Globale Erwärmung durch Treibhauseffekt - nur ein Mythos der Linken? (Seite 5768)
eröffnet am 15.06.06 17:59:51 von
neuester Beitrag 01.05.24 11:33:07 von
neuester Beitrag 01.05.24 11:33:07 von
Beiträge: 57.988
ID: 1.066.312
ID: 1.066.312
Aufrufe heute: 31
Gesamt: 1.506.311
Gesamt: 1.506.311
Aktive User: 0
Top-Diskussionen
| Titel | letzter Beitrag | Aufrufe |
|---|---|---|
| vor 8 Minuten | 6364 | |
| heute 10:56 | 6328 | |
| vor 8 Minuten | 3896 | |
| heute 09:20 | 2568 | |
| vor 9 Minuten | 2174 | |
| vor 16 Minuten | 2024 | |
| vor 18 Minuten | 1477 | |
| vor 13 Minuten | 1229 |
Meistdiskutierte Wertpapiere
| Platz | vorher | Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % | Anzahl | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 1. | 17.926,09 | +0,14 | 206 | |||
| 2. | 4. | 3,8900 | +5,14 | 75 | |||
| 3. | 3. | 8,2700 | -0,24 | 71 | |||
| 4. | 2. | 184,31 | +2,40 | 63 | |||
| 5. | 14. | 0,0163 | +1,88 | 51 | |||
| 6. | 9. | 0,9750 | +1,04 | 44 | |||
| 7. | 6. | 6,6280 | -0,78 | 38 | |||
| 8. | 11. | 2.287,66 | +0,09 | 36 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
# 310 Prinz,
ich finde hier sollte radikal der Markt entscheiden. Wer will dass es kälter wird kauft Spiegel für's All und wer will dass es wärmer wird emittiert mehr Treibhausgase. In diesem Wettbewerb findet sich schliesslich das ideale Klima, denn der Markt hat immer recht.
ich finde hier sollte radikal der Markt entscheiden. Wer will dass es kälter wird kauft Spiegel für's All und wer will dass es wärmer wird emittiert mehr Treibhausgase. In diesem Wettbewerb findet sich schliesslich das ideale Klima, denn der Markt hat immer recht.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 27.230.088 von mouse_potato am 27.01.07 19:25:38Wobei das Klima natürlich sozial gerecht verteilt werden muss. Brandenburgs H4-Empfänger müssen ein Recht auf eine eigene Zugspitze mit Schnee haben, und das Sozialamt sollte die Skiausrüstung und das Aprés-Ski bezahlen...
Foul Weather
From FOX News: Storm Hits Weather Community Over Climate Expert's Global W….
The Weather Channel is standing by a climatologist who is taking some heat after blogging that TV weather forecasters skeptical about man-made global warming theories should lose their professional certification.
Climate expert Heidi Cullen defended herself last week in The Weather Channel's One Degree Climate Change blog after questioning the fitness of meteorologists who disagree with her conclusions. ...
Cullen raised Cain last month when she suggested that the American Meteorological Society decertify meteorologists who don't warn about climate change.
"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming," Cullen wrote in the blog. "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a seal of approval." ...
According to a statement by the AMS, the society agrees with Cullen on the science of global warming, if not the certification of its approved meteorologists. ...
But James Spann, chief meteorologist for ABC 33/40 in Alabama, who has been in operational meteorology since 1978, said Cullen is wading into dangerous waters when it comes to judging her colleagues.
"I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them," Spann said on his blog. "I have nothing against 'The Weather Channel,' but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go."
From Reuters: Global warming dissenters few at U.S. weather meeting.
Joe D'Aleo was a rare voice of dissent this week at the American Meteorological Society's annual meeting in San Antonio.
D'Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a group of scientists, doesn't think greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming and climate change.
Researchers who hold such contrary views do not appreciate being lumped together with flat-Earthers. They are legitimate scientists who question the mainstream, but they are a distinct minority.
"Greenhouse warming is real, but I think it is a relatively minor player," D'Aleo said.
He claims other factors like solar activity and other natural causes are probably playing a greater role in rising temperatures -- a position that gets a mostly chilly reception from this crowd. ...
"I think there's virtually no doubt that humans are a major player in warming the globe," said Robert Henson, author of the recently published "The Rough Guide to Climate Change."
"There are still people out there who will contradict that, but they are not part of the scientific mainstream," he said.
The dissenters would say that is the point: portraying them as the wild-eyed fringe or lackeys of oil companies makes even legitimate questioning seem less credible.
From CNN: 'Smoking gun' report to say global warming here.
Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in the air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week. ...
Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles." ...
That report will feature an "explosion of new data" on observations of current global warming, [said Susan] Solomon [a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration].
Even the global warming data is exploding! Some believers in man-made global warming are finally becoming concerned about the hype. From Houston Chronicle: Climate scientists feeling the heat.
Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.
Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.
Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.
Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.
In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.
It's appears Al Gore is feeling some heat, too. He recently dodged an interview with journalist Flemming Rose and Bjorn Lomborg. From The Wall Street Journal: Will Al Gore Melt?.
f we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.
Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore's world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question.
Speaking of environmentalists leaving the poor poorer, a documentary about the European mining industry was recently released, and it looks excellent. It's called Mine Your Own Business, and you can view the trailer here. If you happen to live in the Los Angeles area, the UCLA Club LOGIC will be screening the film on January 31 with the filmmakers present for a Q&A session (click here for details). Here's a review of the film.
UPDATE -- Jan. 26: "Dissenters Blown Off" turns out to be mild compared to what some are calling for: NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS. (hat tip Chris Davis)
[David] Roberts wrote in the online publication [Grist] on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg. ... The use of Holocaust terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006.
“Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained.
Quelle
From FOX News: Storm Hits Weather Community Over Climate Expert's Global W….
The Weather Channel is standing by a climatologist who is taking some heat after blogging that TV weather forecasters skeptical about man-made global warming theories should lose their professional certification.
Climate expert Heidi Cullen defended herself last week in The Weather Channel's One Degree Climate Change blog after questioning the fitness of meteorologists who disagree with her conclusions. ...
Cullen raised Cain last month when she suggested that the American Meteorological Society decertify meteorologists who don't warn about climate change.
"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming," Cullen wrote in the blog. "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a seal of approval." ...
According to a statement by the AMS, the society agrees with Cullen on the science of global warming, if not the certification of its approved meteorologists. ...
But James Spann, chief meteorologist for ABC 33/40 in Alabama, who has been in operational meteorology since 1978, said Cullen is wading into dangerous waters when it comes to judging her colleagues.
"I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them," Spann said on his blog. "I have nothing against 'The Weather Channel,' but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go."
From Reuters: Global warming dissenters few at U.S. weather meeting.
Joe D'Aleo was a rare voice of dissent this week at the American Meteorological Society's annual meeting in San Antonio.
D'Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a group of scientists, doesn't think greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming and climate change.
Researchers who hold such contrary views do not appreciate being lumped together with flat-Earthers. They are legitimate scientists who question the mainstream, but they are a distinct minority.
"Greenhouse warming is real, but I think it is a relatively minor player," D'Aleo said.
He claims other factors like solar activity and other natural causes are probably playing a greater role in rising temperatures -- a position that gets a mostly chilly reception from this crowd. ...
"I think there's virtually no doubt that humans are a major player in warming the globe," said Robert Henson, author of the recently published "The Rough Guide to Climate Change."
"There are still people out there who will contradict that, but they are not part of the scientific mainstream," he said.
The dissenters would say that is the point: portraying them as the wild-eyed fringe or lackeys of oil companies makes even legitimate questioning seem less credible.
From CNN: 'Smoking gun' report to say global warming here.
Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in the air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week. ...
Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles." ...
That report will feature an "explosion of new data" on observations of current global warming, [said Susan] Solomon [a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration].
Even the global warming data is exploding! Some believers in man-made global warming are finally becoming concerned about the hype. From Houston Chronicle: Climate scientists feeling the heat.
Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.
Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.
Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.
Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.
In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.
It's appears Al Gore is feeling some heat, too. He recently dodged an interview with journalist Flemming Rose and Bjorn Lomborg. From The Wall Street Journal: Will Al Gore Melt?.
f we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.
Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore's world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question.
Speaking of environmentalists leaving the poor poorer, a documentary about the European mining industry was recently released, and it looks excellent. It's called Mine Your Own Business, and you can view the trailer here. If you happen to live in the Los Angeles area, the UCLA Club LOGIC will be screening the film on January 31 with the filmmakers present for a Q&A session (click here for details). Here's a review of the film.
UPDATE -- Jan. 26: "Dissenters Blown Off" turns out to be mild compared to what some are calling for: NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS. (hat tip Chris Davis)
[David] Roberts wrote in the online publication [Grist] on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg. ... The use of Holocaust terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006.
“Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained.
Quelle
ich denke man sollte sich jetzt einfach schnell auf ein "Idealklima" einigen und dann je nach Bedarf an den Stellschrauben drehen.
Also ich glaub schon dass die Erderwärmung vom Menschen verursacht wird. Es liegt an der vielen heißen Luft die die einschlägig bekannten zu diesem Thema so von sich geben...
Trading Spotlight
Offenbar erwägen die USA jetzt geo-engineering zur Regulation des Klimas:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,462636,00.ht…
Dann wäre es egal wieviel Treibhausgase in der Luft sind und man würde nicht nur passiv mit slow-down reagieren sondern das Klima aktiv gestalten. Würde es z.B. plötzlich zu kalt könnte man einfach mehr Treibhausgase ausstossen. Wird es zu warm schiesst man einfach ein paar Spiegel ins All.
So sieht das aus wenn die Krone der Schöpfung sich die Welt untertan macht während sich alles Niedere vor Angst verkriecht
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,462636,00.ht…
Dann wäre es egal wieviel Treibhausgase in der Luft sind und man würde nicht nur passiv mit slow-down reagieren sondern das Klima aktiv gestalten. Würde es z.B. plötzlich zu kalt könnte man einfach mehr Treibhausgase ausstossen. Wird es zu warm schiesst man einfach ein paar Spiegel ins All.
So sieht das aus wenn die Krone der Schöpfung sich die Welt untertan macht während sich alles Niedere vor Angst verkriecht
Folgender Artikel ist doch wirklich einfach zu verstehen
Der Mensch kann das Klima nicht beeinflussen
All unsere Bemühungen sind vergebens, die nächste Eiszeit kommt ohne oder auch gegen unser Zutun. Das meint Peter Neumann-Mahlkau, ehemaliger Präsident des Geologischen Landesamtes Nordrhein-Westfalen.
In den drei Milliarden Jahren Erdgeschichte herrsche größtenteils Treibhausklima (in dem beispielsweise die Saurier Millionen Jahre lang wunderbar gediehen). Der Mensch dagegen kennt nur Eiszeitklimaformen. Kohlendioxid jedenfalls ist für den heutigen Temperaturanstieg in keiner Weise verantwortlich. Vor einer Milliarde Jahre war er 400-mal größer als heute, bedeutend wärmer war es aber nicht. Vor 225 Millionen Jahren gab es eine schwere Eiszeit bei einem um 50-mal höheren CO2-Gehalt als heute. Im Klima-Optimum um das Jahr 1000 rauchten keine Schlote, wohl aber am Ende der kleinen Eiszeit um 1890.
Im Augenblick befinden wir uns in einer Zwischeneiszeit - und die neue Eiszeit kommt bestimmt. Siehe dazu auch unseren Artikel "In 30 Jahren beginnt die neue Eiszeit" in PM 6/98, S. 8-15. Was aber noch lange nicht heißt, dass wir hemmungslos unsere fossilen Brennstoffe verheizen dürfen. Denn die sind eines Tages alle, und dann stehen wir in der Kälte da - ganz wörtlich.
Der Mensch kann das Klima nicht beeinflussen
All unsere Bemühungen sind vergebens, die nächste Eiszeit kommt ohne oder auch gegen unser Zutun. Das meint Peter Neumann-Mahlkau, ehemaliger Präsident des Geologischen Landesamtes Nordrhein-Westfalen.
In den drei Milliarden Jahren Erdgeschichte herrsche größtenteils Treibhausklima (in dem beispielsweise die Saurier Millionen Jahre lang wunderbar gediehen). Der Mensch dagegen kennt nur Eiszeitklimaformen. Kohlendioxid jedenfalls ist für den heutigen Temperaturanstieg in keiner Weise verantwortlich. Vor einer Milliarde Jahre war er 400-mal größer als heute, bedeutend wärmer war es aber nicht. Vor 225 Millionen Jahren gab es eine schwere Eiszeit bei einem um 50-mal höheren CO2-Gehalt als heute. Im Klima-Optimum um das Jahr 1000 rauchten keine Schlote, wohl aber am Ende der kleinen Eiszeit um 1890.
Im Augenblick befinden wir uns in einer Zwischeneiszeit - und die neue Eiszeit kommt bestimmt. Siehe dazu auch unseren Artikel "In 30 Jahren beginnt die neue Eiszeit" in PM 6/98, S. 8-15. Was aber noch lange nicht heißt, dass wir hemmungslos unsere fossilen Brennstoffe verheizen dürfen. Denn die sind eines Tages alle, und dann stehen wir in der Kälte da - ganz wörtlich.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 27.176.716 von mouse_potato am 25.01.07 13:54:32
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 27.176.716 von mouse_potato am 25.01.07 13:54:32"Wir werden alle sterben ..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5OgXaEHeVc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5OgXaEHeVc
brrrrr ist das kalt draussen! Und endlich Schnee, da freuen sich auch die Skifahrer. Zum Teil minus 15 Grad heute Nacht, so war's früher immer als das Klima noch heil war. Ja, die gute alte Zeit! Bin gespannt wie lange es kalt bleibt obwohl ich natürlich von "Klimaforschern" weiss, dass wenn es kalt ist, das dann "Wetter" ist. Ist es dagegen warm ist es das "Klima".
Wir Menschen, das weiss ich auch aufgrund meiner oberflächlichen Medien-Halbbildung, sind schuld, dass es mit dem Klima so bergabgeht. Im Februar, das habe ich auf Spiegel-online gelesen, kommt der neue IPCC-Bericht. Diesmal wurden die "Forscher" angewiesen "alle vorliegenden Daten und Studien nüchtern zu bewerten und keine forschen Schlüsse zu ziehen." Warum so eine Anweisung nötig ist ist mir nicht klar, aber wie zu erwarten war sagt diese Bericht nüchtern eine Katastrophe voraus. http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,418165,00.ht… Grausam, einfach schlimm. Wenn man da liest was alles passieren könnte... Wir werden alle sterben ...
Wir Menschen, das weiss ich auch aufgrund meiner oberflächlichen Medien-Halbbildung, sind schuld, dass es mit dem Klima so bergabgeht. Im Februar, das habe ich auf Spiegel-online gelesen, kommt der neue IPCC-Bericht. Diesmal wurden die "Forscher" angewiesen "alle vorliegenden Daten und Studien nüchtern zu bewerten und keine forschen Schlüsse zu ziehen." Warum so eine Anweisung nötig ist ist mir nicht klar, aber wie zu erwarten war sagt diese Bericht nüchtern eine Katastrophe voraus. http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,418165,00.ht… Grausam, einfach schlimm. Wenn man da liest was alles passieren könnte... Wir werden alle sterben ...
Durchsuchen
