Dipl.-Met. Klaus-Eckart pulse
Lecture:
"Our climate is made in space - Acquittal of CO2?"
, from: Astronomical Association Elbe-Weser, 6 February 2007
Preliminary remarks
In the past 100-150 years, it has become warmer. This is pretty much the only what is saved in the current climate debate as escalating. Above everything else is discussed and argued. That must be a scientifically enlightened society possible. This is not always easy, because the government has the "science climate catastrophe" possession. Critics and skeptics are marginalized in the media barely get a forum, so virtually no research money.
contrast, is projected by official institutions and bodies (eg IPCC), a rigorous catastrophism in the future of media and politicians increasingly shaping up to the hysteria of the citizens.
is overlooked in all this, in the history of science progress and secure new findings were never made by majority voting. From Aristarchus to Copernicus, Galileo, to Alfred Wegener countless scientists have had to endure and experience.
This paper will make a small critical contribution to making the debate.
1) The restless sun
The sun is a radiant heater, which on this earth for heat, food, weather, climate ... provides.
simultaneously Around 1610, Galileo and Scheiner discovered sunspots. Since then, it is known that the surface of the sun is constantly changing, cyclic (sunspot rhythms) and aperiodic (flares, prominences ...).
The restless sun (SOHO, NASA)
's only been about 20 years could be proved by the satellite above the Earth's atmosphere technology that with the changes on the sun interface is also the incoming energy from the atmospheric ceiling is constantly changing. Thus, the sgn. Solar constant (currently 1368 ± 8 W/m2) is actually an "inconsistent", Source: http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/forschung/groups/atmosphere/stratosphere/publications/ pdf / Diplomarbeit_Aaron . pdf).
If the (fictional) on the top of the atmosphere incoming Energy is changed, this change in the atmosphere and is ultimately given up to the surface further.
F o sum up: The changing solar radiation is a potent driver of climate! The dispute is
currently only on the share, the modern changes of the solar (in) constant at the current warming.
it is given in the scientific literature is very contradictory opinions:
IPCC (2007) says this: ". Involve changes in solar activity since 1750, it is estimated (!??), a radiative forcing of 0.12 W/m2 This is significantly lower than in the 2001 report originally 0.3 W/m2. "
" Since the previous report by the UN suggest solar physicists in their published reports that the sun could have had a much greater influence, as above announced. This could be more than two-thirds of the observed warming have caused. It also expects that the solar activity will decrease over the next 50 years, "
(Source:. http://www.scienceandpolicy.org/ , German Translator: M. Limburg, 08.02.2007, http:/ / www.oekologismus.de/ ).
With increased solar activity causes directly into the atmosphere and partly to the bottom of advancing short-wave electromagnetic energy radiation the sun warming.
This direct heating effect is accompanied / reinforced indirectly by an effect:
Increased solar radiation (electro-magnetic and particles) is joining the shielding magnetic field of the earth, thus reduces the penetration of cosmic particles radiation in the atmosphere, reduced as a result, the formation of condensation nuclei for clouds. This ultimately leads also to a warming of the ground and in the troposphere (Svensmark, H., Friis-Christensen, E.: Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage, a missing link in solar-terrestrial physics; J.Atm.Sol . Terr.Phys., 59 (11), 1997, S.1225-1232).
about the extent of this Effect, there is still no scientific consensus (Beising, R.: Climate change and energy, VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, Essen, 2006, p.39-40).
is apparently undisputed that "... the solar radiation in the past 60 years ... is at a high level remained more or less constant ..." (Source: Beising, R.: Climate change and energy, VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, Essen, 2006, S-40).
According to recent studies, the maximum solar activity in recent decades, the
pronounced for at least 11,400 years (source: Solanki, SK, Usoskin, IG, Kromer, B., Schussler, M. & Beer, J., Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous year 11.000, doi: 10.1038/nature02995, 2004).
"In conclusion it should be noted that the sun has a significant influence on our climate for the 20th century is the IPCC (2001) of a share of the global warming of about 20%;. Clausen (2003) takes a percentage of 25 40 max.% of. " (Beising, R.: Climate change and energy, VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, Essen, 2006, p.41).
Is that the "last word", or is more CO2 in further studies to get off the "charge-Bank"?
2) The Earth's orbital elements and the sun
is calculated for 80 years and well known that - Have led to constant changes in the Earth's orbital elements in space and their cyclical overlay to the climate fluctuations in the Earth and lead, because this also does change (in addition to 1) the solar radiation always on the ground (- above all else Milutin Milankovic, Mathematical teaching climate and astronomical theory of climate variations, 1930).
lead to minor changes in the Earth's orbital elements Milankovic
to a change in solar radiation and thus the fluctuations of the average global temperature
(ice ages and warm periods)
The Earth's temperature in the past can of course not be measured directly, but they can of air inclusions from ice cores, for example, derived from the Antarctic. This one measures the ratio of two oxygen isotope O18 and O16 in the air pockets. The colder it was, the less one finds O18, because the water molecules condense easily with the heavier oxygen isotope and shed rain. The temperature curves obtained in this way the last Jahrhundertausende confirm Milankovic impressive, because solar radiation (upper curve) and the O18/O16- ratio, ie the Earth's temperature (lower curve) are clearly interdependent.
is modified based on the earth by continental drift (Alfred Wegener, The Origin of Continents and Oceans, 1912), related to changing ocean currents and irregular periods of volcanic activity - changing radiation balance and albedo are .
F o sum 1) + 2): climate is billions of years since an ever-dynamic process that is controlled from space.
feedbacks of gases (atmosphere, greenhouse gases ...) play only a secondary Role.
Considering the enormous energy magnitudes of variable solar activity, the variations in the Earth's orbital elements, the feedbacks in the climate system atmosphere-earth's surface - so come to doubt whether by any man-made 'climate-protection measures' a "nice, stable comfortable climate" can create or receive.
is why the term "climate protection" scientifically nonsensical, if he makes good political sense, can not be discussed here.
3) CO2 - a glass roof over our heads?
In the public debate is seen as proof that the repeatedly mentioned the so-called act "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere like a glass roof / greenhouse.
This is physically wrong in several respects:
a) The "air trap" is the main heat-effect of a real glass house / greenhouse, not the diesbzgl. less significant "radiation case" (IR-absorption). The glass in the house by the sun or by hot air heating systems can not escape (convective inhibition). A glass roof in the atmosphere but it is not, and certainly not by any gases, which are themselves components of an upward completely open system.
Source: ETUC's world
b) Additional (Anthropogenic) CO2 is only a small "radiation case"
know the global warming modelers and accept that:
(1): "There is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere, that is, in many spectral regions the absorption by CO2 almost completely and no additional CO2 plays more important role "(Source: PJCrutzen (Nobel Prize for Chemistry); TEGraedel: atmospheric chemistry, spectrum Akad.Vlg, Berlin, 1993, S.414).
(2): "In the middle of the 15-micron absorption area has almost no effect of additional CO2 ..." (Source: IPCC Report 1994).
(3): "A doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere alone (effect) only a slight increase in mean surface temperature by a few tenths of a degree (Source: H. Hinz, MPI Hamburg promet, 15, No. 2 / 3, 1985, p.49).
So - why is because now the warming, if it is not CO2?
c) The greenhouse Modeler "discover" the steam-Gain:
water vapor is a physical unit, the gaseous state of water, so as a gas and not a cloud. Water vapor in the atmosphere by nature for millions of years the "main absorber" of infrared radiation (almost 70% of the absorbed radiation of all gases).
Not CO2, but water vapor is now to "save" the global warming models.
said given MPI Hamburg in 1985: as "... the doubling (of CO2) would increase only by the edges of the carbon dioxide bands arising against radiation, leads this temperature increase, however, subsequently, an increase of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, leading to a significantly higher increase in downward radiation, leading to the familiar assumed increase in the average temperature by two to three degrees Celsius would. " (Source: H. Hinz, MPI Hamburg, promet, 15, No. 2 / 3, 1985, p.49). And
IPCC (2001): "The water vapor feedback is still the most consistently feedback effect by the general circulation models in response to a CO2 doubling predicted global warming caused "
. (Source: IPCC, Climate Change 2001, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Contr.Wok.Gr.I, 3rd Ass.Rep.IPCC, Ch.7.2.1.1).
F o sum . Non-CO2 is "guilty", but the water vapor
However - do critics say, "... that the atmospheric water vapor is oriented not at all the CO2 in the atmosphere" (H. Hug, The fear trumpeter, Signum-V ., Munich, 2006, p.227).
is also undisputed in meteorology, for example, that over the oceans, the evaporation of the varying intensity of the (Western) wind flow (eg North Atlantic Oscillation NAO =), of clouds and radiation, the vertical exchange (convection), the water temperature ... depends, not from the CO2 in the atmosphere.
d.) clouds are "liquid" water
clouds consist of water droplets (1 micron to 1 mm). They reflect a pro rata radiation of the sun and Earth.
clouds are also the meaning of the laws of radiation absorber and radiator. They emit infrared radiation according to their temperature. However
: Clouds are not gases, and certainly no "greenhouse gases".
The climatic impact of clouds is largely unknown: "... the greatest difficulty (are) seen in climate research in the detailed parameterization of clouds ... to ..." and "... has in the past Years found that the reduction in the clouds the sun is not fully compensated by its increase of the thermal radiation to the ground. Therefore, they have as opposed to the net greenhouse gas has a cooling effect on the climate system "(Source: Bakan / Raschke, The natural greenhouse effect, in: promet, H.3 / 4, 2002, p.91 and p.93)
Recent. publications of an international Clouds Project (ISCCP) mean that further doubt on the CO2 greenhouse hypothesis. The mean global cloud cover has decreased 1986-2000 from 69% to 65% As a result, a radiation-related (and of CO2-independent!) heating from 0 , calculated 25 ° C, which largely explains the observed warming (IPCC) for that period. Since 2000, notes the global cloud cover again: 1998 to 2004 by 1.4%, and the temperatures have dropped worldwide since 1998, something again (see IPCC curve as well Source: International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), http : / / isccp.giss.nasa.gov /).
Conclusion: As for now: The water gain "should be" the earth "warm", but more water vapor the same time create more clouds, and the "cool" again! What remains?
e.) "The warming counter-radiation"
In the media, and unfortunately, sometimes also in the (popular) scientific literature of THE has been presented as if the "counter-radiation" of GHG the earth heats up and causes the active warming of the last 100 years. Next: The counter radiation caused by the fact that some gases in the atmosphere absorb infrared radiation of those parts (line spectra), which emanates from the earth's surface. The gases re-emit this radiation (again, in individual emission lines), even in part to space, some of the earth's surface. Now this would heat up the Earth constantly, so this would be the "perpetual motion" of radiation physics: the earth would heat up constantly by their own emitted energy. It's physically impossible. However - avoid the GHG (especially at night), that the earth's surface cools faster than without THG. Illustrate one can perhaps with the effect of a blanket: This is not an independent energy source, but it slows down the cooling of a body. However: Even a rug is not a "glass ceiling", it is permeable to air and therefore for convection. If you put in a sleeping bag at night under the open sky, so at some point you start to feel cold!
It "... there for the radiation transfer equation, unfortunately, no easy solution ... and it must be used appropriate approximation method for this task" (Source: Bakan / Raschke, The natural greenhouse effect, in: promet, H.3 / 4, 2002, p.93).
is the latest in atmospheric energy balance model of the NASA research institutions, the "counter-radiation" no longer!
(Source: http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif )
4) CO2 + temperature in the post-glacial (Holocene)
In the post-( was 10,000 years) CO2 by 150 years ago fairly constant at 280 ppm, although there have been climate fluctuations, eg
o "Optimum of the Holocene (6000-4000 BC /" green Sahara ")
o" optimum. the ancient civilizations "(3000-1000 BC. / Sumer, Babylon, Egypt ...)
o 'cold spell the migration of nations "(350-550 AD).
o" Medieval Climate Optimum (900-1200 AD. / Vikings in Greenland)
o "The Little Ice Age (ca. 1400-1800 AD).
no identifiable link between CO2 and global temperature
There are numerous literature sources, which for the traditional events from these climate phases significantly larger temperature fluctuations (in the warm periods up to 3 ° C "today") require that they provide the "current climate catastrophe."
example, says Prof. Negendank (GFZ Potsdam) "The variability (the temperature values) were, however, only since Roman times to the little ice age greater" than today (Source: The history of the climate of geobiowissenschaftlichen archives ", in: climate change, UWV / BTU Cottbus, self-published, 2001, p.32-38)
BC Monckton. "In some places the Middle Ages was warmer up to 3 ° C than it is today. There is evidence in scientific reports worldwide that the MWP occurred globally (Source: www.scienceandpolicy.org, German Translator: M. Limburg, 02.08.2007, http://www.oekologismus.de/).
. A CO2 greenhouse control eliminated, there was no CO2 fluctuations!
example, says Prof. Negendank (GFZ Potsdam) "The variability (the temperature values) were, however, only since Roman times to the little ice age greater" than today (Source: The history of the climate of geobiowissenschaftlichen archives ", in: climate change, UWV / BTU Cottbus, self-published, 2001, p.32-38)
BC Monckton. "In some places the Middle Ages was warmer up to 3 ° C than it is today. There is evidence in scientific reports worldwide that the MWP occurred globally (Source: www.scienceandpolicy.org, German Translator: M. Limburg, 02.08.2007, http://www.oekologismus.de/).
. A CO2 greenhouse control eliminated, there was no CO2 fluctuations!
5) We have today the highest CO2-value "of all time"?
No! Over the past 250 million years of Earth away until about two million years ago was the CO2 in the atmosphere continuously over the current value of 380 ppm, most of the time even at twice or three times the value - up to 1400 ppm!
(ppm = parts per million, 1 ppm = 1 part in 1 million parts)
Sources:
first U. Berner and H. Streif, climate facts, Nägele, Stuttgart, 2001;
second C. McElwain et al., Nature, 435, 479, 2005)
6) CO2 and temperature: Who follows who?
The public is suggested: 'The more CO2, the warmer it is - a CO2 increase follows a rise in temperature inevitably'.
This view is several years outdated, and researchers from USA, Russia and Germany / AWI have with the evaluations of the Antarctic ice cores found the exact opposite (Source: Alfred Wegener Institute, AWI-Report, 2004/05, Bremerhaven) "A detailed study of the phase relationship between CO2 and temperature shows that the glacial / interglacial changes in CO2 concentration primarily controlled by the temperature and CO2 is only secondary to greenhouse feedback leads. "
until the temperature rises and then at a distance
500-1500 years ( !) until the CO2
to the same conclusion and others are for the period of the past 250 million years, "reconstructions of past climate show that CO2 is not the driving force for the temperature development in the past "(Source: U. Berner and H. Streif, climate facts, Nägele, Stuttgart 2001).
Conclusion: These new research results challenge the current global warming hypothesis in question ("... on the head? ").
7th) has become more extreme our weather?
Says the German Weather Service (DWD) is clear: "In case of extreme weather events in Germany, however, observed so far no significant trends were also such events as the flood situation in 2002, part of the normal repertoire of our climate.." (Source: Communications from the German Meteorological Society, 3 / 2002, p. 2).
came to the same result of "Extreme Weather Congress 2006" in Hamburg - worldwide ! (Source: wetter magazine, 04/2006). This is true also in line
IPCC: "The IPCC could detect no trend at the global level in the extreme weather events and associate" (Source: Beising, R.: Climate change and energy, VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, Essen, 2006, p.137). And again, ibid
"show the analysis of long-term records of natural disaster losses indicate that societal change and economic development are mainly responsible for the increasing losses to date."
This statement is also always the world's largest non-life reinsurers: "... the main reason for the markedly increased amounts of loss from natural disasters (Is) in the socio-economic conditions to seek (concentration of values and population exposed regions, population growth, increased susceptibility to damage) (Source: T. Grimm, Munich Re, 'Strong increase in damage from hurricanes', in:. Wetter magazine 04/2006 , p.31).
8th) ... Katrina and other storms
Katrina was the storm that "the biggest loss in U.S. history ..." havoc "... an estimated 100 billion dollars ... "(Source: L. Kins, the record hurricane year 2005, Nat.Rdsch 3 / 2006, S.129ff.) If the secured
The facts.." strongest hurricane of all time " Katrina was not as it was already surpassed several years earlier, at least by "WILMA" (source and where). What was in the decades and centuries-before 1944, no one knows anyway, because we have only since 1944 on observations and statistics - a full 60 years. So therefore, even with hurricanes with (media) statements about Katrina as "storm of the century," "Monster's worst storm ever," "unique event ..." extreme care!
so it is logical because, if the above-Kins study concludes:
"Most climate scientists see the record-breaking season in 2005 or the natural variations."
"The NOAA - the American Weather Service - Has said in a statement dated 29.12.2005, that hurricane researchers and forecasters from the NOAA (but not all) assume that the current gain (to 2005) of the hurricane activity is primarily the result of a natural fluctuation in the tropical climate system " . (Source: Beising, R.: Climate change and energy, VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, Essen, 2006, p.124)
This looks exactly the way the IPCC: "There is no trend in the number of tropical cyclones" (Source: www . scienceandpolicy.org, German Translator: M. Limburg, 02.08.2007, http://www.oekologismus.de/ )
. Tropical cyclones (cyclones, hurricanes) are formed over tropical oceans with at least 26 ° C water. The warmer the sea water is evaporated and the more water, more energy is available to the hurricane. In cloud formation in the height (condensation), the evaporation of the water consumed in the energy is released again. This energy as heat caused a strong boost to the air from the ocean surface rises into the air. This creates a vortex at the foot of the enhancing area of low pressure that sucks in more and more hot and humid air from all sides (from above). The cloud system rotates due to the Earth's rotation, because then the Coriolis force effective. It intensifies over warm water on and on and turning faster and faster. In the center there is an almost windless eye. The newly formed cyclone is the general air currents carried by .
Since Katrina is also in the German media claimed time and again, storms and floods have increased in the North Sea for years. A study (KEPuls, NO 11/2006, S.605) proves the contrary: since a relative maximum around 1990 in the North Atlantic and North Sea severe storms, storm surges and the index of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) to 2006 decreased steadily. Since the winter of 2006/07 however, there is again an increase. This is related to the NAO variability normally.
The German weather service says. "Hurricanes of the magnitude of" Cyril "(18/01/2007) every 10-20 years is expected to be a direct reference to climate change can be produced from such individual events do not look at the storms and hurricanes of the last 30th years, it has neither the frequency nor the intensity increased.
(DWD press release dated 22.01.2007)
9) move away from poles - how dramatic is it?
dramatic trends to the North Pole will be taught. The
sees the Alfred Wegener Institute very much more restrained (AWI Research Highlights, 2002, Bremerhaven, p.25): "It is clearly seen that the ice volume ... strong decadal variation is subject is total, but a very slight decrease in ice volume of 4% per decade
The reasons for the fluctuations are primarily in.. the air pressure distribution and its prevailing winds (NAO). The air temperature plays only a very small role. "
"The high complexity of the Arctic climate system makes it difficult to view the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven (AWI) reliable predictions, especially since natural climate variability has played a major role in temperature changes in the last decades." (Source: Beising, R.: Climate Change and energy, VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, Essen, 2006, p.39-40).
"Zwally (2005) around the edges of Greenland, a significant decrease in the ice, but overall a slight increase in total ice mass in Greenland." (Source: Beising, R.: Climate change and energy, VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, Essen, 2006, p.131) and above (p.132) further, "The measurements of the changes of the Greenland ice and snow have yet no clear trend yield. "
Antarctica shows a hand greater regional ice boulders, on the other hand, overall growth of the ice sheet over the domestic - as a result of increasing snowfall:
"The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have increased over the past 30 years, and far more than compensate for the loss of glacial ice. (Source: http://www.oekologismus.de climate climate scientists, the IPCC's preliminary report and the truth, February 2007).
"The summer temperatures in some areas (Antarctica) has increased, in other south polar region, the temperature in the last 50 years has remained constant or fell slightly. The partial temperature drop in the Antarctic, which was not expected by the models can come to, in various causes attributed. " (Source: Beising, R.: Climate change and energy, VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, Essen, 2006, p.127).
"In the past 30 years has increased the mass of the Antarctic ice cap, conversely, a 6000-year long trend. The Antarctic contains 90% of the ice in the world and growing."
(Source: http://www.scienceandpolicy.org/ , German Translator: M. Limburg, 02.08.2007, http://www.oekologismus.de/ ).
10th) move away from Alpine glaciers - there was the so-ever?
to melting Alpine glacier experts say the Alps from Austria:
(http://www.zamg.ac.at) (quote): (. 9th-12th century) "At the beginning of the millennium were similar to the Alpine glaciers small, possibly even smaller than today. "
And further is said of the Austrian Alps experts that the glaciers since the beginning of the 20th Century "... towards the minimum level at the beginning of the millennium, during the medieval climate optimum, move" - ie not yet been due to natural "usual" climate fluctuations have reached its minimum. Sustainable human intervention in the atmosphere (CO2 debate) or directly into the Alpine region is necessary therefore not to lead to such changes bring. Nature, it will also own, as earlier today!
the same opinion as well as Prof. Jörg Negendank (GFZ Potsdam): "In Roman times, must have at least a warmer in the Alps Climate have ruled as today, as the great Aletsch glacier was further withdrawn "(Source: The history of the climate of geobiowissenschaftlichen archives", in: climate change, UWV / BTU Cottbus, self-published, 2001, p.32-38).
The glaciers ... melt in the Alps, but about 100 others are growing in Scandinavia, Alaska, Canada, South America, New Zealand and many parts of the Antarctic "(Source: http://www.oekologismus.de climate, climatologists, Preliminary Report of the IPCC and the truth, February 2007).
Eine entsprechende Auflistung mit Zuwachsraten findet sich bei:
(http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm).
"in Norway and New Zealand have been growing glaciers found. Statements about global change can therefore make only limited "
(Source: Beising, R.: Climate change and energy, VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, Essen, 2006, p.125)
11) The sea level -.. ? dramatic increase
spread over 30 years of research institutes and media horror predictions of meters high rising sea tides and flooded coasts and islands just "did not." -! the sea level does not follow the
In the Earth, the sea always on the move - upward and down. At the height of the last Ice Age (20-15000 BP) the sea level was at approximately 120-140 meters below the present level (Source:. CDSchönwiese, climate fluctuations, Sprig-V Berlin, 1979). Since then he has increased substantially (transgression), but particularly in the last 4000 years, repeatedly interrupted by retreat (regression).
This is for example the German North Sea coast of scientific detail backed up (source: K.-E. BEHR, problems of Coastal Research, Vol.28, Isensee Verlag, Oldenburg, 2003). Thereafter, sea level fluctuations of 1-2 meters were unusual in not a few centuries. Since 1600 until today, the North Sea has risen cm to 135th They are on average 33 cm / century.
Thus, the increase of the Cuxhaven level from 1900-2000 with 25 cm more in the bottom area of the natural Fluctuations: (Source: http://www.zukunftelbe.de/Projektbuero/in_der_disk/hochwasserschutz/grundlagen/index.php).
is also at least part of it back to shore setback: "At the North Sea is measured for the level Cuxhaven Alte Weser Although an increase of about 25 cm since 1900 He is not from an increase in the volume of water of the oceans, but from a. not yet completed fall of the mainland states ... " (Source: http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/gunnar_heinson_meeresspiegelhoehe_und_weltbevoelkerung/
According to a 2007 at the University of Bremen presented source, there are 60 levels of the United States on the Atlantic and Pacific coast including Alaska and Pacific Islands from 1950 until 1999 mean sea level rise. Also: "The Altpegeln of New York and San Francisco there is even no change since 1850. (Source: http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/gunnar_heinson_meeresspiegelhoehe_und_weltbevoelkerung)
Following the recent IPCC report (2007), the increase in the 20 Century world on average 17 cm (IPCC 2007).
from "flood disasters" that is currently not a trace!
It has even slowed down the increase, from 10 cm in the first half to 7 cm in the 2 Half of the 20th century !
(Source: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml, S. J. Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory of Holgate, Liverpool, UK, 2007).
is possible that this "slowing down" with contributed to the IPCC has withdrawn its forecasts for 2100 (as with the temperatures, à 15): from 9-88 cm (IPCC 2001) to 18-59 cm (IPCC 2007)! What conclusions can
/ "to" dyke farmers and coastal guards pull out of 10 .. 90 cm rise in North Sea (10 times)? What, then, they should build the levees? Who pays the "Safety Factor" 10 or even 100?
The IPCC sea level scenarios, there are many critical voices in the web, eg:
"There is no reason for a significant acceleration of sea level rise rate expected. The projections are based on modeling, not on evidence "
(Source:. http://www.scienceandpolicy.org/ , German Translator: http://www.oekologismus M. Limburg, 02.08.2007, . . com / )
12) The Living Desert
repeatedly go through the media reports that the rapidly spreading deserts, at least for the Sahara does not seem to agree.
"The result ... is an expansion of green space at the expense of the Sahara desert. This declined in the last 20 years to about 300,000 km2. Ie ... an area almost as big as Germany (357,000 km2) "(Source:. http://www.oekologismus.de/, Argus, February 2007).
13) environmental disasters Wetter-/Klima-Katastrophen =?
is suggested in many statements in the media that (also) tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, ... etc. something with the CO2 increase and sgn. would do "climate catastrophe".
This is scientific nonsense.
14th) Is proved the "Anthropogenic greenhouse effect?
are some (few) Quotes: Jörg
Negendank (GFZ Potsdam): "It is questionable as to how man has influenced the climate and influences" (source: Prof. Dr. Jörg Negendank, GFZ Potsdam, from The Story of the climate geobiowissenschaftlichen Archives ", in:. Climate change, UWV / BTU Cottbus, self-published, 2001, p.32-38) Michael Crichton, author of Science (USA) wrote, nachzitiert (after Spiegel 45/06, p.82, 3 Sp, 4.Abs). "No one knows to what extent the current warming trend is caused by man" Klaus Hasselmann (Sz director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg) in Science (1997) "The question of whether the rise in temperatures. in the last century actually caused by humans, or whether it is simply a natural variability of climate, remains controversial. "Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA) the same question:" The doubts are there "(Science). The German Meteorological Society in the "Opinion of the DMG to the basics of the greenhouse effect" (Berlin, DMG self-Verlag, 1999): "It is indisputable that the anthropogenic greenhouse effect could not be proven without doubt." In the revision (2001), the DMG but then something "courageous", "Even if the causes of observed climate change are complex and the role of natural climate changes is still not sufficiently clarified, the global warming over the last 100-150 years is high probability to human activity ...". This sentence contains two and a Conjunctive probability assumption - that is a trust basis for a "5.5-billion-euro Bingo" as recently announced in London Nicholas Stern and Tony Blair?
15) The forecasts of greenhouse-modeler - what are they worth?
Next: The so-called "hockey stick" curve of MEMann (2003), now recognized internationally as wrong and is barely cited, they also appeared in the latest IPCC report (2007) no longer!
The hockey stick curve (hockey stick curve)
greenhouse modelers, from the 40 years he had increasing anthropogenic sulfate inputs to the atmosphere at this cooling out, is refuted by measurements in Greenland snow deposits: The sulfate levels between 1940-1960 show no trend at all. They rise until the end of the '60s, with the temperatures rise again from around 1970 - a contradiction in terms (Source: L. Bengtsson, Natural and anthropogenic forcing of the climate system, promet, H.4, 2004, p. 195, Fig.29-9).
other hand - since the beginning of the 70 years of climate institutions, scientific associations and societies and international bodies published climate scenarios that are presented to the public as forecasts (which remains unchallenged by the global warming modelers usually). Most prominent is the IPCC. The focus is mainly the air temperature. Usually adopted as a boundary condition, a doubling of current CO2 value.
The first scenarios from around 1970 went for the next 100 years by a warming of 1-2 ° C. 1977, have already offered 2-3 ° C (Augustson / Ramanathan, A radiative-convective model study of the CO2 climate problem, J.Atm.Sc. 34, 448). But it soon became saddled hard on it. Thus, in the report was a Study Commission for the Federal Government (Bonn, 1988, S.434), a scenario already presented plus 0.9 to 4.5 ° C by 2100 and published in the media. Until 2001, the IPCC scenarios at 1.4-5.8 ° C were reached (IPCC, Cambridge, 2001). The U.S. as a 'land of opportunity' does not give up to +8 ° C for the next 100 years (Berkeley-Univ. Calif., nachzitiert to build 9 / 06, p.20).
Since 1998, it is cool again. ( http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Annual/HadCRUG.gif )
Maybe that has contributed to the latest IPCC Report 2007, the temperatures (as well as the sea level at 11 . be taken back): "The equilibrium temperature - when has the CO2 stabilized at 550 ppm - most likely between 1.5 ° C and 4.5 ° C will be, and probably at least 2 ° C above the 1750 values are the best estimate. is 3 ° C. " (Source: IPCC Berichtr 2007).
What shall start 'acting' people with such lottery numbers? Temperatures of 1 .. 8 degrees - which removes the citizens? Less than 2 °, or should it rather be closer 6.4 degrees?
After all - there are growing very thoughtful and critical voices, such as:
(1) The Alfred Wegener Institute for Marine and ice research internationally renowned, "In the discussion about climate change on Earth is often dramatic changes in sea level discussed. In the media there are reports of melting ice caps or future ice ages. Our research shows that these future scenarios are presented often exaggerated. " (AWI Research Highlights, Bremerhaven, 2002, p.29)
(2) Prof. Dr. J. Negendank (GFZ Potsdam), the climate models into question: "The climate is currently unpredictable and incalculable" , and on to the climate models "that remain in need to understand that these are scenarios that are based on simplified assumptions, the climate system is far more complex and will offer in the future surprises."
(Source: The history of the climate of geobiowissenschaftlichen archives, in: climate change, UWV / BTU Cottbus, self-published, 2001, p.32-38)
(3) comes VGB The study found "In addition to systemic uncertainties, the climate noise, resulting from the non-linearity and instability of the dynamics of the climate, there is additional uncertainty due to lack of knowledge of the system. ... It can only aspects of the climate system and their changes are described by certain disorders "(Source: Beising, R.: Climate change and energy, VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, Essen, 2006, p.103).
(4) Bill Bryson is. After extensive literature studies conclude: "For the climate are so many factors, .... that the elucidation of past events is as difficult as predicting ... "and continue" Amazingly, we have no idea what is likely for the future: An age of deadly cold or ... the scorching heat "(Source: Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything, Goldmann, Munich, 2005, p. 544 and 546)
The earth is not only warmer (red). but in many
areas and colder (blue) are compared the average
temperatures in the periods 1931-1960 and 1961-1960)
F o sum 1-15 :
We must abandon the expectation that we are by any anthropogenic activities as obtained, for example reduction / cessation of CO2 emissions a "nice comfortable stable climate" or create jobs.
Our climate is not made on Earth, but in space.
The incident changed the earth radiation intensity of the sun all the time: by direct processes on / in the sun itself, and indirectly through the overlapping cycles and rhythms of the Earth's orbital elements and the consequent changing positions of the Earth to the sun.
all that followed on the Earth's climate system "atmosphere-ocean-ice-biosphere-soil", that is, complicated feedback loops, which could not reasonably reliably predicted by a "model" - unless one is satisfied with lottery numbers.
Finally, the still,
We are numb on the way, the citizens with permanent disaster warnings, so that they take real risks remaining at some point no longer seriously.
"Last but not least:
Man breathes in air and CO2 - about 1 kg of CO2 per day, per year, about 400 kg / person.
Extrapolated to 82 million citizens in Germany, this results in an emission of some 30 million tons of CO2 per year. Or 3.5% of CO2 emissions in Germany (2004: 870 million tons of).
on the planet Earth some 6.5 billion people, according to an expiration of about 2.6 billion tons of CO2 per year, equivalent approximately 10% of global industrial emissions ellen (including motor vehicle 2004: 28 billion tons). That is about three times that in Germany each year by all issuers together amount released!
(Source: http://www.buerger-fuer-technik.de/body_co2-abgabe_an_die_atmosphare.html )
Will it not high time that you include in the airways of people with a CO2 catalyst? Technically this should not be a problem because, as the Chancellor said in the debate around the auto-exhaust quite right: "The whole creativity of our scientists and engineers is needed."
Public "demonization" of CO2 as a "poison" is absurd: there is no CO2 no photosynthesis, no assimilation, no plant growth, no feeding of animals and people!
Klaus-Eckart pulse
born in 1939,
school and high school in Mecklenburg;
From 1960 study of natural sciences in Rostock and West Berlin.
1968 Diploma in Meteorology at the Free University of Berlin, where 1969/70 Research fellow with the research focus of atmospheric ozone.
In 1970 the German Weather Service: 1971-1978
Seewetteramt Hamburg (Focus on: Marine Meteorological Services, ship route guidance service, since 1975 director of the group Laderaum-/Schiffsraum-Meteorologie
. 10 voyages as Bordmeteorologe on fisheries protection boats, research vessels and merchant ships.
1976-1978 Participation in the Standards Committee Technoklimate "(DIN 50 019).
1978-1984 Head of the agricultural meteorological consulting and research center in Bonn.
development of time-critical advisory system with the Chambers of Agriculture: Regional telephone announcements, on-screen text, weekly reports;
teaching in the subject "Agricultural Meteorology at the University of Bonn.
1983 co-founder of the German Foundation Pollen Information Service, 10-year board member.
1984-2000: Eating director of the Weather Bureau. After German reunification in addition
(1990/91) Development and management of the Weather Bureau Leipzig.
Since 1966, over 150 scientific and popular scientific publications on: weather, climate, ozone, shipping space meteorology, agricultural meteorology, pollen / allergy, history of science, history, calendar ...
school and high school in Mecklenburg;
From 1960 study of natural sciences in Rostock and West Berlin.
1968 Diploma in Meteorology at the Free University of Berlin, where 1969/70 Research fellow with the research focus of atmospheric ozone.
In 1970 the German Weather Service: 1971-1978
Seewetteramt Hamburg (Focus on: Marine Meteorological Services, ship route guidance service, since 1975 director of the group Laderaum-/Schiffsraum-Meteorologie
. 10 voyages as Bordmeteorologe on fisheries protection boats, research vessels and merchant ships.
1976-1978 Participation in the Standards Committee Technoklimate "(DIN 50 019).
1978-1984 Head of the agricultural meteorological consulting and research center in Bonn.
development of time-critical advisory system with the Chambers of Agriculture: Regional telephone announcements, on-screen text, weekly reports;
teaching in the subject "Agricultural Meteorology at the University of Bonn.
1983 co-founder of the German Foundation Pollen Information Service, 10-year board member.
1984-2000: Eating director of the Weather Bureau. After German reunification in addition
(1990/91) Development and management of the Weather Bureau Leipzig.
Since 1966, over 150 scientific and popular scientific publications on: weather, climate, ozone, shipping space meteorology, agricultural meteorology, pollen / allergy, history of science, history, calendar ...
lossary G:
AWI: Alfred Wegener Institute
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MPI: Max-Planck-Institut
MWP: Medieval Warm Period
NAO: North Atlantic Oscillation
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
GHG: Greenhouse gas
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
GHG: Greenhouse gas
WMO: World Meteorological Organization
Sources: The Water Planet
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/
Ökologismus.de http://www.oekologismus.de/
IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch /
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/
Ökologismus.de http://www.oekologismus.de/
IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch /
climate information http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/ce2750459d33883cbd7ac7e044424b3c, 0/Service/Home_ic.html
Alfred Wegener Institute Bremerhaven http:// www.awi.de/de/
Alfred Wegener Institute Bremerhaven http:// www.awi.de/de/
