Globale Erwärmung durch Treibhauseffekt - nur ein Mythos der Linken? (Seite 5790)
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: 19
Gesamt: 1.506.299
Gesamt: 1.506.299
Aktive User: 1
Top-Diskussionen
| Titel | letzter Beitrag | Aufrufe |
|---|---|---|
| vor 51 Minuten | 3547 | |
| vor 18 Minuten | 3496 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 2510 | |
| vor 12 Minuten | 2269 | |
| vor 14 Minuten | 955 | |
| vor 14 Minuten | 859 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 654 | |
| vor 21 Minuten | 629 |
Meistdiskutierte Wertpapiere
| Platz | vorher | Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % | Anzahl | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 1. | 17.893,73 | -0,04 | 201 | |||
| 2. | 2. | 171,98 | +0,12 | 81 | |||
| 3. | 3. | 8,3400 | +0,60 | 67 | |||
| 4. | 4. | 3,8300 | +3,51 | 64 | |||
| 5. | 5. | 0,1895 | -2,07 | 41 | |||
| 6. | 6. | 6,6200 | -0,90 | 30 | |||
| 7. | 11. | 2.303,99 | +0,80 | 29 | |||
| 8. | 7. | 717,00 | -10,95 | 29 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.446.877 von Ballyclare am 07.07.06 10:56:51Ja, diese Vermutung habe ich auch, das dahinter größtenteils politische Interessen stecken und unzählige Lobbyorganisationen und Vereine, die man gar nicht mehr alle aufzählen kann.
Das Kyoto eine Luftnummer war und nichts bringt wurde ja nun schon aufgedeckt. Aber trotz alledem hängen die Lobbygruppen an den Zitzen der Fördergelder wie Blutegel.
Das sollte eigentlich auch verdeutlichen was wirklich hinter dieser Meinungsmache durch Angst, Ungewissheit und Zweifel steckt.
Das Kyoto eine Luftnummer war und nichts bringt wurde ja nun schon aufgedeckt. Aber trotz alledem hängen die Lobbygruppen an den Zitzen der Fördergelder wie Blutegel.
Das sollte eigentlich auch verdeutlichen was wirklich hinter dieser Meinungsmache durch Angst, Ungewissheit und Zweifel steckt.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.451.597 von CaptainFutures am 07.07.06 14:52:24Ich bau keine Angstszenarion auf. Ich wollte nur helfen. Mir ist das alles wurscht, 40-45 Jahre wird der Laden schon noch halten danach könnt eueren Scheiß allein machen.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.450.258 von spicault am 07.07.06 14:04:31Spicault,
gib bitte die Quelle zu diesem Text an.
Oder sind das jetzt deine eigenen Schlussfolgerungen aus der Diskussion?
Eine kleine Bemerkung zum Inhalt, die ich mir bei aller Neutralität nicht verkneifen kann:
Wenn der Treibhaus-Effekt jetzt schon die Temperatur auf der Erde um 330 Grad erhöht, und wenn davon 3,6% auf Kosten des CO2 gehen (was m.W. viel zu niedrig angesetzt ist), wieviel Grad macht dann ein Anstieg der CO2-Konzentration um fast 20% aus, wie er für die letzten 5 Jahrzehnte nachweisbar ist?
(Allerdings nehme ich an, dass nicht -180 C bzw. +150 C, sondern -18°C bzw. 15°C gemeint sind, also ein gesamter Treibhauseffekt von 33 Grad.
)
Aber auch ohne diese unsinnigen Zahlen ist der Artikel voller erkennbarer Widersprüche. (Was soll z.B. der lächerliche Hinweis auf den Wasserdampfausstoß wasserstoffgetriebener Autos?)
gib bitte die Quelle zu diesem Text an.
Oder sind das jetzt deine eigenen Schlussfolgerungen aus der Diskussion?
Eine kleine Bemerkung zum Inhalt, die ich mir bei aller Neutralität nicht verkneifen kann:
Wenn der Treibhaus-Effekt jetzt schon die Temperatur auf der Erde um 330 Grad erhöht, und wenn davon 3,6% auf Kosten des CO2 gehen (was m.W. viel zu niedrig angesetzt ist), wieviel Grad macht dann ein Anstieg der CO2-Konzentration um fast 20% aus, wie er für die letzten 5 Jahrzehnte nachweisbar ist?
(Allerdings nehme ich an, dass nicht -180 C bzw. +150 C, sondern -18°C bzw. 15°C gemeint sind, also ein gesamter Treibhauseffekt von 33 Grad.
) Aber auch ohne diese unsinnigen Zahlen ist der Artikel voller erkennbarer Widersprüche. (Was soll z.B. der lächerliche Hinweis auf den Wasserdampfausstoß wasserstoffgetriebener Autos?)
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.450.112 von Viva2 am 07.07.06 13:58:33Sehr schöner Artikel, der selbst den schlichtesten Gemütern (und auch solchen die sich bereits von einer sachlichen Diskussion verabschiedet haben) hier verdeutlichen sollte wie die ewig gleiche Masche funktioniert: Zwei vorher/nachher Bilder eingestellt und schon ist das Angstszenario aufgebaut.
Wissenschaftliche Fakten?
Offene Fragen?
Untersuchungen verschiedenster Wissenschaftler?
Spielt alles keine Rolle, wenn solch eine politisch-wirtschaftliche Gigantomanie dahinter steht, wie man anhand den 10 Punkten in #88 ersehen kann.
Es geht dieser Lobby (IPCC, etc.) daher nicht um Wissen oder Erkenntnis, sondern allein um eine Art religiösen Glauben zwecks Erhalt der eigenen Existenz.
Wissenschaftliche Fakten?
Offene Fragen?
Untersuchungen verschiedenster Wissenschaftler?
Spielt alles keine Rolle, wenn solch eine politisch-wirtschaftliche Gigantomanie dahinter steht, wie man anhand den 10 Punkten in #88 ersehen kann.
Es geht dieser Lobby (IPCC, etc.) daher nicht um Wissen oder Erkenntnis, sondern allein um eine Art religiösen Glauben zwecks Erhalt der eigenen Existenz.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.449.467 von spicault am 07.07.06 13:24:43Ten Facts about Climate Change They don't Want you to Know
1.Climate has always changed, and always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
2.Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no significant atmospheric warming or cooling since then. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect.
3.Despite the expenditure of more than US$40 billion dollars on climate research since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
4.Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~3.6% of the total greenhouse effect, of which only a miniscule 0.12% can be attributed to human activity. (Water, at ~95% of the effect, is by far the most important component in the atmosphere; what was that about hydrogen-powered cars?)
5.On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a mild positive temperature feedback).
6.The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby, leading to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Hendrik Tennekes, recently retired as Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz".
7.The Kyoto Protocol will cost up to 100 trillion dollars, will have a devastating effect on the economies of those countries that have signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050).
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism "one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism". If Kyoto is a "first step", it is in the wrong direction.
8.Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9.Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model will be able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change. Australian State Premiers please take note.
10.The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. And thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study.
1.Climate has always changed, and always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
2.Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no significant atmospheric warming or cooling since then. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect.
3.Despite the expenditure of more than US$40 billion dollars on climate research since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
4.Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~3.6% of the total greenhouse effect, of which only a miniscule 0.12% can be attributed to human activity. (Water, at ~95% of the effect, is by far the most important component in the atmosphere; what was that about hydrogen-powered cars?)
5.On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a mild positive temperature feedback).
6.The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby, leading to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Hendrik Tennekes, recently retired as Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz".
7.The Kyoto Protocol will cost up to 100 trillion dollars, will have a devastating effect on the economies of those countries that have signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050).
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism "one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism". If Kyoto is a "first step", it is in the wrong direction.
8.Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9.Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model will be able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change. Australian State Premiers please take note.
10.The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. And thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study.
Trading Spotlight
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.449.467 von spicault am 07.07.06 13:24:43http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/articles/tages/html_print_style/g…
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.448.962 von greatmr am 07.07.06 12:49:07The Greenhouse Delusion
by
VINCENT GRAY, M.A., PH.D
http://www.john-daly.com/tar-2000/summary.htm
Summary for Policymakers
* Climate has always changed and nothing we can do will stop it from changing.
* There is no credible evidence that the earth is currently warming. Satellite measurements in the lower atmosphere for the past 23 years show no significant temperature change. The frequently quoted combined temperature record from weather stations is biased in favour of proximity to cities, airports. buildings, roads and vehicles, all of which have become slightly warmer over the years from increased energy consumption. Surface measurements from remote areas, or from countries with many well controlled sites ( such as the USA) show no evidence of significant warming.
* Sea level measurements are even more biased than weather stations. They are mainly near Northern Hemisphere ports, and are subject to local and short and long-term geological changes which are difficult to allow for. Sites in remote, low population places, such as the smaller Pacific islands show no evidence of recent sea level change.
* The earth’s temperature is warmer because of its atmosphere, and by the influence of greenhouse gases which partly prevent heat loss.
* The changes over the years in the properties of the most important of these gases, water vapour, and the clouds that form from it, are virtually unknown.
* The minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is increasing in concentration linearly at the rate of 0.4% a year, and as a result, agricultural and forestry yields are increasing. There are no established harmful effects of this increase.
* The rate of increase of the only other important greenhouse gas, methane, has fallen steadily for the past 17 years. The concentration is currently falling.
* Computer climate models are based on the incorrect belief that changes in the greenhouse effect are the only influences on the climate.
* There are huge uncertainties in the model outputs which are unrecognised and unmeasured. They are so large that adjustment of model parameters can give model results which fit any climate, including one with no warming, and one that cools.
* No model has ever successfully predicted any future climate sequence. Despite this, future "projections" for as far ahead as several hundred years have been presented by the IPCC as plausible future trends, based on largely distorted "storylines", combined with untested models.
* The IPCC have provided a wealth of scientific information on the climate, but they have not established a case that increases in carbon dioxide are causing any harmful effects.
* Attempts to suggest a relationship with "unusual" weather events and changes in greenhouse gases have been unsuccessful.
by
VINCENT GRAY, M.A., PH.D
http://www.john-daly.com/tar-2000/summary.htm
Summary for Policymakers
* Climate has always changed and nothing we can do will stop it from changing.
* There is no credible evidence that the earth is currently warming. Satellite measurements in the lower atmosphere for the past 23 years show no significant temperature change. The frequently quoted combined temperature record from weather stations is biased in favour of proximity to cities, airports. buildings, roads and vehicles, all of which have become slightly warmer over the years from increased energy consumption. Surface measurements from remote areas, or from countries with many well controlled sites ( such as the USA) show no evidence of significant warming.
* Sea level measurements are even more biased than weather stations. They are mainly near Northern Hemisphere ports, and are subject to local and short and long-term geological changes which are difficult to allow for. Sites in remote, low population places, such as the smaller Pacific islands show no evidence of recent sea level change.
* The earth’s temperature is warmer because of its atmosphere, and by the influence of greenhouse gases which partly prevent heat loss.
* The changes over the years in the properties of the most important of these gases, water vapour, and the clouds that form from it, are virtually unknown.
* The minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is increasing in concentration linearly at the rate of 0.4% a year, and as a result, agricultural and forestry yields are increasing. There are no established harmful effects of this increase.
* The rate of increase of the only other important greenhouse gas, methane, has fallen steadily for the past 17 years. The concentration is currently falling.
* Computer climate models are based on the incorrect belief that changes in the greenhouse effect are the only influences on the climate.
* There are huge uncertainties in the model outputs which are unrecognised and unmeasured. They are so large that adjustment of model parameters can give model results which fit any climate, including one with no warming, and one that cools.
* No model has ever successfully predicted any future climate sequence. Despite this, future "projections" for as far ahead as several hundred years have been presented by the IPCC as plausible future trends, based on largely distorted "storylines", combined with untested models.
* The IPCC have provided a wealth of scientific information on the climate, but they have not established a case that increases in carbon dioxide are causing any harmful effects.
* Attempts to suggest a relationship with "unusual" weather events and changes in greenhouse gases have been unsuccessful.
@bally
es bestreitet doch auch niemand, dass es klimaschwankungen ohne einfluß des menschen gegeben hat/gibt.
es bestreitet doch auch niemand, dass es klimaschwankungen ohne einfluß des menschen gegeben hat/gibt.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.448.497 von Ballyclare am 07.07.06 12:15:30Echt? Unter welchen Gletschern?
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.447.697 von cajadeahorros am 07.07.06 11:36:35Ja - und unter den zurückweichenden Gletschern hat man Eingänge von Minen aus dem 14.Jahrhundert entdeckt.
Nach Untersuchungen der Schweizer Tech. Hochschule waren die Alpen in den letzten 10000 Jahren mehrfach eisfrei.
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/articles/tages/html_print_style/g…
Nach Untersuchungen der Schweizer Tech. Hochschule waren die Alpen in den letzten 10000 Jahren mehrfach eisfrei.
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/articles/tages/html_print_style/g…
Durchsuchen
