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.
