climate Change and the Media Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor's degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me. I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.
The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."
In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to "warp the whole course of nature." In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph.
Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.
There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.
Earth's climate system is complex and poorly understood. But we do know that throughout human history, warmer temperatures have been associated with more stable climates and increased human health and prosperity. Colder temperatures have been correlated with climatic instability, famine, and increased human mortality.
The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
"Published on March 12th 2014: A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years."
"(...) Dr. Revelle and I continued to have professional interactions in the 1970s. He invited me to spend a few months as his guest at the Center for Population Studies at Harvard where he was a visiting professor, and Al Gore was to be one of his students. (...)" S. Fred Singer The Revelle-Gore Story Attempted Political Suppression of Science http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
To evaluate this issue of Roger Revelle one has to keep in mind that Harvard University (Boston) hosts also the geoengineer David Keith: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7021#Post7021 And as we know from the history of technological development science causes multiple ways to go. Science itself is objective but only in the way of giving the same results after repeating trials. As science causes multiple ways to go it causes also specific problems for each way. You may have a fanatic scientist who is convinced of his idea because it means that he or she will make an even greater carreer than with another idea. And therefore this same idea of the fanatic scientist becomes subjective what is everything else but scientific. And this way science is not even a religion or ideology it is diving board to personal advantages on behalf of the community.
Minute 5 Second: 15 John Coleman Memo The Scientists and organizations that take 4.7 Billion tax dollars a year to continue Global Warming Research (Snapshot below)
This is a lot of money. And for sure: to get it you have to fight like a ice hockey player. Maybe this is the real reason of the creation of the "hockey stick curve" (look to the IPCC-Chart below).
And therefore time doesn't play any role - at least for those who want to have a lifetime-job: "Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rt-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
To keep the emotional stress level high by scare is one of the tasks to stay in reach of the BILLIONS not only MILLIONS.
As we have seen in economics the mathmatical algorithms did not work because the ASSUMPTIONS were wrong. Nevertheless the mathmatical algorithms did their job: they reduced the numbers of possible critics because mathematical reasoning is not easy to comprehend. That way mathmatics served as an ideological tool to keep and build up an economic power structure around these algorithms. At the ende there was a damage of TRILLIONS - not just BILLIONS or even MILLIONS.
And it looks also that way with the ideological tool of Computer Climate Models: "Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rt-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
And as the whole globe is on sale there is a market of about 150 Trillions US$ on Assets worldwide which have to deal with the planned dictatorial (legal term: "obligation to contract" because of the public good "CO²") impact of the proclaimed Global warming, although the greatest uncertainty in the climate is the existance of clouds which make 97 percent of the greenhouse gases. But the amount of clouds depends usually on the space weather.
If we take in account that we live in a market-orientated societal system it is no wonder that for economic survival everybody is looking for markets.
We know the advantages of capitalism but - unfortunately - we forget always the disadvantages. Psychologically this is a natural behavior. Nevertheless, the follow-ups of the disadvantages of market-orientated behavior accumulate. And what does happen then? We get into a crisis - again and again. And after the crisis there are mostly some kind of recoveries.
On September 12th 2014 bloomberg news reports that the Weather Channel is considered to be sold.
"Weather Channel Owners Said to Consider a Sale
Tough for Individual Networks to Negotiate for Cable and Satellite Carriage
The buyout firms that own Weather Channel Cos. have spoken to JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs Group about strategic options including a possible sale, according to people familiar with the matter.
Weather Channel hasn't begun a formal process or hired a bank, according to the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions were private. Blackstone Group, Bain Capital and Comcast Corp.'s NBC Universal bought Weather Channel Cos. in 2008 for about $3.5 billion.
Weather Channel Cos. includes the Weather Channel TV network, digital properties including Weather.com, Weather Underground and Intellicast.com, and Weather Services International, or WSI, a weather forecasting service.
The private-equity firms are interested in exploring the idea of selling all or part of the company, according to two people familiar with the matter. They also may decide to hold their ownership stakes rather than sell, the people said.
Spokeswomen for Weather Channel and JP Morgan declined to comment, while a spokesman for Goldman Sachs couldn't immediately be reached for comment. Representatives for NBC Universal, Blackstone and Bain declined to comment.
Weather Channel, which is distributed to more than 100 million U.S. households, could potentially be sold to a cable network company, while the company's weather data could be acquired separately, one of the people said. The businesses combined have a value of at least $3.5 billion, the person said.
Yahoo considered acquiring the Weather Channel in 2012 as part of a tax-efficient asset swap with Alibaba Group Holding and SoftBank, people familiar with the matter said at the time.
DirecTV dropped the Weather Channel for about three months earlier this year after failing to come to an agreement about how much the network should be paid in affiliate fees. The Weather Channel agreed to cut back on its reality programming to include more local weather updates when DirecTV agreed to a new deal in April.
The disagreement with DirecTV highlights the potential weaknesses of networks that don't negotiate carriage contracts in conjunction with other channels. While NBC Universal owns a portion of the Weather Channel, NBC's sales and distribution team doesn't work on its deals, giving the network limited leverage over pay-TV operators.
Fees dispute In February, DirecTV said it had lost a 'few thousand' customers because of the absence of the Weather Channel from its lineup.
DirecTV, with 20 million subscribers, had pushed for a reduction of more than 20% in the fees it pays the Weather Channel, which had asked for an increase of 1 cent a month per subscriber.
The Weather Channel, based in Atlanta, averaged 13 cents a month per subscriber in 2013 and in 2012, according to estimates from researcher SNL Kagan. It averaged 214,000 daily viewers in 2013, down from 264,000 in 2011, according to data provided by Nielsen.
With such an economic background in mind it is no wonder that the Weather Channel founder was "disavowed" by just the same Weather Channel. His opinion was not business-affine: For the stock exchange there are future businesses just around the corner as it is expected there may be an international treaty arranged in France at the end of 2015 for just the topic criticized by the Weather Channel founder John Coleman. There is no space for objective scientific discussion for economic reasons as the economy lives at least from 50 percent psychological motives. And where there is no space for objectivity there is no space for dissidents.
And therefore there are assumptions for climate models made nobody understands which are additionally disguised by informatic and mathmatical algorithms nobody understands again - accept by those few who know how to interpret those formulas.
And that way it is like with the Black Swan ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb ) who did care about the mathmatics in economics because the basic assumptions for the economic models were wrong. This cost Trillions in 2008. But what are a couple of Trillions when you have a lookout to hundreds of trillions - as it appears with an international climate treaty.
Addendum December 16th 2015: My comment to the following passage
"(...) John Coleman (co-founder of The Weather Channel) is also unfortunately cited (by many who claim to be fighting geoengineering) as "proof" that there is no global warming. First, Coleman's training and degree is in journalism, not meteorology. Next, Coleman has made it his mission to completely deny and "debunk" the geoengineering reality. Why would anyone claiming to be in the fight to expose and stop climate engineering use Coleman as a a source? Propagating disinformation from paid propagandists like those above is extremely harmful to the anti-geoengineering effort. (...)" http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/category/breaking-news/ http://phys.org/news/2015-10-boosting-efficiency-solar-panels.html
AMS=American Meteorological Society "Award for Extraordinary Scientific Achievement (...) 1983 John S. Coleman 'for his many years of service in presenting weather reports of high informational, educational, and professional quality to a national television audience, and for his pioneering efforts in establishing a national cable weather channel combining the latest advances in broadcast technology, weather science, and meteorological communications.' " http://web.archive.org/web/20120327112435/http://www.ametsoc.org/getpastawards/get_allawards.cfm : page 27 of the pdf-file below: "AMS All Awards Inquiry" http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0171087/
"Current AMS Sealholders (those who earned or applied for the Seal prior to January 1, 2005 ) are not required to hold a degree in meteorology (or equivalent)." http://askville.amazon.com/John-Coleman's-educational-background/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=11910171
I don't believe in this CO²-stuff. This is my opinion. As long there is not empirical proof (not only computer models) there is no real proof for the allegations made around the CO²-myth. I don't need a "Coleman" to be convinced. I did not even know his popularity in the U.S. before I collected information about the CO²-topic. For me, it's all about money. Because you need new economic demand you have to create it artificially - by FORCED economic demand. You can observe this trend everywhere. Look to Larry Summers and his suggestion of creating forced investment by abolishing cash. It's same strategy.
"Next, Coleman has made it his mission to completely deny and 'debunk' the geoengineering reality. " (geoengineering.org) If you access a broader public audience you will get confronted with this kind of denial anyways. For me, this does not matter. Alone the creation of the CO²-myth shows that money is the topic above all. In this way you can create any story for the public - although it's lie - if you have enough "consciousness power" through the media. ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=16591#Post16591 ) In the end it all comes to money. And if the audience has swallowed this fact they will be also critical to the "events" in the sky. And who can say that he or she is always right? Nobody likes to admit that he or she is sitting by an error. If CO² is not the cause of the crazy weather, what could it be?
My suspicion is that Coleman acts similiar to Kachelmann (he has no degree in meteorology) in Germany. He used his attacks on the "chemtrailers" to profile his "power" of his image as a weather expert. Although the background of Kachelmann is probably different to Coleman nevertheless the function as a celebrity in this field is used as a value for itself. To say it in other words: To become more influential and to avoid an image as a "Conspiracy Theorist" (Crazy Person) the denial of geoengineering/climate engineering is the economic logic to earn money in the field of "weather". As the CO²-critical faction in the U.S. is more powerful than in most of Europe Coleman uses this market share of the public to get an audience. And probably he is convinced of his opinion regarding CO² himself.
Full unedited interview with S. Fred Singer - Part 1
"Published on February 16th 2010: In the 1960s S. Fred Singer was a leading figure in the early development of earth observation satellites, becoming a Special Advisor on space developments to President Eisenhower and establishing the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center as well as becoming its first Director. Now he works tirelessly to debunk the bad science about man-made global warming. He is an amazing man. It was my honor to meet him at several conferences we attended and to interview him for “Global Warming: The Other Side.” Here is that complete interview."
Full unedited interview with S. Fred Singer - Part 2
"Published on February 16th 2010: In the 1960s S. Fred Singer was a leading figure in the early development of earth observation satellites, becoming a Special Advisor on space developments to President Eisenhower and establishing the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center as well as becoming its first Director. Now he works tirelessly to debunk the bad science about man-made global warming. He is an amazing man. It was my honor to meet him at several conferences we attended and to interview him for “Global Warming: The Other Side.” Here is that complete interview."
" 'My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.'
Roger Revelle, in a letter to then Congressman Jim Bates, July 14, 1988" Booker, Christopher The real global warming disaster : is the obsession with 'climate change' turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history? London : Continuum, 2009. Page 59 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/320495333
"Christopher Booker interweaves the science of global warming with that of its growing political consequences, showing how just when the politicians are threatening to change our Western way of life beyond recognition, the scientific evidence behind the global warming theory is being challenged like never before. --from publisher description" http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/320495333
"We should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer. It is not yet obvious that this summer's hot weather and drought are the result of a global climatic change or simply an example of the uncertainties of climate variability. My own feeling is that we had better wait another 10 years before making confident predictions." Roger Revelle in a letter to Senator Timothy Endicott Wirth, July 20th 1988 Booker, Christopher The real global warming disaster : is the obsession with 'climate change' turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history? London : Continuum, 2009. Page 59 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/320495333 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wirth
"In 1991, Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Dr. Singer says that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem."
"Dr. John R. Christy Professor and Director Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama in Huntsville 320 Sparkman Drive, NSSTC 4040 Huntsville, AL 35805 Telephone: (256) 961-7763 FAX: (256) 961-7751 Email: christy@nsstc.uah.edu " http://nsstc.uah.edu/users/john.christy/
Climate Fraud! Global Warming Hoax! Professor John R. Christy
Professor John R. Christy suspects at Minute: 6 Second: 35 also economic motives as a driving force for the introduction of a dictatorial economic system. (legal term: "obligation to contract")
Department/Program(s): Physics Position: Professor Title: Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics. Office: 258 Jadwin Hall Princeton NJ 08544 USA Phone: 609-258-4382 Email: happer@princeton.edu Homepage: http://physics.princeton.edu/atomic/happer/index.html
Climate Change, William Happer testimony to Senate Energy Committee on February 25, 2009:
Dr William Happer Destroys Climate Change Hysteria in 7 minutes
Physicist William Happer Schooled The CNBC Crowd On Global Warming
The Myth of Carbon Pollution John Locke Foundation Raleigh, North Carolina September 8, 2014 William Happer Princeton University
Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature. By HARRISON H. SCHMITT AND WILLIAM HAPPER May 8, 2013 6:37 p.m. ET http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323528404578452483656067190
"Veröffentlicht am 24.06.2015 Author of the seminal book on climate; "Physics of the Atmosphere & Climate" Professor Murry Salby is without doubt one of the best Climate Scientists on the planet. In a lecture in London on the 17th March, 2015, he reveals new work which shows that;
1) The climate sensitivity is below 0.2c - confirmed by 3 independent methods. 2) Most of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic. 3) CO2 movements and concentrations are largely determined by nature, not man; consequently, any cuts we make to our CO2 emissions will not have the desired effect, and are a costly waste of time. 4) CO2, whether man-made or not, does not 'drive' the climate system.
Professor Murry Salby has been vilified by enviro-alarmists and the left for his scientific results. Salby was disenfranchised and exiled from academia in Australia for daring to speak such “sacrilege.” In a case similar to many others we have seen in Australia, and across the west, he was the subject of University hate and was finally sacked while he was on a lecture tour in Europe; his employer, Macquarie University of NSW, sacking him from his position as Professor of Climate Science. The University board cancelled his return ticket home, stranding him in Paris. All Salby's work was confiscated and has still not been returned to him.
The pursuit of genuine Science in the field of climate - and free speech are Dead in most Western Universities: Other cases where top scientists were vilified and sacked or demoted by a University for the results of their science or for their views on the climate include; Bob Carter, Murry Salby Lennart Bengtsson, David Legates, George Taylor, Caleb Rossiter, Bjorn Lomborg, Henk Tennekes, Askel Winn-Nielsen, Alfonso Sutera, Anonio Speranza and scores of others." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8
Prof. Nir J. Shaviv On Sabbatical Leave (2014-2015): Member, IBM Einstein Fellow School of Natural Sciences Institute for Advanced Study Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540
Office: BH-152 Phone: 609-734-8020
Permanent Address: Racah Institute of Physics The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem, 91904 Israel
The Great Global Warming Swindle Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4.
Minute: 2 Second: 26 Professor Dr. Nir Joseph Shaviv
Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery
Minute: 30 Second: 16 Professor Dr. Nir Joseph Shaviv
Minute: 32 Second: 34 Professor Dr. Nir Joseph Shaviv DR. ALEXEY N. DMITRIEV: Warming of the solar system http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=12977#Post12977 Professor Dr. Nir Joseph Shaviv comes to different conclusions than DR. ALEXEY N. DMITRIEV, but they both agree on more cosmic particles in the solar system because of the entry into a spiral arm of OUR Milky Way.
"Keywords: total solar irradiance;solar magnetic activity [1] Variations in the total solar irradiance (TSI) associated with solar activity have been argued to influence the Earth's climate system, in particular when solar activity deviates from the average for a substantial period. One such example is the 17th Century Maunder Minimum during which sunspot numbers were extremely low, as Earth experienced the Little Ice Age. Estimation of the TSI during that period has relied on extrapolations of correlations with sunspot numbers or even more indirectly with modulations of galactic cosmic rays. We argue that there is a minimum state of solar magnetic activity associated with a population of relatively small magnetic bipoles which persists even when sunspots are absent, and that consequently estimates of TSI for the Little Ice Age that are based on scalings with sunspot numbers are generally too low. The minimal solar activity, which measurements show to be frequently observable between active-region decay products regardless of the phase of the sunspot cycle, was approached globally after an unusually long lull in sunspot activity in 2008–2009. Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least-active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth's long-term climate change."
Author Information 1Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center, Palo Alto, California, USA 2National Solar Observatory, Tucson, Arizona, USA 3Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA 4Space Radiations Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA Email: C. J. Schrijver (schrijver@lmsal.com)
If economics are the driving force to keep up the assumptions about the causes of global climate development one may not wonder about the evaluation of the Met Office: "The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity."
Now, suddenly the Pacific Ocean is supposed to be the cause of the pause. Maybe - after all - the assumptions in total are wrong.
I just received an e-mail from AVAAZ shown in the snapshots below. As AVAAZ receives a lot of publicity it is worth to discuss the content of this e-mail.
As it relates to the Paris Summit about the Climate it is of political relevance what the content of this e-mail connotes. It connotes that mankind is able to influence the release of methane.
The Climate summit in Paris is about CO². This is a different kind of gas compared to methane.
It connotes further that influencing the amount of exhaust of CO² which is a whole different subject would also influence the release of methane. This is the main message sent by AVAAZ, as the e-mail is signed by the AVAAZ-Founder Ricken Patel.
As it is not proven that the gas CO² influences the world temperature at all there can't be made a connection between the release of methane and the amount of CO².
The founder of the CO²-Thesis said it himself before his death.
In reality, the earth magnetic field - besides the cosmic radiation from Sun and the rest cosmos - influences the amount of particles entering the atmosphere. As the earth magnetic field is weakening it is logical that more particles from outer space are entering the inner part of the atmosphere and warm up the whole atmosphere.
Unfortunately, Ricken Patel does not relate to any specific "scientist" in his e-mail. He avoids that way to make any specific person or only group to make accountable to such statements as done by Ricken Patel. That way Patel refuses to discuss such statements resiliently.
In other words, his e-mail is just a campaign element to push an ideology which is not founded by facts.
The campaign is about technology-change in quotidian life and does not have to do with a real threat. This campaign is a hedge for the investment of big companies.
If the methane bubbles are becoming a real threat - depending on the amount - they will be taken care by atmospheric geoengineering.
Although atmospheric geoengineering is already going on it is not for those reasons. If the already going-on atmospheric geoengineering could be done on credible facts it would have been easier to make the atmospheric geoengineering "OFFICIAL".
"The earth is 15 years from a 'mini ice-age' that will cause bitterly cold winters during which rivers such as the Thames freeze over, scientists have predicted. Solar researchers at the University of Northumbria have created a new model of the sun's activity which they claim produces 'unprecedentedly accurate predictions'. They said fluid movements within the sun, which are thought to create 11-year cycles in the weather, will converge in such a way that temperatures will fall dramatically in the 2030s. Solar activity will fall by 60 per cent as two waves of fluid 'effectively cancel each other out', according to Prof Valentina Zharkova. • Fiddling with temperature data is biggest science scandal ever (31,000 comments) In a presentation to the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, she said the result would be similar to freezing conditions of the late 17th century. '[In the cycle between 2030 and around 2040] the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the sun,' she said. 'Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. 'We predict that this will lead to the properties of a "Maunder minimum"'. Maunder minimum, indicating low sunspot activity, was the name given to the period between 1645 and 1715, when Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.
In England during this 'Little Ice Age', River Thames frost fairs were held. In the winter of 1683-84 the Thames froze over for seven weeks, during which it was 'passable by foot', according to historical records. Prof Zharkova said scientists had known about one dynamo caused by convecting fluids deep within the sun, but her research appeared to have uncovered another. 'We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the sun’s interior,' she said. • Climate change could undermine the last 50 years of health advances • Loaves of bread 'smaller in future' due to climate change • Polar bears 'have started eating dolphins due to climate change' 'They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. 'Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent.' This had helped create a picture of what would happen in the 2030s. 'Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity,' Prof Zharkova said." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html
As the Methane Emerging Group (MEG) ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=10311#Post10311 ) relates also to the Geoengineering-Technology it is noted that the critic in this threat is limited to the usefullness of Geoengineering-Technology to the CO² topic. It is my opinion that CO² is used as a public ideology to introduce Carbonless everyday technologies. The purpose of this ideology is to produce fear as a motivation factor for changing the economy into a carbonless economy. But this won't help anything for the Methane PROBLEM as Methane is released from nature - and not by men. A changed human CO²-less conduct won't lead to a Methane-less atmosphere.
Therefore it should be differentiated between the CO²-ideology and the METHANE-release by nature on a massive scale.
My suspicion: The destruction of the ozone layer leads to that release: Schellnhuber, Hans-Joachim Selbstverbrennung Die fatale Dreiecksbeziehung zwischen Klima, Mensch und Kohlenstoff München 2015 ISBN 978-3-570-10262-6 http://d-nb.info/1070333867 Translation of the title: Self-immolation The fatal triangle relationship between climate, man and carbon
Schellnhuber is a scientific representative of the CO²-hypothesis. Nevertheless, there is truth about the content of the book title: Methane consists also of carbon. Therefore, the massive Methane release entails to "immolation" caused by the lacking ozone layer: Northern California, USA: excessive Ultraviolet radiation 2013 http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=16562#Post16562
As a consequence the carbon issue is much more complex as the mass media are connoting. The mass media present the carbon issue as it would be that simple to save the earth by changing into carbonfree technologies. The motivation of the mass media: maximizing the profits by its owners who are part of the economic machine.
One has also to take in account that meanwhile a huge international bureaucracy and many national bureaucracies are existing to nourish the CO²-claim for securing their own subsistence. The misuse of environmentalism leads to the expansion of areas of "accountability". Without any scientific PROOF. (just computer models)
According to this article of DIE ZEIT vom March 17th 2016, page 9, Rainer Baake, Staatssekretär (Secretary of State), Bundeswirtschaftsministerium (Federal ministry of the economy), Germany gives data that there is still a potential of 15.000 Gigatons of CO² in the earth in form of oil, gas or coal. Baake wants to keep these worldwide 15.000 Gigatons in the ground. Baake is Member of the Green Party in Germany. As Staatssekretär he's the second person just behind the Federal Minister of the economy in Germany. Therefore, his words are German government policy.
The article is full of policy aims to be realized until 2050. The legal legimatization of these goals comes from the Paris Summit last year. In Reality, Industrial policy is expressed in this article.
Baake does not write it specifically, but between the lines there is the idea of FORCED econonmy to forbid investments into fossile technologies. Even gas is planned to be created artificially. What Baake does: He uses a theory with vague assumptions as a proof of a coming global catastrophe to found a legitimation for introduction of a FORCED economy in the style of the former Eastern bloc.
Strangely, these ideas of a carbonfree economy are contrary to developments around the globe. If you look to "To Whom Does The North Pole Belong?" http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=17150#Post17150 there is a military buildup and military revival of old cold war installations along the Russian Polar coast. The ice-free North Pole is waiting to be exploited: Oil, gas or liquid gas. 22 percent of all accessible fossile energy reserves on earth are in the area of the arctic. These are also 22 percent of 15.000 Gigatons CO² to be kept under the ground, if Baake could get his will.
Overcoming FORCED Economy was the political goal of the Cold War. Anticommunism was the instrument to realize this goal. Nowadays, it seems that there is a revival of FORCED Economy ideas within the same political system which fought FORCED Economy until 1990. And the most strange thing: there is no open debate about the content of a possible FORCED Economy. Therefore: the actual aim is not to establish a carbonfree economy, the actual aim is to intensify the regulation mania into even more spheres. A guaranteed income strategy by using the legislator.
An example: if you are enforced by law to insulate your building instead of spending money for oil or gas you loose the possibility to choose between spending money for insulation or for oil or gas. In other words: you are regulated. Even better: if the insulation produces moulds you have to pollute the ground water with poison as a consequence of fighting molds above ground or finally tear down your house.
Similiar things happen in the insurance branch which influences everyday life because of legal restraints before insurance guarantees are implemented.
Even worse: You get enforced to have insurances although you don't have any income - you become a private debtor by law besides being already a debtor for public liabilities as a citizen.
After lobbyists of all kind plundered the public sphere they penetrate the private sphere using the debts of the public sphere to blackmail legislators for their plundering wishes toward the individual.
And you need always a good story to keep public resistance low.
" (...) What harms our efforts to credibly and effectively expose climate engineering? False conclusions based on false headlines put out by those who either don't have any understanding of current front-line realities, or who don't care because they are pursuing other agendas. (...)" http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/climate-engineering-and-climate-reality/
Dane Wigington's view: Warming of the earth's atmosphere is real.
"Even small changes in the abundance or location of clouds could change the climate more than the anticipated changes caused by greenhouse gases, human-produced aerosols, or other factors associated with global change." NASA https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/135641main_clouds_trifold21.pdf
"Kritische Annahme über Politik und Technologie. In Bezug auf Politik und Technik wurden absichtliche menschliche Eingriffe zur Klimaveränderung aus der Analyse ausgeschlossen." "Critical assumption about politics and technology. In regard to politics and technics intentionally driven human interventions towards climate change were excluded from the analysis." (translated by Denglisch) http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=17855#Post17855
As Dane Wigington suspects that public accessible data is suppressed:
it maybe useful to look beyond the own region.
Dane Wigington's claim: "The earth is currently warming at the thermal energy rate of 45 Hiroshima-size nuclear bombs per second." (Minute 18 Second: 40)
Nevertheless, as the technical understanding is limited. The climate change-issue may be only a business model to create a money source.
If there is no proof of such a warming rate nothing can be believed. It would be a big threat. Such a big threat would have a political impact. A political impact means consequences!
The global warming philosophers don't mention such a rate. They would be glad to do so if it would be true.
Nuclear power was internationally spreaded the same way not noting that different kinds of radiations could have had different bio-affine effects. But only Uranium-235 and Plutonium reactors got the chance to be realized.
BSc, M.Eng, PhD. Expertises: Various subjects of Physical Sciences; Computers Software and mathematics; linguistics and social sciences. Australian Councillor for the International Confederation for Thermal Analysis & Calorimetry. Secretary of the Victoria Branch, the Australian X-ray Analytical Society. International Advisory Board member for the first Beijing International Huaxia Conference on Therman [SIC] Analysis & Calorimetry." http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/do...-cao-checks-the-numbers/#comment-1122812
"Thomas Levenson, author of 'Ice Time: Climate, Science and Life on Earth,' described Dr. Roberts as one of a handful who nurtured and defined the science of climatology.
'His contributions were not in scientific experiments,' said John Firor, director of advanced studies at the center, 'but in creating organizations that could study the earth's climate and atmosphere, and the problems that impact the future of the world.' " http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/14/o...-expert-on-climate-s-effect-on-life.html
"(...) The central focus of Aspen's S/T/H program, Walt explains, is to find ways in which humanity can produce and distribute enough food for the world's population as it grows exponentially over the next 30 years. From 1976 until 1980, the impact of climate catastrophes on food production will be evaluated, and ways in which the resulting human suffering might be lessened in the future will be explored. As they examine these complex problems, the S/T/H staff will be looking for new ways to focus the collective efforts of leaders of public action, people from the humanities, and mem- bers of the scientific, engineering, and business communities on policy alternatives--choices involving the humanistic use of scientific and technological knowledge to improve the quality of life for the world's people. (...)" http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/staffnotes/asset-000-000-000-517.pdf
"(...) Von 1962 bis 1967 studierte Thüne die Fächer Meteorologie, Geophysik, Physik, Mathematik und Geographie an der Universität zu Köln und der FU Berlin. Im Anschluss arbeitete er zunächst beim Wetteramt Frankfurt und war ab 1968 Referendar des Deutschen Wetterdienstes (DWD). 1969 folgte das zweite Staatsexamen zum Wetterdienstassessor. Danach war er Meteorologe in der Analysen- und Vorhersagezentrale des DWD. Nebenbei war er 1971 bis 1986 Fernsehmeteorologe beim ZDF.(...)" https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Thüne_(Meteorologe)
"(...) From 1962 to 1967 Thüne studied meteorology, geophysics, physics, mathematics and geography at the University of Cologne and at the Free University Berlin. Subsequently he worked at the Weather Service Frankfort and was from 1968 on trainee of the German Weather Service (Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD)). In 1969 the second state examination getting the legally protected title of a weather service assessor ("Wetterdienstassessor") followed. Afterwards he was meteorologist in the center for analysis and prediction of the DWD. Besides he has been the TV weather meteorologist at the ZDF (Second German TV-Broadcaster (of Public Law) between 1971 and 1986. (...)" (Translated by Denglisch)
We don't know in reality in what state the earth climate is. The earth can be even warmer in reality as it is right now. We just don't know it. The climate intervention programs have totally mixed up the natural play. The reduction of climate change to one single molecule as CO2 is an industrial policy to create artificial economic demand by force transforming the world economy into a capitalistic planned economy. And "tittytainment" shall help to convince the populace that everything is o.k.
What I'm extremely missing are empirical experiments on a smale scale which would explain in a simple way that CO2 is really a storage compound of heat.
Instead we get to know the repeating allegations which are supported by computer "models" to prove these allegations. This is not science. This is propaganda and marketing.
Minute 9 Second: 49 "Weltklima Forscher rechnen auch 2017 mit Wetterextremen" The "Tagesschau" claims there is an UN-report about weather extremes. Unfortunately, it does not give a hint to investigate the claims with some references. Nevertheless, there was a finding with an article of the Washington Post. In that article there was no reference made to the UN but to NOAA. The UN are an international body. NOAA is part of the U.S. government. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...peratures/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na Further research made leads to the website of the "Guardian" where you may find a reference as "polar heatwaves pushing ice cover to new lows". https://www.theguardian.com/environ...climate-change-world-uncharted-territory How many there were is not told. Maybe it was only the one of December 31rst 2005. Links within the Guardian article may lead to the World Meteorological Organization webpage. But there you have to look through a jungle of information before you have the information you are looking for. Heat waves like the one in Iceland are of importance. If you claim such an event it would have consequences in everyday-life. Also the German newspaper "Süddeutsche Zeitung" talks of polar heat waves as commonplace. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/news/pan...newsml-dpa-com-20090101-170320-99-735071 The question - as stated by Dane Wigington - why there are stationary weather structures as in California, USA are only answered with a fictive: "This is new territory." This is like Merkels announcement a couple years ago that the internet is "new territory" although the CeBIT has been going on since 1986. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CeBIT
What Prof. Jorge Chau embezzles is the explanation of the necessity to build a HAARP-array close to Tromso, Norway which is even bigger than the one in Alaska. Is this also only for the worldwide communication with submarines? The drastic rise in temperature of around 20 C degree around Iceland on December 31rst 2015 insinuates that EISCAT had a test run shortly before its official inauguration in march 2016.
It's obvious that the Tagesschau (ARD) wants to send a message showing black people in this context. It's a neurolinguistical connection with the racist topic. It's a similiar strategy as reducing the environmental problems to the CO²-question. Pure carbon itself is black. In other words: whoever questions the CO²-question is a racist. And again - that way you have a "right wing" respective a "leftist" topic which is emotionally loaden by each ones general political world views instead of hunting the truth up to reality. ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=18144#Post18144 ) Also without contradiction the broadcasting company of public law ARD defines that way what is "right wing" and what is "leftist" appearing to be politcally "neutral" - what it is not! Different interests beyond the usual ideological scheme determine the selection of the broad variety of topics existing around the world as a "News".
This post makes reference - look more above of this post - to the EISCAT field which is in Tromso, Norway. "EISCAT is funded and operated by research institutes and research councils of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, China and the United Kingdom (the EISCAT Associates). Institutes in other countries also contribute to operations, including Russia, Ukraine, Germany and South Korea." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EISCAT
If you stretch - with the help of HAARP-like facilities - the upper atmosphere into outer space you rise the responsiveness of this part of the atmosphere to cosmic particles which are the real motor behind the creation of clouds. You may also manipulate the JETSTREAM in that manner.
If you want to apply the "precautionary principle" to other arrays you end up with cosmic topics like gravitational waves or gamma rays from Supernovas coming already in the direction of Earth.
And there is a big discrepancy in applying the "precautionary principle": For the CO²-question it is supposed to be a matter of survival "just to guess that it could be harmful" whilst the appliance of the "precautionary principle" in matters of electromagnetic non-ionizing radiation is too expensive. This kind of handling of the "precautionary principle" - which is legally binding the Federal Republic of Germany - is a contradiction in itself.
"(...) Varenholt had studied Chemistry in Münster and started his professional career at the federal Umweltbundesamt (environmental protection agency) in Berlin and the Ministry for Environment of Hesse. From 1984 till 1990 he was in a leading role in Hamburg, first as Staatsrat for environment, 1990 to 1991 for the administral Senatskanzlei, and the Umweltsenator (senator for the environment) in Hamburg from 1991 to 1997.[2] (...)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt http://www.kaltesonne.de
Vahrenholt, Fritz; Lüning, Sebastian Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet Hamburg 2012 Publishing Company: Hoffmann und Campe ISBN 978-3-455-50250-3. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/864032159
Vahrenholt, Fritz; Lüning, Sebastian The neglected sun : why the sun precludes climate catastrophe Arlington Heights, Illinois The Heartland Institut [2015] http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/976435873
Ian Rutherford Plimer Heaven and earth : global warming, the missing science Lanham, Md. : Taylor Trade Publishing, cop. 2009. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/804334914
In this BBC documentary there is an example shown of how CO² is allegedly working as a trap of heat radiation. You may look below to realize the snapshots taken from the BBC documentary.
As the author of the BBC documentary is himself a geologist and lecturer at the Plymouth University, England, UK, one may expect that this supposedly scientific experiment may show the amount of CO² used in the glas tube showing the effect of CO² on the candle light. Unfortunately, he does not give a hint of the amount of CO² in the glas tube released from the gas bottle to the right of the author of the BBC documentary.
The principle problem of unterstanding the alleged greenhouse effect of CO² is how 0,04 percent of CO² in the earth's atmosphere can be enough to develop a greenhouse effect. The probability of heat radiation being trapped by CO² is 0,04 percent. The probability of heat radiation released into outer space is 99,96 percent without the greenhouse gas "water clouds" which depend on the particles of the sun wind.
If you assume that the heat radiation being trapped into the CO²-molecule for the first time is 0,04 % is being irradiated a second time by another CO²-molecule you have a probability of 0,04 % * 0,04 % which has a probability as multiplication product of 0,0016. This means a heat irradiation of 99,9984 % into outer space without the greenhouse gas "water clouds".
The conclusion is: Either the heat disappears into outer space or into "water clouds" which are raining or snowing down eventually.
G. MacDonald (Chairman) H. Arbarbanel P. Carruthers J. Chamberlain H. Foley W. Munk W. Nierenberg O. Rothaus M. Ruderman J. Vesecky F. Zachariasen The long term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate JASON April 1979 Technical Report JSR-78-07 prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/co2.pdf
"(...) Kann etwas ins Zentrum der Aufmerksamkeit vordringen, das nicht explodiert oder havariert oder schreit oder weint oder vermittels zweier Jahrzehnte unaufhörlich tagender internationaler Konferenzen in die Köpfe gehämmert wurde, wie das beim Klimawandel immerhin der Fall ist? (...)" Ulrich, Bernd Die Wahrheit auf sechs Beinen DIE ZEIT, October 26th 2017, Page 3 ISSN: 0044-2070 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/881572851
Translation "(...) Can something advance into the center of attention what is not exploding or is not sustaining damage or is not crying or in the way of endless holding meetings in international conferences is not hammering it into our brains during two decades how at least this was in the the case of climate change? (...)" (Translated by Denglisch) Ulrich, Bernd The truth upon six legs DIE ZEIT, October 26th 2017, Page 3 ISSN: 0044-2070 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/881572851
The image of objectivity which is inherent to science was used to claim that a climate change was underway. Interestingly enough: there was no scientific "consensus" - as the Cook overview study affirmed with the "97 per cent" today (which does not mean that ONE study is consolidated science) - in the beginning. Nevertheless - as Bernd Ulrich states himself - there has been an endless hammering into the brains by the mass media since the nineties that climate change would be underway.
No wonder that there is so much suspicion about the objectivity of this kind of science as objectivity of pure science was replaced by the hammering into the brains by the mass media. In other words: propaganda was the method - not empirical research.
As an example for the use of "objectivity": David Keith
He is not a professor of engineering of some kind. He is a professor for public policy.
And the word "policy" suggests that there is nothing empirical about the topic of "climate change" at all. In fact, it's nothing but "policy".
There is an overall international political will to manipulate the atmosphere in all kinds of manners.
And the academic title of David Keith as a professor for public policy demonstrates exactly what this mumbo jumbo is all about: "Climate Change" is all about politics.
The rest of this topic are only tools of politics to penetrate this topic into society.
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich Institut für Mathematische Physik der Technischen Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig Mendelssohnstr. 3 38106 Braunschweig g.gerlich@tu-bs.de https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Gerlich_(Physiker)
The following excerpt from the Code Napoleon shows two different versions of Article 1833 - the judicial base of economic activities for business companies in France.
Existing version: "Toute société doit avoir un objet licite et être constituée dans l'intérêt commun des associés." https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affi...444056&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721 "Every society must have a lawful object and be constituted in the common interest of the associates." (translated by Google)
Planned version: "Toute société doit avoir un objet licite et être constituée dans l'intérêt commun des associés.
La société doit être gérée dans son intérêt propre, en considérant les enjeux sociaux et environnementaux de son activité." http://www.editions-legislatives.fr/content/une-entreprise-doit-être-gérée-en-considérant-les-enjeux-sociaux-et-environnementaux-de-son- "Every society (meaning company, Denglisch) must have a lawful object and be constituted in the common interest of the partners.
Society (company, Denglisch) must be managed in its own interest, considering the social and environmental issues of its activity. " (translated by Google)
If you put a view to the picture below you can see the current positions of Voyager 1 and Voyager 2. These positions are not non-random!!!!! The official reason for these spacecrafts was sending the message of the existence of mankind. But also they have a scientific instrument on board which kept running on Voyager 2 when the spacecrafts left the heliosphere while on board of Voyager 1 it broke down before it left the heliosphere. Nicky Fox, NASA states: "The bubble of heliosphere protects earth." (Minute 1 Second: 47)
2018 Fall Meeting Press Conference: Voyager 2: Updates on the journey to interstellar space
41 years ago it could be forecasted by astrophysicists in what situation the heliosphere within the galaxy would be right now.
Voyager 1 as well as Voyager 2 could have been sent to another direction into space. But both they were sent to the place where is the most concentration of the interstellar dust (shown in the picture of the German daily newspaper "Welt") right now or the current interstellar dustlessness as demonstrated by Ben Davidson.
Both scenarios were so important to the government that it has spent the money financing these projects. Probably, it was guessed 41 years ago that this area would be of enormous interest today and tomorrow to explore it more efficently in situ. So we know that there is data coming from the Voyager spacecrafts explaining the situation there. ( https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2018/?s=Voyager ) At the time when the Voyager Spacecrafts - why two? - were started it was known in what direction within the galaxy the sun would move. Also the environment of the heliosphere was known at that time. Probably, it was calculated how the constellation would be in the future. For that reason they were sent in the directions of todays position. Not to the other side where the heliosphere has the shape of the earth's magnetosphere into the interstellar space. At the today's position it was guessed by the government that there will be the friction between the interstellar space and the heliosphere. These tensions are object of scientifical and the consequent political interest. This subjection to the galactic and intergalactic space due to the interstellar gas poverty (at least that is what Ben Davidson states) in the environment of the heliosphere is the reason why the Voyager spacecrafts were put to the position where they are right now. It is the hope of the mission to get a clearer picture around the ramifications of this constellation to earth. For sure, it is of relevance that cloud building is dependent on cosmic rays.
There is an instrument on board of the Voyager spacecrafts which broke down on Voyager 1 while still in the heliosphere. On Voyager 2 this instrument kept running. Leaving the heliosphere this instrument of only one spacecraft was turned on for measurements:
"**NEW** Voyager 2: Updates on the journey to interstellar space Monday, 10 December 11:00 a.m.
In 2012, NASA’s Voyager 1 left the heliosphere – the giant bubble surrounding the Sun filled by its constant outpouring of solar wind — and entered interstellar space. Voyager 2, launched two weeks before its twin in 1977, but followed a different, longer path toward that boundary. Along the way, Voyager 2 has been providing scientists with unprecedented observations on the nature of the space it’s traveling through, with an instrument that stopped working on Voyager 1 while still inside the heliosphere. In this briefing, scientists share current observations from Voyager 2 as it continues its epic journey.
Participants: Georgia Denolfo, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S.A.; Nicky Fox, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; John Richardson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.; Ed Stone, Caltech, Pasadena, California, U.S.A.
This long-run-planning for the Voyager projects shows that also today there are many available informations which the general public either can not interpret because there is no practitioner publicly available or which is kept off the general public like information from the EPA besides of official classifications by the government and companies.
Ben Davidson states that the heliosphere is right now entering a relative gas-free interstellar space - quite the opposite of what you see in the picture below.
This means that - according to Davidson - more cosmic radiation is entering the heliosphere.
Could this be an explanation for the chemtrail phenomenon? At least, this would be a rational explanation. But if nobody is explaining it, speculation about the reasons of the chemtrails will stay in the room. These space events on the outskirts of the heliosphere may also the reason of the long running preparation of the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (IPCC). Also, the new migration "pact" of the U.N. is on a intergovernmental level. As David Keith himself explains: "Attitudes of the populace are changing only slowly." Thus, you need a long-term preparation to change these attitudes overlapping generations.
During the pole change the magnetic field is very weak as Professor Axel Schult, Geophysicist, is explaining.
"Wissenschaftsdoku Risiko Polsprung Der magnetische Nordpol ist auf Wanderschaft: Jedes Jahr verschiebt er sich um 50 Kilometer. Mit diesem Tempo könnte er in 50 Jahren in Sibirien angelangt sein.
Y. I. Stozhkov, G. A. Bazilevskaya, V. S. Makhmutov, N. S. Svirzhevsky, A. K. SvirzhevskayaV. I. Logachev, V. P. Okhlopkov Cosmic rays, solar activity, and changes in the Earth’s climate in: Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/723877126 February 2017, Volume 81, Issue 2, pp 252–254
" (...) At the United Nations summit in Paris at the end of 2015, it was decided that greenhouse gases are responsible for the global warming of our planet. However, the authors of this work believe the question of what causes global changes in the Earth’s climate remains open, and will obviously be solved once and for all in the next 10–15 years." https://link.springer.com/article/10.3103%2FS1062873817020411
"The scientists dismiss both 'greenhouse gases' and variations in the Sun’s irradiance as significant climate drivers, and instead embrace cloud cover variations — modulated by cosmic ray flux — as a dominant contributor to climate change.
A concise summary: As cosmic ray flux increases, more clouds are formed on a global scale. More global-scale cloud cover means more solar radiation is correspondingly blocked from reaching the Earth’s surface (oceans). With an increase in global cloud cover projected for the coming decades (using trend analysis), a global cooling is predicted." http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/23/...ay-flux-to-climate/#sthash.5bZ22wEs.dpbs
"It is one thing to waste time and money playing with climate models in a laboratory, where they don’t meet minimum scientific standards, it is another to use their results as the basis for public policies where the economic and social ramifications are devastating." (Dr. Tim Ball) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03...ticians-but-remained-silent/#more-105765
Opinion during his working time (in the job): "Die in der Öffentlichkeit immer wieder angeheizte Krisenstimmung bis hin zur Panikmache bezüglich bevorstehender Küsten-Überflutungen hat keine naturwissenschaftliche Grundlage." "The always again inflamed sense of crisis up to imminent coastal flooding for reasons of scaremongering in the public does not have any scientific base." (Translated by Denglisch) Klaus-Eckart Puls, Bad Bederkesa, in: Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau, Heft 11, 2008 - klimanotizen.de ISSN: 0178-1049 http://www.klimanotizen.de/2008.07.12_Puls_AnthropogenerMeeres-Spiegel-Anstieg.pdfhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/66498871
Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie https://lobbypedia.de/wiki/Europäisches_Institut_für_Klima_und_Energie
Thomas E Graedel; Paul J Crutzen Chemie der Atmosphäre : Bedeutung für Klima und Umwelt Heidelberg : Spektrum, Akad. Verl., 1993. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50962947
Page 414: "Es gibt bereits soviel CO² in der Atmosphäre, daß in vielen Spektralbereichen die Aufnahme durch CO² fast vollständig ist, und zusätzliche CO² spielt keine Rolle mehr." (Crutzen) "There is already so much CO² in the atmosphere, that the intake in many spectral fields by CO² is almost complete." (Translated by Denglisch) In other words: the heat leaves into Outer space.
"Weil die Verdoppelung (von CO²) nur die von den Flanken der Kohlendioxidbanden herrührende Gegenstrahlung erhöhen würde ..." "Because the doubling (of CO²) would only raise the counterradiation coming from the flanks of the carbon dioxyde band ..." (Translated by Denglisch) Hans Hinzpeter, Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg promet (Offenbach) 1985 15.Heft 2/3, Page 49 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/499371849
Report of the Enquette commission of the German parliament "Bundestag" in 1988: " (...) Der Treibhauseffekt durch CO 2 wird im Wesentlichen durch seine Absorptionsbande bei 15 µm bewerkstelligt (vgl. Abb. 10). Die CO2-Absorptionsbande bei 10,4 µm hat einen Anteil von 5 bis 10 Prozent an der Strahlungsabsorption. Da die CO2-Absorptionsbanden bereits weitgehend gesättigt sind, nimmt der Treibhauseffekt durch zusätzliches CO2 nur noch mit dem Logarithmus der CO 2-Konzentration zu, so daß sich die Temperatur der Erde bei jeder Verdoppelung des CO2-Gehaltes der Atmosphäre jeweils nur um den gleichen Betrag erhöht (etwa 3° C, vgl. 2. Kapitel Nr. 1) (...)" http://dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btd/11/032/1103246.pdf page 191 "The greenhouse effect by CO² is basically accomplished by its absorptionsband at 15 µm (compare picture 10). The CO² absorption band at 10,4 µm has a share of 5 to 10 percent of the radiation absorption. The greenhouse effect by additional CO² is rising only with the logarithm of CO² concentration because the CO² absorption bands are already almost saturated. Therefore the temperature of the earth can only rise by every doubling of the CO² content of the atmosphere with only the same amount (around 3° C, compare 2nd chapter no. 1) (...)" (Translated by Denglisch)
The reference "(etwa 3° C, vgl. 2. Kapitel Nr. 1)" in the report of the "Enquete-Kommission" is a mistake. The statements made in the "2. Kapitel Nr. 1" are even worse as there is obviously a grave incomprehension of the whole topic.
The IPCC has stated in 1992 that CO² is only temperature sensitive with 3° C in total. CO² can not warm up by external radiation more than 3° C in total. And this can only happen within the specific electromagnetic band for CO². (Compare picture "Water steam window (...)" below and compare also "Different absorption spectra (...)" below) In addition to this obvious lack of understanding of the commission of what temperature sensitivity really means there is even more incomprehension regarding the time view on CO². Only the first 20 ppm of carbondioxide have the ability to warm it up by 1,5° C - every ppm of carbondioxide more in the air content has only a logarithmic value of the last temperature rise. This means that the ability of carbondioxide to store heat in its molecule is getting logarithmically lower and lower - 3° C in total. Quite the opposite of what the "public opinion" is spreading.
The question is: Who wrote this report of the German parliament "Bundestag" (Bonn) really? Usually reports of public entities are sent to its members who wrote them to be corrected before they get published. So - who of their staff had to do this job? And did this employee have the expertise to judge and write correctly what the experts had testified?
The responsible crew of the Enquete commission "Provisions for the protection of the atmosphere of the earth" of the German parliament "Bundestag": "Mitglieder der Enquete-Kommission 'Vorsorge zum Schutz der Erdatmosphäre' Stand: 4. November 1988 Bernd Schmidbauer, MdB (CDU/CSU) Vorsitzender Dr. Liesel Hartenstein, MdB (SPD) Stellvertretende Vorsitzende Dr. Eike Götz, MdB (CDU/CSU) Herbert Lattmann, MdB (CDU/CSU) Dr. Klaus W. Lippold (Offenbach), MdB (CDU/CSU) Heinrich Seesing, MdB (CDU/CSU) Prof. Monika Ganseforth, MdB (SPD) Volker Jung (Düsseldorf), MdB (SPD) Michael Müller (Düsseldorf), MdB (SPD) Dr. Inge Segall, MdB (FDP) Dr. Wilhelm Knabe, MdB (DIE GRÜNEN) Prof. Dr. Wilfrid Bach Prof. Dr. Dr. Paul Crutzen Prof. Dr. Klaus Heinloth Prof. Dr. Peter Hennicke Prof. Dr. Klaus Michael Meyer-Abich, Senator a.D. Prof. Dr. Hans Michaelis, Generaldirektor a.D. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schikarski Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Seiler Prof. Dr. Reinhard Zellner
Sekretariat Bodo Bahr (Leiter) Hartmut Behrend Dr. Wolfhart Dürrschmidt Anneke Trux Renate Zimmermann Dieter Wehrend Ingrid Schneidenbach Sabine Dresen Dagmar Schneider " http://dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btd/11/032/1103246.pdf page 2
As Bernd Ulrich (look to the post above: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=19176#Post19176 ) of "DIE ZEIT" stated there was (and still is) a massive hammering of the CO²-topic into the minds of people. In this context of hammering there is no space of reasoning thought. The affect is ruling. ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=19820#Post19820 ) Also, mathematics are a weakness of many people. Even additional education does not help always to better the mathematical understanding. (Prof. Dr. Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn) Therefore, the social and cultural integration of mathematics into everyday-life is difficult and there is - of course - resistance to think even in such terms because it is more difficult to think that way and it causes problems to communicate with each other. Naturally, there is no notion of what logarithms really mean. Also for members of parliaments. There are only few scientists in the political arena. And if you look to Angela Merkel she keeps her mouth shut or is that distrained meanwhile that she doesn't think in scientific means anymore. Why should she burn her tongue if there is a "political will" to shape a "CO²-story"?
And if you look to the report on page 191 (pdf) obviously there was no understanding by content what logarithm really means as "(etwa 3° C, vgl. 2. Kapitel Nr. 1)" in the citation would mean that above the 3° C temperature sensitivity of carbondioxide in total there was at least another 2° C added to 3° C coming to a total of alleged 5° C temperature rise in the refered "2. Kapitel Nr. 1" connoting that in the future we will have a temperature on earth 5° C higher than today. This is boloney as we know already that with 280 ppm CO² in pre-industrial times the strongest temperature rise by CO² (the first 20 ppm) is already more than included. On page 211 the second chapter number 1 states: "Neuere Zirkulationsmodelle errechnen teilweise sogar Temperatureröhungen von mehr als 5° C." ("Newer circulation models calculate partly even temperature rises of more than 5° C." (Translated by Denglisch)) This shows for sure that the authors of the report did not understand the term "logarithm" at all. Or didn't they want to understand "logarithm"? These authors don't understand neither to make a difference between theoretical "circulation models" and settled science as the unproven "97 % consensus" insinuates nor the meaning of real empirical science: Jeff Koon is bluffing the minds of the common people. The situation is similiar to the vodoo mathematics of the Masters of the Universe at Wall Street. The difference: not economics but "hard" science. But as we know meteorology is very soft! You try to grab the clouds and you have nothing in your hand.
The problem with the report of the German parliament is that it is "official". That means it can be cited by others and they may claim the authority of this parliament for their own intentions to convince the public of the welfare of their intentions.
But this is not science anymore. This is mere politics where other rules are ruling. These are the rules of "Kollektives Irresein" (Dr. Heinz Sundermann) ("Collective Insanity", translated by Denglisch). There are many people with many attitudes and many opinions and many interests and many dependencies in the public. This has nothing to do with getting the truth of reality. It has to do to be the winner. After extracting the truth out of reality, you may fight about the consequences of such a truth. If you change the facts into fake and claiming at the same time that other persons fake facts it is - for sure - not fighting for the welfare of a community. You just shape the reality as in software engineering. First you look at what you want and need as a result and secondly you look to what you need to have the intentioned results.
As was stated in the lines above the CO² is supposed to create a greenhouse effect. It is proven (IPCC) that CO² has only a (decreasing) logarithmic potential of 3° C heat production in total. As pre-industrial level of carbondioxide was already 0,04 percent of the earth's atmosphere (or 280 ppm as Wikipedia (topic "Klimasensitivität" not open for sceptics) states) the first 20 ppm with the biggest heat production factor (1,5° C) has been already occupied in pre-industrial times. Therefore it is impossible for carbondioxide to create that much more heat right now that it would be a threat to the living conditions on earth.
Therefore there was a second assumption created to legitimize the possibility of a greenhouse effect: The triggering of the water vapor production by a risen CO²-level in the air.
"factum: You have been criticizing for years the theory of human made climate change. Meanwhile many prominent scientists are catching the speaker's eye in this sense. How did you become a climate sceptic?" "factum: Sie kritisieren seit Jahren die Theorie vom menschengemachten Klimawandel. Inzwischen melden sich viele prominente Wissenschaftler in diesem Sinn zu Wort. Wie wurden Sie zum Klimaskeptiker? "Puls: Until ten years ago I have been regurgitating without proving what the climate council IPCC was narrating us. Somewhen I have started to ascertain the allegations. The result: It was beginning with doubts and ended in appalling and to the insight that quite a lot of that what the IPCC and the media said regarding the climate change is not right and not covered by scientific facts and metering. Today I feel ashamed for that what I have been "re-narrating" in own lectures. The in Germany obviously especially strong distinct CO2-Climate-hysteria is ideologically and tangible networked by a gemeinschaft of interests and enforced." Puls: Bis vor zehn Jahren habe auch ich ungeprüft nachgeplappert, was der Klimarat IPCC uns so erzählt. Irgendwann dann habe ich angefangen, die Behauptungen nachzuprüfen. Das Ergebnis: Es begann mit Zweifeln und mündete dann in Entsetzen und in der Erkenntnis, dass ganz viel von dem, was der IPCC und die Medien bezüglich des Klimawandels sagen, nicht stimmt und gar nicht durch naturwissenschaftliche Fakten und Messungen gedeckt ist. Für das, was ich früher als Naturwissenschaftler ungeprüft auch in eigenen Vorträgen «nacherzählt» habe, dafür schäme ich mich heute. Die offensichtlich in Deutschland besonders stark ausgeprägte CO2-Klima-Hysterie wird meines Erachtens durch eine Interessen-Gemeinschaft von Profiteuren ideologisch und materiell vernetzt und durchgesetzt. "factum: How about that with the global warming? Is there the climate change?" factum: Wie steht es dann mit der globalen Erwärmung? Gibt es den Klimawandel? "Puls: Yes because climate change is the normal. Consequently there was also always 'global warming' phases yet which bet the extent of today hollow. In the last hundred years there was a "global warming" of a threequarter degree. There has been no warming of the earth since 1998 though but the CO² continues to increase. The IPCC-close by institutes have been observing a slight cooling of one to two tenth degree since 1998, at best one may speak of a so-called temperature plateau. It is generally valid: The climate has been always yet changing and will always be changing." Puls: Ja, denn Klimawandel ist das Normale, folglich gab es immer auch schon «Global Warming» Phasen, die sogar das heutige Ausmass weit übertrafen. In den letzten hundert Jahren gab es ein «Global Warming» von einem dreiviertel Grad. Seit 1998 gibt es jedoch keine Erderwärmung mehr, CO2 steigt aber weiter an. Die IPCC-nahen Institute beobachten seit 1998 eine leichte Abkühlung von ein bis zwei zehntel Grad, allenfalls kann man von einem sogenannten Temperaturplateau sprechen. Generell gilt: Das Klima hat sich schon immer gewandelt und wird sich immer wandeln. "factum: The worldclimate council IPCC has prognosticated a 0,2 degree warming every decade respectively two to four degrees warming until 2100. How are you assessing this?" factum: Der Weltklimarat IPCC prognostiziert 0,2 Grad Erwärmung pro Jahrzehnt, beziehungsweise zwei bis vier Grad Erwärmung bis 2100. Wie bewerten Sie das? "Puls: These are speculative model devinations, so-called scenarios - no projections. Climate is a highly complex non-linear system. Therefore projections are impossible. This is standing exactly also literally in the IPCC report 2001. Nature does what she wants, and not that what the models are prophecying. The whole CO² debate is unreasonable. Even if there will be a doubling of atmospheric CO² then this can effect only around one degree warming because of physical reasons. The rest of the warming assumed by the IPCC rests upon speculative reinforcement processes which are proven by nothing. Right now we can observe after all that earth has not warmed up for 13 years although the CO² level has been continuing to rise." Puls: Das sind spekulative Modell-Prophezeiungen, so genannte Szenarien – keine Prognosen. Klima ist ein hochkomplexes nicht-lineares System, deshalb sind Prognosen unmöglich. Genau das steht auch wörtlich so im IPPC-Bericht 2001. Die Natur macht, was sie will, und nicht das, was die Modelle prophezeien. Die ganze CO2-Debatte ist unsinnig. Selbst wenn das atmosphärische CO2 verdoppelt wird, dann kann das aus physikalischen Gründen nur rund ein Grad Erwärmung bewirken. Die restliche vom IPCC angenommene Erwärmung beruht auf spekulativen Verstärkungsprozessen, die durch nichts bewiesen sind. Gerade können wir doch beobachten, dass sich die Erde seit 13 Jahren nicht mehr erwärmt hat, obwohl CO2 weiter zugenommen hat. "factum: What is it like with the rising of the sea level?" factum: Wie sieht es mit dem Ansteigen der Meeresspiegel aus? "Puls: The rising has slowed down more and more and in the last two years the global sea level has sunk even more than half a centimeter. These results came from the last 20 years through measuring of satellites, there has been level metering worldwide for about 150 years. The so-called 'mean sea level hight' is a counting unit, no metering value. In a strict sense there is however no 'global sea level'. We have differences in height up to 150 meters on the worldwide seas. The sea level is being influenced by tectonic processes like continental rising and lowering as well as through wind currents, passats, vulcanism. The climate change is only there one of ten factors." Puls: Der Anstieg hat sich immer mehr verlangsamt, und in den letzten zwei Jahren ist der globale Meeresspiegel sogar um mehr als einen halben Zentimeter gesunken. Diese Ergebnisse kommen in den letzten 20 Jahren durch Messungen von Satelliten zustande, Pegelmessungen gibt es weltweit seit circa 150 Jahren. Die so genannte «Mittlere Meeresspiegelhöhe» ist ein Rechenwert, kein Messwert. Genau genommen gibt es jedoch gar keinen «globalen Meeresspiegel». Wir haben Höhenunterschiede von bis zu 150 Metern auf den weltweiten Meeren. Der Meeresspiegel wird auch durch tektonische Prozesse wie Kontinent-Hebungen und -Senkungen beeinflusst sowie durch Änderungen von Windströmungen, Passaten, Vulkanismus. Der Klimawandel ist da nur einer von zehn Faktoren. Recht genaue Aussagen können wir zum Beispiel bei der Nordsee machen, wo man regelmässige Pegelmessungen vornimmt. factum: Was misst man denn für die Nordsee? Puls: In den letzten 400 Jahren ist der Meeresspiegel an der Nordseeküste um etwa 1,40 Meter gestiegen. Das sind 35 Zentimeter pro Jahrhundert. In den letzten hundert Jahren ist die Nordsee nur noch um 25 Zentimeter gestiegen. Der Anstieg hat sich also verlangsamt. factum: Hat der Anstieg etwas mit dem schmelzenden Eis am Nordpol zu tun? Puls: Das ist ein Trugschluss. Selbst wenn das ganze schwimmende Nordpoleis schmilzt, steigt der Meeres-Spiegel um keinen Millimeter. Nehmen Sie ein Glas Whiskey mit Eiswürfeln und warten Sie, bis diese geschmolzen sind. Der Pegelstand im Whiskey-Glas ist danach nicht höher. Das liegt daran, dass Wasser beim Gefrieren sein Volumen um zehn Prozent vergrössert und beim Schmelzen wieder um diesen Betrag verringert. Nur diese zehn Prozent des Eisberges ragen aus dem Wasser und verschwinden wieder beim Schmelzen. Das ist das Archimedes’sche Prinzip. factum: Und dass die Gletscher in den Alpen schmelzen, liegt nicht nur an der globalen Erwärmung? Puls: Auch da gibt es viele Faktoren. Wenn man einen Berg besteigt, fällt die Temperatur um 0,65 Grad pro 100 Meter. Als es in den letzten hundert Jahren ein dreiviertel Grad wärmer wurde, verschob sich die mittlere Null-Grad-Grenze somit um rund 100 Meter nach oben. Zu beobachten ist aber, dass nicht nur die unteren Gletscher schmelzen, sondern auch die auf 1000 Meter und höher. Das hat eine andere Ursache, nämlich Russ und Staub. Dunkleres Eis voller Aerosole absorbiert mehr Sonnenstrahlung, wobei die Strahlung in fühlbare Wärme umgewandelt wird. Sie merken den Unterschied selbst, wenn sie statt eines weissen ein schwarzes T-Shirt tragen, worunter Ihnen in der Sonne viel wärmer wird. Doch Russ und Staub gibt es nicht nur anthropogen seit der Industrialisierung, sondern auch in der Natur, zum Beispiel durch Vulkanismus, Staubstürme, Wald- und Steppenbrände. Aus diesen Gründen gab es auch in der Erdgeschichte immer schon Gletscherschmelzen, wobei man zum Beispiel aus Forschungsergebnissen der Glaziologen weiss, dass die Alpengletscher in den letzten 10 000 Jahren meist kleiner waren als heute. factum: Ihrer Ansicht nach steht es auch gar nicht so schlimm um das schmelzende Eis in der Antarktis, in der vor drei Jahren ein riesiger Eisberg wegbrach? Puls: Nein, im Gegenteil. In den letzten 30 Jahren hat die antarktische Eiskappe an Fläche und Volumen zugenommen und die Temperatur dort abgenommen. Das betrifft sowohl die Antarktis als auch den peripheren schwimmenden Eisgürtel. Diesen 30-Jahre-Trend kann man recht gut beurteilen, weil man ungefähr seit dieser Zeit dort ein Messnetz mit etwa 40 Stationen von verschiedenen Ländern hat. Stationen, die schon länger messen, wie die Amundsen-Scott-Station der USA direkt am Südpol, dokumentieren, dass die Temperatur sogar bereits seit 1957 zurückgeht. In der Antarktis sind 90 Prozent des Eises der Erde gebunden, und die Antarktis ist etwa eineinhalb Mal so gross wie Europa. factum: Wieso lesen wir dann oft, es sei in der Antarktis wärmer geworden? Puls: Die einzige erwähnenswerte antarktische Region, in der es in den letzten Jahrzehnten wärmer geworden ist, ist genau das Gebiet, in dem im März 2008 ein 100 Quadratkilometer grosser Eisberg vom Wilkins-Schelf abgebrochen ist: die Region der Antarktischen Halbinsel. Sie umfasst jedoch kaum ein Prozent der Fläche der Antarktis. Diese Halbinsel liegt rund 1000 Kilometer südlich von Feuerland und erstreckt sich um weitere 1000 Kilometer nach Süden. Somit liegt sie voll im Einflussgebiet der stärksten Sturmzone der Erde, der südhemisphärischen Westwinddrift. factum: Was verursacht solche Abbrüche? Puls: Bei Eisabbrüchen in der West-Antarktis spielen nicht nur Dicke, Druck und infolgedessen Rutschungen eine Rolle, sondern über die Jahrhunderte auch Intensitäts-Schwankungen dieser Westwinde, analog zu den Zirkulations-Schwankungen in den gemässigten Breiten der Nordhalbkugel, zum Beispiel auf dem Nordatlantik. Intensivieren sich die Westwinde, was seit mehr als 20 Jahren auf der Südhalbkugel beobachtet wird, so wird es zum Beispiel an der Westküste der Antarktischen Halbinsel wärmer, denn der Temperaturunterschied zwischen den Winden und dem damit anbrandenden Meerwasser und dem Eis beträgt mehr als 20 Grad. Zweiter Faktor sind die durch die Winde hervorgerufenen Sturmwellen. Sie schlagen gegen das Eis und bewirken mechanisch einen Eisabbruch. Und ein dritter Faktor: Wenn sich immer mehr Schnee und Eis nach oben hin auftürmen, wächst die Eisdicke und damit auch der Druck nach unten. Druck erzeugt Wärme, so dass sich unter dem Eis eine Flüssigwasserschicht bildet, auf der die Gletscher anfangen zu rutschen. All diese Ursachen sind also meteorologischer beziehungsweise physikalischer Natur und haben nichts mit irgendeiner Klimakatastrophe zu tun. factum: Dann muss es auch schon früher solche Eisabbrüche gegeben haben? Puls: Ja, seit Jahrtausenden, so auch in den 70er Jahren, in denen ja noch nicht von «Global Warming» die Rede war. Im Gegenteil: Der «Spiegel» titelte noch im August 1974: «Kommt eine neue Eiszeit?». Es gab damals Eisabbrüche von einigen hundert Quadratkilometern Durchmesser, so dass in den Medien diskutiert wurde, ob man die Eisberge per Schlepper in trockene Länder wie Südafrika oder Namibia als Trinkwasserversorgung bringt. Das war dann aber logistisch schwer zu bewältigen. factum: Was ist mit den Fotos von den Eisbären, die nicht mehr genug Eis haben und die gern in den Medien abgedruckt werden, wenn es um den Klimawandel geht? Puls: Das ist eine der schlimmsten Klimahysterie-Geschichten. Der Eisbär ist da die Ikone. Der Eisbär frisst kein Eis, er frisst Robben. Er stirbt, wenn wir die Robben bejagen oder gar ausrotten, und nicht, wenn das Eis schmilzt. Er hat genug Land, auf dem er leben kann, es gibt im Nordpol-Bereich sehr viele Inseln, ausserdem Nordgrönland, Alaska, Sibirien, die ganze Polarkalotte. Die Eisbärpopulation hat sich während der mässigen Klimaerwärmung auf der Nordhalbkugel sogar erhöht! Vor 50 Jahren wurden in der gesamten Nordpolregion 5000 Eisbären gezählt, heute sind es etwa 25 000 Eisbären. factum: Aber es ist richtig, dass das Eis in der Arktis, anders als in der Antarktis, weiterhin schmilzt? Puls: Ja, es schmilzt seit 30 Jahren. Das hat es aber auch schon in den letzten 150 Jahren zweimal gegeben. 2007 gab es einen sommerlichen Tiefpunkt, seitdem gibt es jedoch jedes Jahr im Sommer wieder etwas mehr Eis. Das Eis schmilzt im Sommer und legt im Winter wieder zu. Die Sorge der Forscher im Jahr 2007, dass der so genannte unumkehrbare Kipppunkt erreicht sei, war unbegründet. Der Sommer-Tiefpunkt von 2007 wurde seit fünf Jahren nicht mehr erreicht oder gar unterschritten. Eisschmelzen hat es schon immer gegeben. Zwischen 900 und 1300 war Grönland bereits schon einmal in den Randbereichen grün, die Wikinger besiedelten «Grün-Land». factum: Und was sagen Sie zur oft behaupteten Ausdehnung der Wüsten? Puls: Die existiert nicht. Die Sahara schrumpfte zum Beispiel zugunsten der umliegenden Steppen. In den letzten 20 Jahren schrumpfte die Sahara im Norden um etwa 300 000 Quadratkilometer, ein Gebiet fast so gross wie Deutschland. Im Süden der Sahara liegen die Trockensteppen des Sahel-Gürtels. Auch dort ist seit mehr als 20 Jahren sowohl eine Zunahme von Niederschlägen als auch das Ausbreiten von bestimmten Bäumen und Sträuchern zu beobachten. Mittlerweile ist eine Fläche von etwa 300 000 Quadratkilometern «ergrünt». Die in 2010 aufgetretene Hungersnot in Somalia, Kenia und Äthiopien ist vor allem durch die Pachtung von grossen Ländereien durch internationale Konzerne und den dortigen Anbau von Bio-Sprit-Pflanzen für Europa aufgetreten, sowie natürlich auch durch Krieg und Terror. Es erscheint jedoch im wohlhabenden Europa bequemer zu sein, eine fiktive Klima-Katastrophe für die gesellschaftlichen Fehler und Versäumnisse dieser Welt verantwortlich zu machen. factum: Brauchen wir dann gar nichts gegen den Klimawandel tun? Puls: Wir können nichts dagegen tun. Naturwissenschaftlich ist es schier absurd, durch ein paar Drehungen an irgendwelchen CO2-Stellschrauben «ein schön angenehmes stabiles Klima» festhalten zu wollen. Viele verwechseln jedoch Klimaschutz und Umweltschutz. Das Klima können wir nicht schützen, aber wir müssen natürlich die Umwelt schützen und uns, unter anderem, um sauberes Trinkwasser für alle Völker kümmern. Noch etwas ist mir wichtig: Eine auch meines Erachtens in wesentlichen Ansätzen sinnvolle Debatte zu alternativen Energien wird auf eine irrationale Klima-Debatte draufgesattelt. Das eine hat mit dem anderen nichts zu tun. n Factum. Berneck, Switzerland ISSN: 1660-5462 https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Puls.factum.03.2012.pdf http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/29804621
English: "factum: You’ve been criticising the theory of man-made global warming for years. How did you become skeptical?
Puls: Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power.
factum: Is there really climate change?
Puls: Climate change is normal. There have always been phases of climate warming, many that even far exceeded the extent we see today. But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling.
factum: The IPCC is projecting 0.2°C warming per decade, i.e. 2 to 4°C by the year 2100. What’s your view?
Puls: These are speculative model projections, so-called scenarios – and not prognoses. Because of climate’s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren’t possible. Nature does what it wants, and not what the models present as prophesy. The entire CO2-debate is nonsense. Even if CO2 were doubled, the temperature would rise only 1°C. The remainder of the IPCC’s assumed warming is based purely on speculative amplification mechanisms. Even though CO2 has risen, there has been no warming in 13 years.
factum: How does sea level rise look?
Puls: Sea level rise has slowed down. Moreover, it has dropped a half centimeter over the last 2 years. It’s important to remember that mean sea level is a calculated magnitude, and not a measured one. There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g. tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, volcanoes. Climate change is only one of ten factors.
factum: What have we measured at the North Sea?
Puls: In the last 400 years, sea level at the North Sea coast has risen about 1.40 meters. That’s about 35 centimeters per century. In the last 100 years, the North Sea has risen only 25 centimeters.
factum: Does the sea level rise have anything to do with the melting North Pole?
Puls: That’s a misleading conclusion. Even if the entire North Pole melted, there would be no sea level rise because of the principles of buoyancy.
factum: Is the melting of the glaciers in the Alps caused by global warming?
Puls: There are many factors at play. As one climbs a mountain, the temperature drops about 0.65°C per 100 meters. Over the last 100 years it has gotten about 0.75°C warmer and so the temperature boundary has shifted up about 100 meters. But observations tell us that also ice 1000 meters up and higher has melted. Clearly there are other reasons for this, namely soot and dust. But soot and dust do not only have anthropogenic origins; they are also caused by nature via volcanoes, dust storms and wildfires. Advancing and retreating of glaciers have always taken place throughout the Earth’s history. Glaciology studies clearly show that glaciers over the last 10,0000 years were smaller on average than today.
factum: In your view, melting Antarctic sea ice and the fracture of a huge iceberg 3 years ago are nothing to worry about?
Puls: To the contrary, the Antarctic ice cap has grown both in area and volume over the last 30 years, and temperature has declined. This 30-year trend is clear to see. The Amundsen Scott Station of the USA shows that temperature has been declining there since 1957. 90% of the Earth’s ice is stored in Antarctica, which is one and half times larger than Europe.
factum: Then why do we always read it is getting warmer down there?
Puls: Here they are only talking about the West Antarctic peninsula, which is where the big chunk of ice broke off in 2008 – from the Wilkins-Shelf. This area is hardly 1% of the entire area of Antarctica, but it is exposed to Southern Hemisphere west wind drift and some of the strongest storms on the planet.
factum: What causes such massive chunks of ice to break off?
Puls: There are lots of factors, among them the intensity of the west wind fluctuations. These west winds have intensified over the last 20 years as part of natural ocean and atmospheric cycles, and so it has gotten warmer on the west coast of the Antarctic peninsula. A second factor are the larger waves associated with the stronger storms. The waves are more powerful and so they break off more ice. All these causes are meteorological and physical, and have nothing to do with a climate catastrophe.
factum: Then such ice breaks had to have occurred in the past too?
Puls: This has been going on for thousands of years, also in the 1970s, back when all the talk was about “global cooling”. Back then there were breaks with ice chunks hundreds of square kilometres in area. People were even discussing the possibilities of towing these huge ice chunks to dry countries like South Africa or Namibia in order to use them as a drinking water supply.
factum: What about all the media photos of polar bears losing their ice?
Puls: That is one of the worst myths used for generating climate hysteria. Polar bears don’t eat ice, they eat seals. Polar bears go hungry if we shoot their food supply of seals. The polar bear population has increased with moderately rising temperatures, from 5000 50 years ago to 25,000 today.
factum: But it is true that unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is melting?
Puls: It has been melting for 30 years. That also happened twice already in the last 150 years. The low point was reached in 2007 and the ice has since begun to recover. There have always been phases of Arctic melting. Between 900 and 1300 Greenland was green on the edges and the Vikings settled there.
factum: And what do you say about the alleged expanding deserts?
Puls: That doesn”t exist. For example the Sahara is shrinking and has lost in the north an area as large as Germany over the last 20 years. The same is true in the South Sahara. The famine that struck Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia was mainly caused by the leasing of large swaths of land to large international corporations so that they could grow crops for biofuels for Europe, and by war. But it is much easier for prosperous Europe to blame the world’s political failures on a fictional climate catastrophe instead.
factum: So we don’t need to do anything against climate change?
Puls: There’s nothing we can do to stop it. Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. it’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other." http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/09/...rman-meteorologist/#sthash.b5E8q3df.dpbs
This final section of the Technical Summary provides readers with a short overview of key uncertainties in the understanding of the climate system and the ability to project changes in response to anthropogenic influences. The overview is not comprehensive and does not describe in detail the basis for these findings. These are found in the main body of this Technical Summary and in the underlying chapters to which each bullet points in the curly brackets.
TS.6.1 Key Uncertainties in Observation of Changes in the Climate System
• There is only medium to low confidence in the rate of change of tropospheric warming and its vertical structure. Estimates of tropospheric warming rates encompass surface temperature warming rate estimates. There is low confidence in the rate and vertical structure of the stratospheric cooling. {2.4.4} • Confidence in global precipitation change over land is low prior to 1951 and medium afterwards because of data incompleteness. {2.5.1} • Substantial ambiguity and therefore low confidence remains in the observations of global-scale cloud variability and trends. {2.5.6} • There is low confidence in an observed global-scale trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall), due to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends. {2.6.2} • There is low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone characteristics are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. {2.6.3} • Robust conclusions on long-term changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation are presently not possible because of large variability on interannual to decadal time scales and remaining differences between data sets. {2.7} • Different global estimates of sub-surface ocean temperatures have variations at different times and for different periods, suggesting that sub-decadal variability in the temperature and upper heat content (0 to to 700 m) is still poorly characterized in the historical record. {3.2} • Below ocean depths of 700 m the sampling in space and time is too sparse to produce annual global ocean temperature and heat content estimates prior to 2005. {3.2.4} • Observational coverage of the ocean deeper than 2000 m is still limited and hampers more robust estimates of changes in global ocean heat content and carbon content. This also limits the quantification of the contribution of deep ocean warming to sea level rise. {3.2, 3.7, 3.8; Box 3.1} • The number of continuous observational time series measuring the strength of climate relevant ocean circulation features (e.g., the meridional overturning circulation) is limited and the existing time series are still too short to assess decadal and longer trends. {3.6}. • In Antarctica, available data are inadequate to assess the status of change of many characteristics of sea ice (e.g., thickness and volume). {4.2.3} • On a global scale the mass loss from melting at calving fronts and iceberg calving are not yet comprehensively assessed. The largest uncertainty in estimated mass loss from glaciers comes from the Antarctic, and the observational record of ice–ocean interactions around both ice sheets remains poor. {4.3.3, 4.4}
TS.6.2 Key Uncertainties in Drivers of Climate Change
• Uncertainties in aerosol–cloud interactions and the associated radiative forcing remain large. As a result, uncertainties in aerosol forcing remain the dominant contributor to the overall uncertainty in net anthropogenic forcing, despite a better understanding of some of the relevant atmospheric processes and the availability of global satellite monitoring. {2.2, 7.3–7.5, 8.5} • The cloud feedback is likely positive but its quantification remains difficult. {7.2} • Paleoclimate reconstructions and Earth System Models indicate that there is a positive feedback between climate and the carbon cycle, but confidence remains low in the strength of this feedback, particularly for the land. {6.4}
TS.6.3 Key Uncertainties in Understanding the Climate System and Its Recent Changes
• The simulation of clouds in AOGCMs has shown modest improvement since AR4; however, it remains challenging. {7.2, 9.2.1, 9.4.1, 9.7.2} • Observational uncertainties for climate variables other than temperature, uncertainties in forcings such as aerosols, and limits in process understanding continue to hamper attribution of changes in many aspects of the climate system. {10.1, 10.3, 10.7} • Changes in the water cycle remain less reliably modelled in both their changes and their internal variability, limiting confidence in attribution assessments. Observational uncertainties and the large effect of internal variability on observed precipitation also precludes a more confident assessment of the causes of precipitation changes. {2.5.1, 2.5.4, 10.3.2} • Modelling uncertainties related to model resolution and incorporation of relevant processes become more important at regional scales, and the effects of internal variability become more significant. Therefore, challenges persist in attributing observed change to external forcing at regional scales. {2.4.1, 10.3.1} • The ability to simulate changes in frequency and intensity of extreme events is limited by the ability of models to reliably simulate mean changes in key features. {10.6.1} • In some aspects of the climate system, including changes in drought, changes in tropical cyclone activity, Antarctic warming, Antarctic sea ice extent, and Antarctic mass balance, confidence in attribution to human influence remains low due to modelling uncertainties and low agreement between scientific studies. {10.3.1, 10.5.2, 10.6.1}
TS.6.4 Key Uncertainties in Projections of Global and Regional Climate Change
• Based on model results there is limited confidence in the predictability of yearly to decadal averages of temperature both for the global average and for some geographical regions. Multi-model results for precipitation indicate a generally low predictability. Short-term climate projection is also limited by the uncertainty in projections of natural forcing. {11.1, 11.2, 11.3.1, 11.3.6; Box 11.1} • There is medium confidence in near-term projections of a northward shift of NH storm track and westerlies. {11.3.2} • There is generally low confidence in basin-scale projections of significant trends in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity in the 21st century. {11.3.2, 14.6.1} • Projected changes in soil moisture and surface run off are not robust in many regions. {11.3.2, 12.4.5} • Several components or phenomena in the climate system could potentially exhibit abrupt or nonlinear changes, but for many phenomena there is low confidence and little consensus on the likelihood of such events over the 21st century. {12.5.5} • There is low confidence on magnitude of carbon losses through CO2 or CH4 emissions to the atmosphere from thawing permafrost. There is low confidence in projected future CH4 emissions from natural sources due to changes in wetlands and gas hydrate release from the sea floor. {6.4.3, 6.4.7} • There is medium confidence in the projected contributions to sea level rise by models of ice sheet dynamics for the 21st century, and low confidence in their projections beyond 2100. {13.3.3} • There is low confidence in semi-empirical model projections of global mean sea level rise, and no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability. {13.5.2, 13.5.3} • There is low confidence in projections of many aspects of climate phenomena that influence regional climate change, including changes in amplitude and spatial pattern of modes of climate variability. {9.5.3, 14.2–14.7}" Technical Summary of the IPCC report 2013 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf page 114 and 115
"The Climatic Research Laboratory (CRL) was a U.S. Army military clothing and equipment test site formerly located at Lawrence, Massachusetts from 1943 to 1954.
The lab tested textile and insulating materials and was capable of simulating climatic conditions throughout the world (e.g., desert, rain forest, tundra, mountain). A 'Jungle Room' was maintained for thermal physiological testing on human volunteers. Field trials were conducted by the lab at sites such as the Dolly Copp Test Site at the foot of Mount Washington, New Hampshire." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Laboratory
What is really irritating in the whole green house gas discussion is the fact that in the forties of the last century it was possible to make real climatic experiments and now, it is not possible anymore. That is really strange, very strange.
That is so strange that one is asking oneself if the world is really only shortly before doomsday because of "CO²".
One of the main objectives of your ambitions is to reduce carbon from the atmosphere. As we know plants are producing all kinds of sugar from carbondioxide with the help of the sun. The sun radiation splits the hydrogen atom from the oxygen atom. The carbondioxide molecule is splitted equally into a carbon atom and oxygen atoms. The hydrogen atom is added to the carbon atom which is "sugar". This process is called photo synthesis.
If you want to reduce carbon from the atmosphere you prevent plant growth.
As I noted you never mentioned in your recommendation that the reason of too much carbon in the atmosphere is mankind. Instead of it you cite in note 3: " 'Our present carbon-intensive energy system and related activities cause an estimated 4.5 million deaths each year linked to air pollution, hazardous occupations and cancer.' A Guide to the Cold Calculus of a Hot Planet, Climate Vulnerability Monitor 2nd Edition."
This means that you don't know yourself if the carbon-intensive energy system would be the cause of a "greenhouse" effect as is widespreadly propagated in the public. Ms. Davila, you rely yourself on the suspected knowledge of others.
Therefore, it might be useful for you to listen to the following address of a scientist in meteorology and physics to broaden your knowledge in this public discussion: Dipl.-Meteorologist and Physicist Klaus-Eckart Puls:The Achilles' heel of the climate models(10. IKEK) http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=19728#Post19728
As you have seen and listened to this address you have learned that CO² has a structured climate sensitivity in logarithmic form. This means that the feared green house effect of CO² is not there as the temperature storage capability of CO² is 3 degrees C in total whereas the first 20 parts per million of CO² have stored 1,5 degrees C in their molecules a long time ago. The rest of the 3 degrees C - 1,5 degrees C - has increased the temperature storage only logarithmically aleph null. In preindustrial times there were 380 parts per million in the air. Every added CO²-molecule has a temperature storage capacity aleph null.
Ms. Davilla you ought to know that before you are scared by unrealistic imaginations. And scare others, too.
"Even small changes in the abundance or location of clouds could change the climate more than the anticipated changes caused by greenhouse gases, human-produced aerosols, or other factors associated with global change." https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/135641main_clouds_trifold21.pdf
" (...) Given the preliminary nature of these results, it’s too soon to rule out a negative cloud feedback. MIT’s Richard Lindzen, for example, has proposed a mechanism called the Iris Hypothesis that could in principle produce a cooling effect. The idea is that as the Earth warms, the increase in humidity leads to a change in the balance between heat-reflecting cumulus clouds and heat-trapping cirrus in the tropics, with the former increasing and the latter diminishing. The result would be a strong counterweight to greenhouse warming — not enough, perhaps, to overcome it, but enough to make the warming minimal.
The last sentence: That is generally the problem with climate science: the empirical proof. If 0,04% CO² can't be used to prove the INCREASING heat trapping effect, why should it be a problem that the number of cumulus clouds will increase as the humidity on earth will increase?
Carslaw 1, K. S., Harrison², R. G. 2, Kirkby³, J. Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate in: Science 29 Nov 2002: Vol. 298, Issue 5599, pp. 1732-1737 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/863047799
"Abstract It has been proposed that Earth's climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere. This proposal stems from an observed correlation between cosmic ray intensity and Earth's average cloud cover over the course of one solar cycle. Some scientists question the reliability of the observations, whereas others, who accept them as reliable, suggest that the correlation may be caused by other physical phenomena with decadal periods or by a response to volcanic activity or El Niño. Nevertheless, the observation has raised the intriguing possibility that a cosmic ray–cloud interaction may help explain how a relatively small change in solar output can produce much larger changes in Earth's climate. Physical mechanisms have been proposed to explain how cosmic rays could affect clouds, but they need to be investigated further if the observation is to become more than just another correlation among geophysical variables." http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5599/1732
1 Institute for Atmospheric Science, School of the Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. 2 Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK. 3 CERN, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
"His result suggested otherwise (2), showing that 'adding one molecule of CFC to the atmosphere would have the same greenhouse effect as adding more than 10,000 molecules of carbon dioxide.'" Veerabhadran Ramanathan https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC556241/
Ryan Hossaini, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Stephen A. Montzka, Amber A. Leeson, Sandip S. Dhomse & John A. Pyle The increasing threat to stratospheric ozone from dichloromethane Nature Communications volume 8, Article number: 15962 (2017) https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15962
Stephen A. Montzka, Geoff S. Dutton, Pengfei Yu, Eric Ray, Robert W. Portmann, John S. Daniel, Lambert Kuijpers, Brad D. Hall, Debra Mondeel, Carolina Siso, J. David Nance, Matt Rigby, Alistair J. Manning, Lei Hu, Fred Moore, Ben R. Miller & James W. Elkins An unexpected and persistent increase in global emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11 Naturevolume 557, pages 413–417 (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0106-2
"(...) MAROTZKE: [...] Denn nach den neuesten Klimaszenarien ist die CO2-Menge, die wir noch freisetzen können, weitaus größer als bisher angenommen – eine fundamentale Erkenntnis.
SPIEGEL: Wir hätten also Zeit gewonnen, die CO2-Emisionen zu verringern?
MAROTZKE: Ganz genau, darauf deuten jedenfalls die verbesserten Modelle hin. Unser verbleibendes CO2-Budget für das 1,5-Grad-Ziel ist wohl mindestens doppelt so groß wie gedacht, fast tausend Gigatonnen. Dadurch verlängert sich unsere Galgenfrist um rund zehn Jahre. Es macht natürlich einen Riesenunterschied, ob wir den Ausstoß von Treibhausgasen schon in 15 oder erst in 25 Jahren auf null bringen müssen. Ich gehe davon aus, dass dies in dem Sonderbericht die zentrale Botschaft sein wird. (...)" http://www.spiegel.de/plus/klimawan...t-a-00000000-0002-0001-0000-000159786817
"Die Menschheit hat offenbar mehr Zeit, um die globale Erwärmung auf 1,5 Grad zu begrenzen. "Nach den neuesten Klimaszenarien ist die CO2-Menge, die wir noch freisetzen können, weitaus größer als bisher angenommen – eine fundamentale Erkenntnis", sagt der Klimaforscher Jochem Marotzke, Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, in der aktuellen Ausgabe des "Spiegel". "Dadurch verlängert sich unsere Galgenfrist um rund zehn Jahre. Es macht natürlich einen Riesenunterschied, ob wir den Ausstoß von Treibhausgasen schon in 15 oder erst in 25 Jahren auf null bringen müssen."
Die bisherigen Klimamodelle, so die Erklärung, waren an einer entscheidenden Stelle zu empfindlich. "Offenbar verbleibt ein kleinerer Teil der Treibhausgase in der Atmosphäre, weil Wälder und Ozeane mehr davon schlucken als gedacht", sagt Marotzke, der auch einer der Leitautoren des letzten Sachstandsberichts des Weltklimarats IPCC war. In den früheren Simulationen erzeugten die angenommenen Emissionen dadurch eine stärkere Erwärmung als in der Wirklichkeit." https://news-und-nachrichten.de/art...nschheit-hat-mehr-zeit-fuer-klimaschutz/ http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/staff/jochem-marotzke/?tx_wecstaffdirectory_pi1[curstaff]=41&cHash=b35a11fca30570c5331e64a4cbd3fa5f
Despite of a temperature anomaly this year with related parliamentary elections successes of the green party in the federal states of Bavaria and Hesse Marotzky does not use this temperature anomaly as a political weapon. (Look to the picture below.) https://www.dwd.de/DE/leistungen/be...n2018.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3
As Guy McPherson claims that civization collapse is right around the corner I don't want to withheld opinions with a similiar main thrust. In this case:
As there is also this claim of population collapse around the corner on the deagle.com website it is surely of interest to know what persons see the present situation similiarly but maybe of other reasons than population control.
Also it is of interest to get to know the suspected reasons of the collapse around the corner.
For me it is still a problem to believe something as scientific if there is openly a refusal to teach the common populace about the basic physical contexts of the working of CO². This kind of refusal is suspicious because it demonstrates an arrogant attitude towards the populace because it is supposed to be not able to understand such contexts.
If you compare the little effort of adequate didactical teaching with the huge expenditures for the climate change tourism of ministerial bureaucracies worldwide this kind of refusal is very, very, very strange.
Jem Bendell may move within the climate change discussion bubble but may be not. Who knows it really?
