Globale Erwärmung durch Treibhauseffekt - nur ein Mythos der Linken? (Seite 5801)

[for4zim]

Noch etwas zu dem Beitrag des Primatenforschers: mir war zunächst nicht klar, wo da überhaupt die von ihm unterstellte Widerlegung der Theorie zum Klimawandel war, aber ich habe jetzt den Verdacht, er will den Primärenergieumsatz der Menschheit in Beziehung zur solaren Einstrahlung setzen. Das ist natürlich absurd, weil der klimarelevante Effekt ja in der Modifikation der Abstrahlung der Erde in das Weltall besteht. Die Treibhausgase haben letztlich den Effekt, daß die effektive mittlere Abstrahlungshöhe ansteigt, und durch die sinkende Temperatur mit steigender Höhe daher die Abstrahlung abnimmt. Dadurch steigt die globale Mitteltemperatur der Erdatmosphäre so lange an, bis ein neues Strahlungsgleichgewicht mit der Sonne erreicht wird. Dieser Prozeß ist zwingend. Man kann unseriöse Beiträge daran erkennen, daß sie diesen Zusammenhang leugnen. Seriöse Kritik erkennt man daran, daß sie diesen Zusammenhang anerkennt, aber Rückkopplungseffekte diskutiert - etwa die Erhöhung der Albedo der Erde durch vermehrte Bewölkung oder eine Verstärkung der CO2-Absorption in den Ozeanen. Beides wird diskutiert und letzteres konnte gerade in den letzten Jahren widerlegt werden. Seriös wäre auch, regionale Effekte zu diskutieren und dabei negative und positive Effekte gegenüberzustellen. Seriös wäre auch, über die Wirksamkeit verschiedener Maßnahmen gegen den Klimawandel zu diskutieren. Unseriös ist ganz sicher jeder Beitrag, der über die "Hockeyschlägerkurve" diskutiert, denn dazu gab es eine sehr ausführliche Diskussion in der Fachliteratur (ich erinnere mich auch an Klagen von Mann in EOS, wo er die unfairen Methoden einiger Klimawandelleugner aus Kanada anprangerte), die zum einen verdeutlicht, daß der angezeigte Trend in den Temperaturdaten genuin und signifikant ist, und das wirklich nach jeder Statistik, zum anderen aber auch klar macht, daß der Temperaturtrend des 20. Jahrhunderts nur ein Mosaikstein ist von vielen, und es unfair ist, so zu tun, als basierte die Argumentation zum Klimawandel auf nichts anderem als eine Temperaturkurve.

Der andere Punkt war beim Primatenforscher, daß er in seiner Quelle herausstellte, daß 90% des Treibhauseffektes auf Wasserdampf basiert. Das ist trivial. Wir diskutieren hier explizit über die vom Menschen beeinflußten 5%-plus. Das Problem sind nicht die ca. 33 Grad, die den Unterschied zwischen einer bewohnbaren Erde und einem Eisklumpen im Weltall machen, sondern die 3 bis 6 Grad obendrauf in den nächsten 100 Jahren, die ca. einer halben Milliarden Menschen die Lebensgrundlagen entziehen könnten und einige 1000 Milliarden Euro an wirtschaftlichen Schäden erzeugen könnten. Das ist dann der Punkt, den ich mit wissenschaftlichem Verständnis beim Herangehen an solche Texte meine: es hilft nichts, Texte aus dem Internet zu ziehen, wenn man sie nicht interpretieren kann, weil einem der Hintergrund fehlt.

[mouse_potato]

Seit wann ist wissenschaftlicher Konsens schon ein Beweis? Ist neuerdings schon irgendwas bewiesen wenn sich nur genügend "Wissenschaftler" zusammentun und irgendwas behaupten? Was war nicht alles schon wissenschaftlicher Konsens bis es sich als falsch herausgestellt hat?

Schaut man sich an wie in der Vergangenheit vor allem im Bereich Umwelt die falschen Voraussagen, die nicht eingetroffenen Katastrophen und die Panikmache an ist es auf jeden Fall angebracht dieser "Wissenschafts"-Clique zu misstrauen und skeptisch bei allen "Beweisen" zu sein.

Ich kenne Aussagen von Kreationisten zur Evolutionstheorie nicht im Detail aber warum sollte man Schwächen der Evolutionstheorie plötzlich nicht mehr nennen dürfen? Muss die Wissenschaft ihre Erkenntnisse jetzt absichern indem sie sich Kritik verbietet? Wenn Argumente der Kreationisten falsch sind sollten diese widerlegt werden, egal vor welchem Hintergrund diese Aussagen gemacht werden. Möglicherweise ist man dazu aber nicht in der Lage.

[for4zim]

Oh je, der erste Absatz ist verstümmelt...


...wenn dann eine kleine Minderheit von Wissenschaftlern dies alles inklusive IPCC einfach zur Verschwörung erklärt, und die beteiligten Wissenschaftler zu einem Haufen Dummköpfe.

[for4zim]

spicault, ich möchte Dir einen Rat geben: es hat noch nie Erkenntnisgewinn gebracht, sich durch unseriöse Beiträge im Internet "fortzubilden". Du zitierst hier Leute, die klar ihre politischen Überzeugungen über wissenschaftliche Regeln stellen. Es gibt einen wissenschaftlichen Konsens darüber, was auf der Erde geschieht, und der hat sich in mühevoller Diskussion gebildet. Da ist es einfach nicht zielführend, wenn dann eine kleine Minderheit von Wissenschaftlern dies alles inklusive IPCC einfach zur Verschwörung erklärt, und einen Haufen Dummköpfen.

Ich weiß auch nicht, wie Du eigentlich hier die Wahrheit herausfinden willst. Willst Du über wissenschaftliche Fachliteratur und sektiererische Grauliteraturpamphlete gleichgewichtet mitteln? Das ist etwa so vernünftig, wie die Länge der Nase des Kaisers von China zu ermitteln, den niemand ansehen darf, indem man die Angaben aller Untertanen über die Nasenlänge mittelt.

Die Leipzig-Erklärung kannst Du in die Mülltonne stopfen, weil sie veraltet ist. Seit Mitte der 90er Jahre ist bereits ein Jahrzehnt vergangen, in dem alle Zweifel, die in dieser Deklaration geäußert wurden, klar widerlegt wurden. Das ist nämlich ein weiteres Problem bei Deiner Recherche, daß Du Dir nicht im klaren darüber bist, wie Du all diese Pamphlete im Internet auch in ihrer zeitlichen Reihung zu gewichten hast. Ich würde Dir anraten, Dich über www.wmo.ch und dort über IPCC kundig zu machen. Ich glaube aber, daß das schwierig wird schon dadurch, daß Du zuvor erst mal Deine naturwissenschaftlichen Kenntnisse entsprechend ausbauen müßtest, um überhaupt ein Gefühl dafür zu bekommen, wie man Daten wichtet und woran man seriöse Publikationen erkennt. An puhvogels Diagrammen (dankeschön) kannst Du z.B. schön erkennen, was für eine bösartige Verdrehung der Daten es ist, wenn man ausgerechnet die Zeit von 1998 bis 2005 aus dem Gesamttrend herausgreift, also direkt nach einem lokalen Maximum. Das wäre so sinnvoll wie zu sagen, Aktien wären eine untaugliche Geldanlage, indem man nur die Zeit vom Frühjahr 2000 bis Frühjahr 2004 betrachtet.

Daß Du auf Argumente, die man Dir bringt, einfach irgendwelche Kopien anderen an den Kopf wirfst, zeigt meiner Ansicht nach auch, daß Du Dich hier selbst überforderst. Erwarte nicht von anderen, daß sie Dir etwas erklären, was Du im Internet gefunden hast; das würde jedes vernünftige Zeitbudget übersteigen. Wenn Du selbst etwas verstanden hast und das mit Deinen eigenen Worten vorbringst, ist es viel eher sinnvoll, das auch zu diskutieren. Deine Pamphlete hier sind Tendenzbeiträge, keine Wissenschaft, und daher für die Diskussion wertlos. Ich würde nicht so weit gehen, wie bares&nobles, der die Klimawandelleugner im gleichen Umfeld sieht, wie die Kreationisten. Ich selbst hatte den Vergleich nur gebracht, um den wissenschaftlichen Wert der Pamphlete zu kennzeichnen. Aber andererseits ist es plausibel, daß hier einiges parallel läuft, nicht nur aus den genannten Gründen von bares&nobles, sondern eigentlich noch mehr, weil der politische Hintergrund der gleiche ist. Es sind bestimmte konservative Kreise aus den USA, die gleichermaßen Interesse daran haben, die Evolutionstheorie anzugreifen wie auch den wissenschaftlichen Konsens über den ablaufenden Klimawandel. Beim ersteren geht es um das Durchsetzen konservativer Werte in der Ethikdebatte, beim zweiten um eine bestimmte Wirtschaftsagenda des laissez-faire. Ich deute den Hintergrund an, aber ich baue nicht meine Argumentation darauf. Die Argumentation baue ich darauf, daß die wissenschaftliche Begründung der Klimawandelleugner im Vergleich zu dem allgemeinen wissenschaftlichen Konsens schwach ist.

[spicault]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.308.501 von PolyMod am 28.06.06 01:06:50

#12 PolyMod

Diese Texte habe ich über 2 Links in der Wikipedia gefunden:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_glo…

Die Leipziger Erklärung in # 11 wurde auf der Website von Envirotruth gefunden.

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm

Ich selbst habe noch keine feste Meinung zu diesem Thema. Mit meinen Postings versuche ich die verschiedenen Gesichtspunkte zu verstehen und ich hoffe, dass ich mir schließlich eine eigene Meinung bilden kann. Ich hoffe auch, dass diese Postings anderen Boardteilnehmern als Denkanstoß dienen werden.

Aber schon sehe ich, daß das Problem nicht so einfach ist, wie for4zim es darzustellen versuchst.

[PolyMod [Mod]]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.308.142 von spicault am 28.06.06 00:21:12

spicault,

ich fordere dich auf, zu den Texten in deinen Postings nachprüfbare Quellen anzugeben, damit wir uns alle von der Seriosität überzeugen können.

Zu der im letzten Posting angegebene Quelle eco-logic/powerhouse.com konnte ich zwar eine website finden (eco.freedom.org). Der von dir offerierte offene Brief von 60 Wissenschaftlern (http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20060402/kyoto.shtml) ist dort aber nur noch für Mitglieder verfügbar; bei Google findet man ihn noch im cash.

PolyMod.

[spicault]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 22.302.580 von for4zim am 27.06.06 18:56:57

#5 for4zim und #9 bares@nobles

THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we -- along with many of our fellow citizens -– are apprehensive about emission targets and timetables adopted at the Climate Conference held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. This gathering of politicians from some 160 signatory nations aims to impose on citizens of the industrialized nations, -- but not on others -- a system of global environmental regulations that include quotas and punitive taxes on energy fuels to force substantial cuts in energy use within 10 years, with further cuts to follow. Stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide -- the announced goal of the Climate Treaty -- would require that fuel use be cut by as much as 60 to 80 percent -- worldwide!

Energy is essential for economic growth. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. We understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change; but we believe the Kyoto Protocol -- to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from only part of the world community -- is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living.

More to the point, we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic. The policies to implement the Treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models -- and the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from an increase in greenhouse gases, requiring immediate action. We do not agree. We believe that the dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record, which appears to be dominated by natural fluctuations, showing both warming and cooling. These predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on to construct far-reaching policies.

As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that –- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever--in direct contradiction to computer model results.

Historically, climate has always been a factor in human affairs -– with warmer periods, such as the medieval "climate optimum," playing an important role in economic expansion and in the welfare of nations that depend primarily on agriculture. Colder periods have caused crop failures, and led to famines, disease, and other documented human misery. We must, therefore, remain sensitive to any and all human activities that could affect future climate.

However, based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference -- lacking credible support from the underlying science -- to be ill-advised and premature.

********************************************************************************
This statement is based on the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany on Nov. 9-10, 1995, and in Bonn, Germany on Nov. 10-11, 1997. For further information, contact the Europaeische Akademie fuer Umweltfragen or The Science and Environmental Policy Project in Arlington, Virginia.<[e-mail]>

SIGNATORIES TO THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION

The following is a partial list only. Following the Kyoto Conference on global warming, the original Declaration was slightly amended. The posting of 33 additional signatories is pending verification that the scientists still agree with the statement. The list will be updated as these verifications come in.

Dr. John Apel, oceanographer, Global Oceans Associates, formerly with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
Dr. David Aubrey, Senior Scientist, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts
Dr. Duwayne M. Anderson,Professor, Texas A&M University
Dr. Robert Balling, Professor and Director of the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; more than 80 research articles published in scientific journals; author of The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions vs. Climate Reality (1992); coauthor, Interactions of Desertifications and Climate, a report for the UN Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization; contributor/reviewer, IPCC.
Dr. Jack Barrett, Imperial College, London, UK
Dr. Warren Berning, atmospheric physicist, New Mexico State University
Dr. Jiri Blumel, Institute Sozialokon. Forschg. Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic
Bruce Boe, atmospheric scientist and Director of the North Dakota Atmospheric Resources Board; member, American Meteorological Society; former chairman, AMS Committee on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification.
Dr. C.J.F. Böttcher, Chairman of the Board, The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources, The Hague, The Netherlands; Professor Emeritus of physical chemistry, Leiden University; past President of the Science Policy Council of The Netherlands; former member, Scientific Council for Government Policy; former head of the Netherlands Delegation to the OECD Committee for Science and Technology; author, The Science and Fiction of the Greenhouse Effect and Carbon Dioxide; founding member of The Club of Rome.
Dr. Arthur Bourne, Professor, University of London, UK
Larry H. Brace, physicist, former director of the Planetary Atmospheres Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; recipient NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
Dr. Norman M.D. Brown, FRSC, Professor, University of Ulster.
Dr. R.A.D. Byron-Scott, meteorologist, formerly senior lecturer in meteorology, Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
Dr. Joseph Cain, Professor of planetary physics and geophysics, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Institute, Florida State University; elected Fellow, American Geophysical Union; formerly with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (scientific satellites) and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Dr. Gabriel T. Csanady, meteorologist, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.
Robert Cunningham, consulting meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Dr. Fred W. Decker, Professor of meteorology, Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon; elected Fellow, AAAS; member, RMS, NWA, AWA, AMS.
Lee W. Eddington, meteorologist, Naval Air Warfare Center
Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser, atmospheric scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1963-1986); Participating Guest Scientist, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. (1986-1996), more than 40 refereed research papers and major reports in the scientific literature.
Dr. John Emsley, Imperial College, London, UK
Dr. Otto Franzle, Professor, University of Kiel, Germany
Dr. C.R. de Freitas, climate scientist, University of Auckland, New Zealand, Editor of the international journal Climate Research
Dr. John E. Gaynor, Senior Meteorologist, Environmental Technology Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado
Dr. Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, member of Nobel Prize selection committee for physics; member, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, author of several books on science and technology.
Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor, Technical University of Braunschweig.
Dr. Thomas Gold, Professor of astrophysics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Dr. H.G. Goodell, Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
James D. Goodridge, climatologist, formerly with California Dept. of Water Resources.
Dr. Adrian Gordon, meteorologist, University of South Australia.
Prof. Dr. Eckhard Grimmel, Professor, University Hamburg, Germany.
Dr. Nathaniel B. Guttman, Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina; former Professor of atmospheric sciences/climatology; former Chairman, AMS Committee on Applied Climatology.
Dr. Paul Handler, Professor of chemistry, University of Illinois.
Dr. Vern Harnapp, Professor, University of Akron, Ohio
Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Michael J. Higatsberger, Professor and former Director, Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria; former Director, Seibersdorf Research Center of the Austrian Atomic Energy Agency; former President, Austrian Physical Society.
Dr. Austin W. Hogan, meteorologist, co-editor of the journal Atmospheric Research.
Dr. William Hubbard, Professor, University of Arizona, Dept. of Planetary Sciences; elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.
Dr. Heinz Hug, lecturer, Wiesbaden, Germany
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, University of Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, nuclear physicist, Director, Technology Strategy Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa; columnist, Engineering News; author, Techtrack: A Winding Path of South African Development.
Dr. Robert L. Kovach, Professor of geophysics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
Dr. David R. Legates, Professor of meteorology, University of Oklahoma
Dr. Heinz H. Lettau, geophysicist, Increase A. Lapham Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin
Dr. Henry R. Linden, Max McGraw Professor of Energy and Power Engineering and Management, Director, Energy and Power Center, Illinois Institute of Technology; elected Fellow, American Institute of Chemical Engineers; former member, Energy Engineering Board of the National Research Council; member, Green Technology Committee, National Academy of Engineering.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Sloane Professor of Meteorology, Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dr. J. P. Lodge, atmospheric chemist, Boulder, Colorado
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, atmospheric scientist, Professor, University of Missouri at Columbia, reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
Dr. George E. McVehil, meteorologist, Englewood, Colorado
Dr. Helmut Metzner, Professor, Tubingen, Germany
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor and Director of the State Office of Climatology, University of Virginia; more than 50 research articles published in scientific journals; past President, American Association of State Climatologists; author, Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992); reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
Sir William Mitchell, physicist, University of Oxford, U.K.
Dr. Asmunn Moene, former chief of Meteorology, Oslo, Norway.
Laim Nagle, energy/engineering specialist, Cornfield University, UK
Robert A. Neff, former U.S. Air Force meteorologist: member, AMS, AAAS.
Dr. William A. Nierenberg, Director Emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California; Professor Emeritus of oceanography, University of California at San Diego; former member, Council of the U.S. National Academy of Science; former Chairman, National Research Council's Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee; former member, U.S. EPA Global Climate Change Committee; former Assistant Secretary General of NATO for scientific affairs; former Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres.
Dr. William Porch, atmospheric physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.
Dr. Harry Priem, Professor of geology, University of Utrecht
Dr. William E. Reifsnyder, Professor Emeritus of biometeorology, Yale University; elected Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; former Chairman, National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on Climatology; AMS Award for Outstanding Achievement in Biometeorology.
Dr. Alexander Robertson, meteorologist, Adjunct Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada; author of more than 200 scientific and technical publications in biometeorology and climatology, forestry, forest ecology, urban environmental forestry, and engineering technology.
Dr. Thomas Schmidlin, CCM, Professor of meteorology/climatology, Kent State University, Ohio; editor, Ohio Journal of Science, elected Fellow, Ohio Academy of Science; member, AMS.
Dr. Frederick Seitz, physicist, former President, Rockefeller University, former President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; former member, President's Science Advisory Committee; recipient, U.S. National Medal of Science.
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Executive Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Integrated Ocean Sciences; contributed to the initial development of the Climate Change Program of the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration; investigated climate-related resource variabilities, sustainable development, and basic environmental climatology for the UN, World Bank, and USAID.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist; President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service; Professor Emeritus of environmental science, University of Virginia; former Chairman, federal panel investigating effects of the SST on stratospheric ozone; author or editor of 16 books, including Global Climate Change (1989) and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (1997).
Dr. A. F. Smith, chemical engineer (ret.), Jacksonville, Florida
Dr. Fred J. Starheim, Professor, Kent State University
Dr. Chauncey Starr, President Emeritus, Electric Power Research Institute, winner 1992 National Medal of Engineering
Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, Secretary General Emeritus, International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans, and a leading world authority on space oceanography; more than 100 research articles published in scientific journals; author of seven books; advisor to NASA, NATO, U.S. National Academy of Science, and the European Geophysical Society.
Dr. George Stroke, Professor, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Munich, Germany
Dr. Heinz Sundermann, University of Vienna, Austria
Dr. George H. Sutton, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii
Dr. Arlen Super, meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lakewood, Colorado
Dr. Vladimir Svidersky, Professor, Sechenoc Institute, Moscow, Russia
Dr. M. Talwani, geophysicist, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Dr. W. F. Tanner, Professor, Florida State University
Peter Arnold Toynbee, chemical engineer, F. Institute of Energy, London, England.
Dr. Christiaan Van Sumere, Professor, University of Gent, Belgium
Dr. Robin Vaugh, physicist, University of Dundee, UK
Dr. Robert C. Wentworth, geophysicist, Oakland, California, formerly with Lochheed Reseach Laboratory.
Dr. Robert C. Whitten, physicist, formerly with NASA.
Dr. Klaus Wyrtki, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii Sea Level Center

TELEVISION NEWS METEOROLOGISTS
(affiliation for identification purposes only)

Elliot Abrams, meteorologist, Senior Vice President, Accuweather, Inc.
Richard Apuzzo, meteorologist, WXIX-TV (FOX), Cincinnati, Ohio; member, AMS, NWA, SKYWARN; recipient of "Best Weathercast" awards from Associated Press and United Press International.
Andre Bernier, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Sallie Bernier, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Bob Breck, meteorologist, WVUE-TV (ABC), New Orleans, Louisiana
Matthew Bye, meteorologist, KPIX-TV (CBS) San Francisco, California
A.J. Colby, meteorologist, WICU-TV (NBC), Erie, Pennsylvania
Dr. Neil L. Frank, meteorologist, HOU-TV (CBS), Houston, Texas, former Director, National Hurricane Center.
Dick Gance, meteorologist, Weather Forecasting, Inc., Concord, Ohio
Dick Goddard, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Shane Hollett, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Mark Johnson, meteorologist, WEWS-TV (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio
Roy Leep, meteorologist, WTVT-TV (CBS), recently retired; Director, Gillette Weather Data Services, Tampa, Florida; elected Fellow, American Meteorological Society; former member, AMS Executive Council; among the group of TV meteorologists invited to the White House for a briefing on global warming.
Mark Koontz, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Jon Loufman, meteorologist, WKYC-TV (NBC), Cleveland, Ohio
Dan Maly, meteorologist, WOIO-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Ryan McPike, atmospheric scientist, WICU-TV (NBC), Erie, Pennsylvania
James T. Moore, meteorologist, KSWO-TV (ABC) Lawton, Oklahoma
Scott R. Sabol, meteorologist, WBOY-TV (NBC), Clarksburg, West Virginia
Dr. Joseph Sobel, meteorologist, Pennsylvania Public Television Network; Senior Vice President, Accu-Weather, Inc., State College, Pennsylvania; co-author, Changing Weather: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change and Weather Extremes.
Brad Sussman, meteorologist, WEWS-TV (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio, AMS, NWA, Broadcast Seal Committee Chair NWA.
Brian Sussman, meteorologist, KPIX-TV (CBS) San Francisco, California; member, American Meteorological Society (served on AMS Education Committee), 12-time recipient of the "Best Weathercast" award from the Radio and Television News Directors Association and Associated Press.
Anthony Watts, meteorologist, KHSL-TV (CBS), Chico, California
Don Webster, meteorologist, WEWS-TV 9 (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio
Brian Westfall, meteorologist, Weather Forecasting, Inc., Akron, Ohio

[spicault]

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.

[bares@nobles]

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.

[spicault]

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