DAX+0,04 % EUR/USD+0,58 % Gold-0,68 % Öl (Brent)+0,79 %

Globale Erwärmung durch Treibhauseffekt - nur ein Mythos der Linken?



Begriffe und/oder Benutzer

 

Gore's Bad Science
By Tom Harris
Canada Free Press | June 15, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth." With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Zunächst zum Threadtitel: ich bin kein Linker, und für mich ist die globale Erwärmung durch den Treibhauseffekt kein Mythos.

Der Treibhauseffekt unterteilt sich in einen natürlichen und einen anthropogenen Teil. Seine schiere Existenz verhindert, daß die Erdmitteltemperatur am Boden bei ca. -18 Grad Celsius liegt.

Die Temperatursteigerung durch infrarotaktive sogenannte Treibhausgase ist elementare Physik und kein damit befaßter Wissenschaftler würde diesem Effekt widersprechen.

Thema einer wissenschaftlichen Debatte war ausdrücklich nur, in welchem Zeitraum und welchem Ausmaß die Steigerung der Treibhausgase in der Atmosphäre die globale Mitteltemperatur nachziehen würden und wie weit Rückkopplungseffekt dies mildern oder verstärken würden, wie stark also das anthropogene Signal gegenüber der natürlichen Schwankungsbreite sein würde.

In diesem Punkt arbeitet die Zeit klar gegenüber der stark schrumpfenden Sekte derjenigen, die behaupten, der anthropogene Effekt sei auf absehbare Zeit vernachlässigbar, denn wie der neue IPCC-Report 2006/2007 deutlich belegen wird, ist in immer mehr Punkten eine Klimaveränderung meßbar geworden, die sich nicht mehr durch natürliche Einflüsse wie z.B. Änderungen der Solarkonstante erklären lassen.

Daß gerade aus dem angelsächsischen Raum immer noch Pamphlete der Art verbreitet werden, daß es darüber keinen wissenschaftlichen Konsens gäbe oder gar, daß der Treibhauseffekt widerlegt sei, ist schon langsam ermüdend, beeindruckt aber leider manche Laien immer noch. Es ist völliger Unfug, daraus eine politische Debatte zwischen links und rechts machen zu wollen, denn es ist eine wissenschaftliche Fragestellung und keine politische, ob der anthropogene Treibhauseffekt signifikant geworden ist. Politisch ist nur die Frage, welche Maßnahmen man bevorzugt, um die Folgen zu bekämpfen, ob man etwa auf kapitalintensives Desastermanagement vertraut und dabei sagt, ob Bangladesh absäuft, ist deren Problem, oder ob man das Problem an der Ursache angeht und die Emission von Treibhausgasen rationiert (wobei es hier viele Möglichkeiten gibt).

Für mich stehen die erklärten Zweifler am anthropogenen Treibhauseffekt in einer Reihe mit den Kreationisten und anderer Pseudowissenschaft. Es wird wohl nicht verwundern, daß man bei den Zweiflern am anthropogenen Treibhauseffekt wesentlich zwei Gruppen findet. Entweder meldet sich da ein fachfremder Wichtigtuer, der meint, ein Ingenieur oder ein Geograph könnten was zu Klimamodellen, klimatologischer Analyse oder Geophysik der Atmosphäre sagen, oder man findet früher oder später heraus, daß da mal wieder Geldmittel aus den großzügigen Fonds der Energieproduzenten in den USA in Gefälligkeitsforschung abgeflossen ist.

Was die Behauptungen in dem zitierten Artikel angeht: über Zeitskalen, bei denen man den Effekt veränderter Sonnenstrahlung herausrechnen kann, findet man eine exzellente Korrelation von Treibhausgassäulendichten und globaler Bodenmitteltemperatur, wie z.B. die Gegenüberstellung von CO2 und Temperatur aus den Eisbohrkerndaten und den ozeanischen Sedimentdaten zeigen. Die Frage wird regelmäßig in der Fachliteratur diskutiert, und in den letzten zwei Monaten gab es wiederholt Kurzmitteilungen dazu in EOS (dem Mitteilungsblatt der American Geophysical Union). Dort kann man sich auch davon überzeugen, daß es bei den damit befaßten Wissenschaftlern einen breiten Konsens darüber gibt, daß das Signal der anthropogenen Klimaveränderungen signifikant ist.

Und wenn der EMIRITIERTE Karlen darauf hinweist, daß in der Antarktis seiner Meinung nach die Eismasse akkumuliert, ist das irreführend, da gerade dies zum Beginn einer Klimaveränderung durch die erhöhte Feuchteaufnahme der erwärmenden Atmosphäre zu erwarten ist. Signifikanter sind die belastbaren Anzeichen für ein verstärktes Abschmelzen der Eismassen auf Grönland und in der Arktik (Eisdickenmessungen, fallende Salinität vor Grönland und nachlassende nordatlantische Strömung), für eine Schrumpfung des Lebensraums für Robben im arktischen Eis und die damit verbundene Nahrungskrise der Eisbären (bis hin zu neuartig auftretendem Kannibalismus durch Nahrungsmangel) (wo ich Morgans Ansicht dazu als Außenseitermeinung einstufen würde) und die Häufung von Signalen für wärmere Witterungen, wie etwa heftiger werdende Hurrican-Jahreszeiten, erhöhte Meerwassertemperaturen und Anstieg weiterer extremer Wettererscheinungen.

Kritik an den IPCC-Berichten ist im übrigen ein Faszinosum, weil niemand die Kritiker daran hindert, an diesen Berichten mitzuarbeiten und ihre Expertise einzufügen. Wenn sie dort allerdings an den wissenschaftlichen Standards scheitert, ist es etwas billig, dann hinterher in der Presse Stellungnahmen abzugeben, in denen man den hunderten an den IPCC-Reports beteiligten Wissenschaftlern Unfähigkeit vorwirft.
Kurze Frage:

Wie vertragen sich die oben genannten Behauptungen (und teilweise an Verleumdung grenzende Unterstellungen mit der Kritiker mit Kreationisten und Pseudowissenschaftlern gleichgestellt werden) mit untenstehenden physikalischen Gegebenheiten?

Die Sonne strahlt eine Leistung ( Energie/Zeit ) von P=3,8 1026 W in das All. In Höhe der Erdbahn führt dies im Raum zu einem Strahlungsfluss ( Intensität der Strahlung = Energie/Zeit/Fläche) von S = 1368 W/m2. Die Erde wird in mit einer Querschnittsfläche von A = pi R2 bestrahlt, erhält somit einen Leistung- Input von Pinput = S pi R2 . Bei einem Erdradius von R = 6370 km ergibt dies 1,74 1017 W oder 1,74 1017 J/s. Die beobachten Schwankungen der Sonnenleistung liegen bei maximal etwa 1% Dabei ist zwischen Leistung und Energie streng zu unterscheiden! Die Albedo der Erde sorgt für eine direkte Reflexion von etwa 30% dieser Energie, sodass nur 1,22 1017 W absorbiert werden.

Die Menschheit hat einen geschätzten Gesamtleistungsbedarf von 12 1012 J/s = 12 000 GW (etwa 10 000 Groß- Kraftwerke mit je 1,2 GW oder 2 kW pro Mensch).

Trotzdem macht der gesamte Primärleistungsbedarf der Menschheit lediglich 12 1012 W / 1,22 1017 W= 1/10 000 = 0,01 % (1/10 Promille) der eingestrahlten Solarleistung aus.

Vergleicht man die natürliche Schwankung der Sonneneinstrahlung (am bekanntesten ist ein 11 Jahre- Zyklus, es gibt aber auch centeniale Schwankungen die größer sein können) mit dem Umsatz an Energie der Menschheit



Die Erde als idealer schwarzer Körper hat im Strahlungsfeld der Sonne eine Temperatur von

etwa +6 0C

Zieht man auf der Inputseite 30% der an der Oberfläche reflektierten Strahlung ab, so erhält man zwar -18 oC, sollte dann aber bei der Emission streng auch nur mit 70% arbeiten. Das fordert die Energiebilanz - Treibhaus hin oder Treibhaus her, Schichtenmodell hin oder Schichtenmodell her. (Kirchhoff- Gesetz oder Energiesatz)

Der natürliche Treibhauseffekt (zu etwa 90% am Wasserdampf) ergibt eine zusätzliche wärmende Funktion für die Erdoberfläche (wie bei warmer Kleidung) auf die mittleren


etwa + 15°C




aus: http://www.schulphysik.de/bilanz2.html

Nasa temperature chart


There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
POSTED 2006-04-10T15:48:34

By Bob Carter

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research
Spicault, es hat schon einen Grund, warum dieser Professor für Geologie, der im übrigen fachfremd ist, diese "Erkenntnisse" nicht in einer Fachzeitschrift publiziert, sondern in irgendwelcher grauen Literatur. Diesen Schwachsinn würde ihm nämlich kein Kollege abkaufen, weil er zum einen seine Argumentation auf einen willkürlich herausgegriffenen Zeitraum stützt, und zum anderen die Klimaforschung exakt nicht diesen Unfug anstellt, den er da betreibt, nämlich Erwärmung der Periode x 1:1 auf Ursache y, hier eben menschlichen Eingriff, zurückzuführen. Tatsächlich hat man inzwischen verschiedene Ansätze, den Klimawandel zu beschreiben und dabei die Multikomponentenstruktur der Ursachen zu berücksichtigen. Neben dem modellbasierten Ansatz gibt es die mehrdimensionale Regression, und beide Verfahren liefern inzwischen gleiche Ergebnisse. Was hier abkopiert wurde, ist eine unwissenschaftliche Hetzschrift. Ich kann nur davon abraten, sich ausgerechnet auf so eine Außenseitermeinung zu stützen, von jemandem, der von Klimaforschung augenscheinlich keine Ahnung hat.
Und was will uns der Künstler mit dem Tech-Babbel ala Raumschiff Enterprise sagen?
Das der Mensch nicht selber die Luft aufheizt? :rolleyes:

Wo die Kurve aufhörte (die bereits einen Trend aufzeigte):


Globaler Temperaturanstieg durch Kreationisten und Hobbyforscher gestoppt:


:laugh:


Cooking the Climate Books (part one) by Tim Ball
POSTED 2006-03-29T13:48:32

March 20, 2006

Chairman Ted Stevens
Senate Commerce Committee
United States Senate
508 Dirkson Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Stevens:
My name is Tim Ball. I am a Canadian citizen with a PhD in climatology from the University of London England, and have studied climate change for over 40 years (a complete biography that lists my experience is attached to this letter).

Having studied climate and nature for four decades, I have learned that significant and rapid change is the norm, not the exception. And recent media stories regarding climate change, its impact on the Arctic, Greenland or Antarctic ice shelves, and the unsubstantiated conclusions that some are making around the cause of this phenomenon compels me to write you today.

Global warming is singled out as the cause of Greenland or Antarctic ice melting or collapsing, with potential to dramatically and disastrously raise sea levels. This warming is reportedly solely due to human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect. These events are likely receiving increased attention at present for several reasons, including;
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which is in preparation
• Decisions on energy policies are in preparation in most countries, pressured by the recent dramatic increase in oil prices
• The Kyoto Protocol is effectively being abandoned by most countries, but environmentalists are pressuring for continuation or similar policies
• The original hypothesis that human addition of CO2 is the cause of warming is proving incorrect

Rather than react to policy developments or the latest report, the current situation on climate change must be examined in historical and geophysical context. For example few people know that approximately 10 million square kilometers -- or about 60% -- of arctic ice melts every single summer. However, the situation must also include explanation of the historic and scientific context of the CO2 hypothesis.

Ice amounts naturally vary over time and in different regions. Just 22,000 years ago half of North America was covered with an ice sheet, with similar sheets in Europe and Asia. Sea level was approximately 150 m lower than today. Since then, the Earth warmed as we entered an interglacial period, but the warming in the last 15,000 years was not continuous. Although the general trend was warming, there was variability as the Earth experienced periods warmer and colder than today. During the warmer periods, arctic ice conditions varied. For example, in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from 900 to 1200 AD the Vikings sailed in arctic waters that are now permanent pack ice, and farmed in Greenland soil that is now permafrost. Two centuries later in a period known as the Little Ice Age their descendants were dying as ice enclosed Greenland for decades at a time and the Norse colonies eventually failed.

There were also dramatic short-term events. An 1817 letter from the President of the Royal Society to the British Admiralty reports, It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years greatly abated. This is a far more rapid and expansive change than is currently occurring.

Less than 30 years ago when global cooling was the scientific consensus, we read equally frightening and threatening reports. “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age” reported “the ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere increased by 12 percent in 1971 – an increase equal to the combined area of England, Italy and France. This added ice has remained.” Lowell Ponte wrote in “The Cooling” (1976): This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. The CIA spent millions studying the impact on food production and the resulting political destabilization. In one report they used the word “climatocracy” to explain the way climate influences society mostly through food production.

A major problem is the failure to recognize how science works. First, scientists hypothesize. Then normal scientific progression is for testing of the hypothesis before it becomes a law. Newton’s theory of gravity took over 200 years. Einstein’s theory of relativity was 100 years old last year. Darwin’s theory of evolution is now 157 years old. The critical transition occurs when the theory makes accurate predictions.

The hypothesis of humans causing climate change -- and specifically warming by increasing atmospheric CO2 -- began in the mid 1980s. It was essentially entrenched as a fact by the testimony of James Hansen of NASA before the 1988 Senate Committee chaired by Senator Al Gore. This hypothesis assumes;
• CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it allows solar energy to pass through the atmosphere but slows the rate at which heat energy from the earth is emitted to space
• If the amount of gas in the atmosphere increases the atmospheric temperature will rise
• The amount of CO2 will increase mainly because of human burning of fossil fuels
• As long as human production of CO2 increases the temperature will continue to rise

The theory of global warming became a law before research testing or accurate prediction. It was picked up by environmental groups and amplified by the media both of who ignore the science. As Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Richard Lindzen said, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Sadly, the normal scientific progression is blocked as scientists who raise legitimate questions about the theory and the evidence are labeled skeptics or more pejoratively deniers.

Evidence continues to accumulate that the hypothesis is untenable. First, the ice core record shows temperatures changes before CO2 – the complete opposite of the thesis. Temperature records for any time scale do not fit the CO2 record. It does match the variation in solar energy. All speculations (predictions) made by computer models of global climate (General Circulation Models) have failed. They even fail to recreate known past climates.

The evidence continues to grow that the hypothesis is wrong. Not only is human CO2 not the cause of change, but there is evidence the role of CO2 in total is of little significance. As a result, the proponents of the thesis, most of who have a political rather than a scientific agenda, become increasingly desperate.

Thirty years ago, global cooling was presented as a threat to the entire survival of humanity. Global warming is being presented similarly today, however, as with all change some benefit and others lose.

There are many such points in the last 18,000 years as we emerged out of the Ice Age. A more likely point was the Climatic Optimum when this White Pine, radiocarbon dated at 5000 years old, was growing 100 km north of the current tree line in temperatures much higher than today. As D. R. Muhs et al. Wrote in Quaternary Science Reviews wrote, The overall picture that emerges for Alaska and Yukon during the peak warmth of the last interglacial [as] a region with warmer-than-present summers, an absence of permafrost in the interior, and probably greater precipitation in the interior. Summer temperatures were at least 1-2°C warmer than they are presently, and in some locations summer temperatures may have been as much as 3-5°C higher than they are now.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.306.033 von puhvogel am 27.06.06 22:05:45
POSTED 2006-03-28T19:23:21

A second occurred around 1200 AD when Viking ships could still pass many straights in Southern Greenland. Many sailing routes now ice covered were depicted or recorded in a variety of Norse documents from 1200 to 1400 AD. These were still depicted in 1666 on, “A map of the regions and countries round the North Pole by John Seller Hydrographer to the King.”

The world has warmed since 1680 but not because of CO2 and the warming is well within natural variability. Temperatures for Armagh from 1796 illustrate the pattern and also refute the hockey stick claim of 20th century warming.

Extend the record back to 1880 and a very different picture appears.

Notice the increase from 1880 to 1940 when temperatures were higher than today. Consensus in the 1970s was we were heading for catastrophic cooling because of the trend from 1940. Polar bears survived the warming from 1880 but they also survived earlier more dramatic warming, as did the circumpolar aboriginal people.

Comments about sea level rising, as arctic sea ice melts are illogical: the ice is already in the water. Besides half the ice melts every single summer with no change. It changes from 16 million square kilometers in winter to less than 6 million sq. km in summer.

Selectivity also applies to the comment that we have had the lowest August ice coverage on record. Not the lowest on record, just the lowest for August. Ice had already started to form in September so it won’t be the lowest year on record. Look at the graph and you see lower coverage in several years.

Take part of the temperature curve and the location out of context and you can convince unknowing people of anything.

Mark Twain never said everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it. It’s one of many false attributions. Rather, Twain would understand the paraphrase that everybody talks about the weather but few know little about it because he wrote that “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”

The campaign to inflict a political agenda using the scare tactics of impending doom failed with Kyoto. It’s also failing as the accumulation of scientific evidence that CO2 from human sources is not the cause of climate change. More the ‘ice is melting’ stories will appear as proponents of global warming due to anthropogenic see points of political no return approaching.

If the threat of sea level rise is too detached an appeal to emotion there are other usually more effective approaches. In The Cooling, Ponte wrote, It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance: the survival of ourselves, our children, our species. Change the word “cooling” in the first sentence to warming and exactly the same appeals are made today. We all care about our children, but using that care to carry a point suggests those who won’t listen don’t care. If the children are not threatened then what about animals, especially those with high anthropogenic qualities or with strong public relations appeal. Dolphins and Pandas are good examples. Grizzlies and Polar Bears are less appealing but have high public recognition – they are almost symbolic.

Melting arctic sea ice threatening Polar bears thus becomes heavy emotional ammunition. But what are the realities? A leading Canadian authority on polar bears, Mitch Taylor, as reported in the Scotsman (Feb 7, 2005) says: "We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change." “Mr. Taylor estimates that during the past decade, the Canadian polar bear population has increased by 25 per cent - from 12,000 to 15,000 bears.” Reports of Polar Bears with less body weight and apparently emaciated are reportedly due to this overpopulation relative to the food supply. My own research shows animal populations fluctuating dramatically resulting in a ‘boom or bust’ cycle of life for the aboriginal people of northern North America.

Similar elevations of hysteria and focus on out of context threats of doom occurred to swing public opinion after the G8 communiqué said energy policies would react as the scientific evidence justifies and before the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is delivered. Prime Minister Blair further fueled the reaction by saying Kyoto and similar plans won’t work. From 28 November to December 9, Canada hosted the first meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in Montréal in conjunction with the eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention. They effectively ignored the growing evidence that CO2 and especially the human portion has nothing to do with climate change. Yury Izrael, Director, Global Climate and Ecology Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences and IPCC Vice President said there is no evidence of a human signal. Hopefully, this voice of reason and evidence will overcome hysteria because IPCC has started work on the next report due in 2007. Their most recent document included the totally discredited ‘hockey stick’ as evidence of the human signal. This was an egregious misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the data, so that if the authors knew or didn’t know they have culpability.

To conclude, I urge you to consider the previous points in this letter when considering environmental policy. Sound, sensible, well-founded policies are not made when most people don’t understand the science. Furthermore, the work of scientists is exacerbated when their data is taken out of context, manipulated or presented in highly charged emotional ways.

Climate change and subsequent policy are probably the most affected examples. The final major context policymakers need to know is that climate changes significantly and naturally all the time. The current philosophical view of the world is Hutton’s uniformitarianism, and it underlies all scientific and other teaching. This means we learn and believe that change is gradual over long periods of time. As a result when a sudden or dramatic change occurs extremists, or people with agendas can say that is “not natural,” therefore it must be something humans are doing.

Best Regards,

Dr. Tim Ball
Diese Diskussion um den Klimawandel, und dass es sich hierbei laut der Interpretation konservativer, religiös motivierter Kreise lediglich um ein ideologisch links gefärbtes Problem handle, verfolge ich schon seit geraumer Zeit in einschlägigen, konservativen US-Boards.

Ich will mich nicht mit den wissenschaftlichen Details auseinandersetzen, was for4zim hier schon in exczellenter Weise getan hat. Seinen Hinweis auf den kreationistischen Hintergrund dieser Leute finde ich in den Diskussionen zu diesem Thema auch immer wieder bestätigt.
Meine Vermutung, warum diese relgiösen Fundamentalisten zwanghaft daran festhalten, dass sich z.B. die Atmosphäre nicht durch den Einfluss von Menschen erwärmt, sondern die aktuelle Erwärmung auf natürliche Einflüsse wie z.B. verstärkte Sonnenaktivität zurückzuführen sei, geht dahin, dass diese religiösen Eiferer es gem. der Bibel nicht akzeptieren können, dass der Mensch Einfluss auf die Schöpfung Gottes nehmen könnte. Schließlich hat der lt. Bibel die Welt erschaffen und bestimmt somit den Lauf der Dinge.

Ein wenn auch wissenschaftlich erwiesener Einfluss des Menschen auf den Lauf der Welt, erschüttert die Glaubensfesten dieser Fundamentalisten. Deswegen halten Sie sich auch zwanghaft an pseudowissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen fest, die ihre Bibelvorstellungen unterstützen.

Das Infame an der Geschichte ist nur, dass diese religösen Fanatiker in den USA in ihrem üblichen Reflex auf Probleme jetzt wieder die Linke, sprich Liberals, als Ursache für den nach ihrer Anischt nicht existenten Klimawandel ausgemacht haben.

Und dann kommt ein spicault eben unter Negierung aller Fakten auf Threadtitel, die den Klimawandel in Frage stellen und im Zweifelsfall die Linke verantwortlich machen.
Und der aktuelle Film mit Ex-Vizepräsident Al Gore zum gleichen Thema trägt noch das Übrige dazu bei den letzten relgiösen Eiferer aus der Versenkung zu locken und entgegen aller wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse die Klimaerwärmung als Erfindung der Linken abzustempeln.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.132.600 von for4zim am 15.06.06 19:02:02#2 for4zim

Für mich stehen die erklärten Zweifler am anthropogenen Treibhauseffekt in einer Reihe mit den Kreationisten und anderer Pseudowissenschaft. Es wird wohl nicht verwundern, daß man bei den Zweiflern am anthropogenen Treibhauseffekt wesentlich zwei Gruppen findet. Entweder meldet sich da ein fachfremder Wichtigtuer, der meint, ein Ingenieur oder ein Geograph könnten was zu Klimamodellen, klimatologischer Analyse oder Geophysik der Atmosphäre sagen, oder man findet früher oder später heraus, daß da mal wieder Geldmittel aus den großzügigen Fonds der Energieproduzenten in den USA in Gefälligkeitsforschung abgeflossen ist.

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit
the science of global warming


from eco-logic/Powerhouse.com

April 15, 2006

An open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chrétien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered, without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet, this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto, and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the Protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has ,formulating sensible science-based policy, when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality, and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase, used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming, and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land, and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change, and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But, the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it, when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully, and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

Sincerely,

* Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
* Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
* Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.
* Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.
* Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.
* Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
* Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.
* Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.
* Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology.
* Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.
* Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
* Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.
* Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
* Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
* Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.
* Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
* Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta.
* Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Virginia, and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
* Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
* Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.
* Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.
* Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
* Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
* Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey.
* Mr. George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists.
* Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.
* Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
* Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review.
* Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
* Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.
* Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia.
* Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
* Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California.
* Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville.
* Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.
* Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
* Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health).
* Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.
* Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy and Environment.
* Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change.
* Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey.
* Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway.
* Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.
* Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," Wellington, N.Z.
* Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut.
* Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
* Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
* Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
* Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
* Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society.
* Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University.
* Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
* Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland.
* Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany.
* Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland.
* Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
* Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant.
* Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon.
* Dr. Arthur Rörsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food, and public health.
* Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist.
* Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
 Filter


Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben