Globale Erwärmung durch Treibhauseffekt - nur ein Mythos der Linken? (Seite 5780)
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: 14
Gesamt: 1.506.294
Gesamt: 1.506.294
Aktive User: 0
Top-Diskussionen
| Titel | letzter Beitrag | Aufrufe |
|---|---|---|
| 25.04.24, 13:40 | 1320 | |
| gestern 18:36 | 362 | |
| heute 01:05 | 233 | |
| gestern 22:51 | 180 | |
| gestern 23:57 | 144 | |
| 03.05.11, 22:20 | 144 | |
| gestern 20:53 | 122 | |
| gestern 22:12 | 108 |
Meistdiskutierte Wertpapiere
| Platz | vorher | Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % | Anzahl | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 1. | 17.899,00 | -1,43 | 120 | |||
| 2. | 2. | 179,99 | -1,80 | 83 | |||
| 3. | 4. | 3,6925 | +0,27 | 59 | |||
| 4. | 3. | 8,2900 | +4,94 | 57 | |||
| 5. | 5. | 0,1935 | -0,77 | 41 | |||
| 6. | 6. | 6,6740 | -2,23 | 30 | |||
| 7. | 8. | 57.615,64 | -4,27 | 26 | |||
| 8. | 9. | 0,9650 | +16,27 | 25 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.321.331 von CaptainFutures am 12.11.06 11:18:43The sun is warmer now than for the past 11,400 years
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11…
Wrong problem, wrong solution
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11…
Sehe auch Leserbriefe!!
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11…
Wrong problem, wrong solution
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11…
Sehe auch Leserbriefe!!
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.321.080 von mouse_potato am 12.11.06 11:11:25
Was geht eigentlich beim Mega-Event der Klimagemeinde in Kenia? Man hört gar nix ausser dass alle das Geld der "Anpassungsfonds" wollen. Ich rechne aber schon noch mit Katastrophenvoraussagen und Horrorszenarien, das wäre ja ganz was neues wenn der Klima-Hokuspokus ohne Weltuntergangs-Szenario auskäme.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.031.355 von cajadeahorros am 31.10.06 10:56:26November 8, 2006
Reason’s unlikely recruit
A report in CO2 Science says the Anatarctic ice sheet us actually expanding:
"Reference
Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635.
What was done
The authors “analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003.” This survey, in their words, “covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” which together comprise “72% of the grounded ice sheet.”"
What was learned
Wingham et al. report that “overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1.” To calculate the ice sheet’s change in mass, however, “requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred,” and when the researchers’ best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that “72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors’ italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1.” This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because “mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica.”
What it means
Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more."
The mismatch between what the science actually tells us and what campaigners tell us the science tells us has become so extreme that the climate change lobby itself is starting to crack apart. One of its gurus, Mike Hulme, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has turned on his own side and denounced the current hysteria over global warming (singling out the Independent newspaper by name) as manipulation and group-think:
"Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change. But over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country - the phenomenon of ‘caastrophic’ climate change. It seems that mere ‘climate change’ was not going to be bad enough, and so now it must be ‘catastrophic’ to be worthy of attention. The increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers ‘chaotic’, ‘irreversible’, ‘rapid’ - has altered the public discourse around climate change. This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as ‘climate change is worse than we thought’, that we are approaching ‘irreversible tipping in the Earth’s climate’, and that we are ‘at the point of no return’.
I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric… What has pushed the debate between climate change scientists and climate sceptics to now being between climate change scientists and climate alarmists? I believe there are three factors now at work.
First, the discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device being mobilised in the context of failing UK and Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The signatories to this UN protocol will not deliver on their obligations. This bursting of the campaigning bubble requires a determined reaction to raise the stakes - the language of climate catastrophe nicely fits the bill. Hence we now have the militancy of the Stop Climate Chaos activists and the megaphone journalism of the Independent newspaper, with supporting rhetoric from the prime minister and senior government scientists.
Others suggest that the sleeping giants of the Gaian Earth system are being roused from their millennia of slumber to wreck havoc on humanity. Second, the discourse of catastrophe is a political and rhetorical device to change the frame of reference for the emerging negotiations around what happens when the Kyoto Protocol runs out after 2012. The Exeter conference of February 2005 on ‘Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change’ served the government’s purposes of softening-up the G8 Gleneagles summit through a frenzied week of ‘climate change is worse than we thought’ news reporting and group-think. By stage-managing the new language of catastrophe, the conference itself became a tipping point in the way that climate change is discussed in public.
Third, the discourse of catastrophe allows some space for the retrenchment of science budgets. It is a short step from claiming these catastrophic risks have physical reality, saliency and are imminent, to implying that one more ‘big push’ of funding will allow science to quantify them objectively. We need to take a deep breath and pause. The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. It will not be visible in next year’s global assessment from the world authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science. Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe? The language of fear and terror operates as an ever-weakening vehicle for effective communication or inducement for behavioural change."
Is the stage-managed climatic worm finally beginning to turn?
Melanie Phillips
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1380
Reason’s unlikely recruit
A report in CO2 Science says the Anatarctic ice sheet us actually expanding:
"Reference
Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635.
What was done
The authors “analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003.” This survey, in their words, “covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” which together comprise “72% of the grounded ice sheet.”"
What was learned
Wingham et al. report that “overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1.” To calculate the ice sheet’s change in mass, however, “requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred,” and when the researchers’ best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that “72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors’ italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1.” This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because “mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica.”
What it means
Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more."
The mismatch between what the science actually tells us and what campaigners tell us the science tells us has become so extreme that the climate change lobby itself is starting to crack apart. One of its gurus, Mike Hulme, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has turned on his own side and denounced the current hysteria over global warming (singling out the Independent newspaper by name) as manipulation and group-think:
"Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change. But over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country - the phenomenon of ‘caastrophic’ climate change. It seems that mere ‘climate change’ was not going to be bad enough, and so now it must be ‘catastrophic’ to be worthy of attention. The increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers ‘chaotic’, ‘irreversible’, ‘rapid’ - has altered the public discourse around climate change. This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as ‘climate change is worse than we thought’, that we are approaching ‘irreversible tipping in the Earth’s climate’, and that we are ‘at the point of no return’.
I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric… What has pushed the debate between climate change scientists and climate sceptics to now being between climate change scientists and climate alarmists? I believe there are three factors now at work.
First, the discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device being mobilised in the context of failing UK and Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The signatories to this UN protocol will not deliver on their obligations. This bursting of the campaigning bubble requires a determined reaction to raise the stakes - the language of climate catastrophe nicely fits the bill. Hence we now have the militancy of the Stop Climate Chaos activists and the megaphone journalism of the Independent newspaper, with supporting rhetoric from the prime minister and senior government scientists.
Others suggest that the sleeping giants of the Gaian Earth system are being roused from their millennia of slumber to wreck havoc on humanity. Second, the discourse of catastrophe is a political and rhetorical device to change the frame of reference for the emerging negotiations around what happens when the Kyoto Protocol runs out after 2012. The Exeter conference of February 2005 on ‘Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change’ served the government’s purposes of softening-up the G8 Gleneagles summit through a frenzied week of ‘climate change is worse than we thought’ news reporting and group-think. By stage-managing the new language of catastrophe, the conference itself became a tipping point in the way that climate change is discussed in public.
Third, the discourse of catastrophe allows some space for the retrenchment of science budgets. It is a short step from claiming these catastrophic risks have physical reality, saliency and are imminent, to implying that one more ‘big push’ of funding will allow science to quantify them objectively. We need to take a deep breath and pause. The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. It will not be visible in next year’s global assessment from the world authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science. Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe? The language of fear and terror operates as an ever-weakening vehicle for effective communication or inducement for behavioural change."
Is the stage-managed climatic worm finally beginning to turn?
Melanie Phillips
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1380
Trading Spotlight
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.029.379 von PrinzValiumNG am 31.10.06 09:36:38Unser humorvolle Prinz zeigt sich diesmal von seiner gänzlich stocksteifen Seite.
Passt aber nicht zu deinen sonstigen Ausführungen daß für dich alles Schabernack ist.
Wie du es schon richtig erkannt hast: Erfolg durch Null-Hirn!
Praktizierst du bereits seit langem erfolgreich.
Passt aber nicht zu deinen sonstigen Ausführungen daß für dich alles Schabernack ist.
Wie du es schon richtig erkannt hast: Erfolg durch Null-Hirn!
Praktizierst du bereits seit langem erfolgreich.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.030.402 von cajadeahorros am 31.10.06 10:15:26Was die Zuwanderung betrifft hast Du natürlich völlig recht, schließlich muss sich die Bevölkerung an ein Rentensystem anpassen und nicht das Rentensystem an die Bevölkerung, das wäre quatsch und sozial ungerecht und schließlich haben wir ja alle den Generationenvertrag unterschrieben.
Dem mit den Wurzeln kann ich Dir allerdings nicht zustimmen, gerade Du solltest wissen dass bereits heute ein großteil der westlichen Welt mit Zeuchs genährt wird das nicht mehr biologisch gewachsen ist und aus der Retorte und Industrie kommt. Ich denke also dass es keine große Umstellung wird für die Leute die heute schon mit Nahrungsmüll hochgezogen wurden.
Dem mit den Wurzeln kann ich Dir allerdings nicht zustimmen, gerade Du solltest wissen dass bereits heute ein großteil der westlichen Welt mit Zeuchs genährt wird das nicht mehr biologisch gewachsen ist und aus der Retorte und Industrie kommt. Ich denke also dass es keine große Umstellung wird für die Leute die heute schon mit Nahrungsmüll hochgezogen wurden.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.029.380 von mouse_potato am 31.10.06 09:36:38Als Rheinländer habe ich zwar für das "Et kütt wie et kütt" einiges übrig. Natürlich können wir z.B. die Sonnenabstrahlung nicht beeinflussen.
Dass aber der CO2-Gehalt der Atmosphäre der höchste ist seit Millionen Jahren - das lässt sich nachweisen. Und der humanogene Anteil daran lässt sich exakt beziffern. Zumindest qualitativ ist der Zusammenhang zwischen Temperaturentwicklung und CO2-Gehalt naturhistorisch nachweisbar; den dahinterstehenden Mechanismus verstehen wir auch immer besser. Dass die Durchschnittstemperaturen in der Atmosphere und (was noch wichtiger ist, im Meer) in den letzten 100 Jahren deutlich gestiegen sind, ist messbar und wird gut durch die Treibhaus-Modelle beschrieben.
Dass es in quantitativer Hinsicht die Prognosen nicht deckungsgleich sind, liegt an verschiedenen Modellen und nicht ganz vollständigem Wissen über die Zusammenhänge - und z.T. an von der interessierten Lobby gekauften Verharmlosungsstudien.
Nahezu die gesamte wissenschaftliche Community als "Sekte" zu bezeichnen, ist doch etwas abenteuerlich. Aber diese Meinung kann ich dir nicht nehmen, denn, um einen anderen Kölschen Spruch zu zitieren: "Jeder Jeck ist anders".
Dass aber der CO2-Gehalt der Atmosphäre der höchste ist seit Millionen Jahren - das lässt sich nachweisen. Und der humanogene Anteil daran lässt sich exakt beziffern. Zumindest qualitativ ist der Zusammenhang zwischen Temperaturentwicklung und CO2-Gehalt naturhistorisch nachweisbar; den dahinterstehenden Mechanismus verstehen wir auch immer besser. Dass die Durchschnittstemperaturen in der Atmosphere und (was noch wichtiger ist, im Meer) in den letzten 100 Jahren deutlich gestiegen sind, ist messbar und wird gut durch die Treibhaus-Modelle beschrieben.
Dass es in quantitativer Hinsicht die Prognosen nicht deckungsgleich sind, liegt an verschiedenen Modellen und nicht ganz vollständigem Wissen über die Zusammenhänge - und z.T. an von der interessierten Lobby gekauften Verharmlosungsstudien.
Nahezu die gesamte wissenschaftliche Community als "Sekte" zu bezeichnen, ist doch etwas abenteuerlich. Aber diese Meinung kann ich dir nicht nehmen, denn, um einen anderen Kölschen Spruch zu zitieren: "Jeder Jeck ist anders".
Ist natürlich alles Quatsch. Scheiß auf Klima, Tiere, Pflanzen. In Wahrheit brauchen wir noch mindestens 5 Milliarden weitere Menschen und vor allem Zuwanderer in Deutschland, damit die Rente und unser zukünftiger Wohlstand gesichert werden. Was immer man dann auch darunter verstehen wird, wenn 12 Milliarden Idioten über die Erde trampeln und sich für ein paar Wurzeln gegenseitig an die Kehle gehen, während ein paar UNESCO Natur- oder Welterbstücke von den Armeen bewacht werden.
Durchsuchen
