The day before yesterday explained IMAGE tearful's 7 greatest problems of our world and how it really is to us. Curiously, pulled one out of the question, even represent at least one of the seven problems.
Might the combat boots sheet along with his editorial for journalistic Selbstentleibung decide, so to speak, to stage a media-journalistic hara-kiri in the interest of the environment or, like Greenpeace lead by example so heroically, to begin a rigorous journalistic hunger strike for the climate, one of the points would be on the list once to highlight and CO2 exhalations in Germany would drop abruptly: Less hot air!
Source: www.deesillustration.com
Amid the media frenzy at the Copenhagen climate-controlled world climate summit, the public had no opportunity to learn that on 05.12.09 in Berlin, another international "summit" took place, that is already the 2nd time a conference of scientific opponents of the official climate theorists. The participants in the first-mentioned summit, from 192 countries of the world coming, lushly padded with taxpayers' money and with a huge journalistic entourage in tow, for days. Currently. In the Danish capital. 15,000 people from 150 scientists in Berlin. David vs. Goliath?
I found a very interesting report by Dr. Klaus Peter Krause , summarizing the meeting of critical scientists in Berlin.
Despite "Climategate", the current science scandal of falsification and suppression of scientific data in favor of the prevailing theory of climate, you always hear in Germany only one interpretation:
Due to the man-made increase of CO2 glaciers and ice caps of the blue planet schmölzen from unstoppable, the sea level climb more and more - if we do not finally eindämmten the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
We read on the subject of sea level nor on 13/11/09 following:
"Between 2006 and 2008 melted reportedly per year, about 273 cubic kilometers of ice, which meant a rise in sea level by about 0.75 millimeters per year. Since 2000, the ice cap lost a total of 1500 cubic kilometers, this meant an increase in the oceans around five millimeters. A portion of the melt water on the ice freezes again under the winter snow cover, otherwise the loss would be twice as high since even 1996. "
Per year of sea level thus increased between 2006 and 2008 to 0.75 millimeter - in the years when it was allegedly particularly bad.
Today (08.12.09) reports the General Anzeiger Bonn the results a "climate survey" two "climate scientists", "Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology in the" Proceedings "of the U.S. Academy of Sciences (PNAS online published in advance) "[have].
"If we want to prevent a galloping sea level rise, we should stop global warming as quickly as possible ', stressed Rahmstorf. Because the rate of sea level rise would significantly influenced by the global mean temperature.
The study shows that the sea level could be increased by 75-190 centimeters in 2100 than today. For expertise in sea level and temperature measurements from the past 130 years were evaluated. , Since 1990, sea level has risen by 3.4 millimeters per year, twice as fast as the average for the 20th century ', Rahmstorf said. It would remain at that rate, it would lead in the 21st century a rise of 34 centimeters. But the data clearly show that the warmer it gets, the faster sea level rises'.
The study reportedly shows that even at a relatively low greenhouse gas emission scenario with a warming of two degrees Celsius in the 21st century, sea level is likely to rise by more than a meter. The highest emission scenario with a temperature rise of more than four degrees Celsius would have at this time an increase of more than 1.4 meters to the episode. Are all emission scenarios and estimated uncertainties taken into account, values are from 0.75 to 1.9 meters.
The projected increase is approximately three times as high as the estimate from the Assessment Report of the IPCC from 2007 that do not fully take into account the loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. "
Within a few weeks spread "researchers" so completely different numbers for a supposedly had taken place previously rising sea level. Obviously, the "pre-release" of the cited study is intended as an additional leverage for Copenhagen.
Please now take a calculator at hand, or click on their PC Accessories, and call it the calculator on your screen. Thank you.
We review the scenarios:
In 100 years (2100) so the sea level will have risen by 0.75 m and up to 1.90 m.
We base the reported in November alleged 0.75 millimeter sea level rise per year:
1.90 m (or 1900 mm) ./. 0.75 mm = 2533.33 years!
So we need zweitausendfünfhundertdreiunddreißigkommadreiunddreißig years to reach an increase of 1.90 meters.
This number I find calming.
But if it is only an increase of 0.75 m per year, so we need this:
750 millimeters ./. 0.75 mm = 1,000 years - at least.
Today now so new results are brought to the rise in sea level in circulation. Now it should since 1990 suddenly 3.4 mm per year to be around which the sea level has risen supposedly.
Well, mer ask us stupid times janz:
To reach 1.90 m high stand, the water level needed for an annual "swelling" of 3.4 millimeters per year
1900 ./. 3.4 mm = 558.82, so over five hundred years!
If there were only a water level rise of 0.75 m, then we have
750 ./. 3.4 mm = 220.58, so even 220 years time for us.
Overall quite reassuring prospects, even if it is clear that climate science is a PLAYER BAG TRICK is - which is to refute with any calculator.
Because: Even with the Copenhagen climate summit upwardly revised value of the rising sea level of 3.4 mm per year would be no value in 2100 mathematically reach that is 1.90 m above the present level, and not 0.75 m :
Because: 3.4 mm (millimeters) x 90 (year 2010-2100) = 0.306 m or 30.6 cm in 2100 ... ...
Perhaps we should recommend to the climate summit in these meager results, just once to ask some sorcerer's apprentices:
"Walle walle some distance, which for the purpose flowed water and pour out in rich full gushes into the oceans themselves." (Freely adapted from Goethe)
- Advertisement -
Tags: sea level rise , Climategate , CO2 , climate gate , climate change
"Whats up, Friederike"?
What do you want to tell us? "Et'd still juut jejange", or "Not everything was bad" in the nuclear lobby?
Dear God it will have been addressed? Do you not Kopp?
Of course, it's also about economic interests. While the Saudis do everything to a shift from fossil fuels to prevent renewable, Germany is known as "export world champion" of Environmental Technology keen as quickly as possible to complete the transition.
A clean environment does not hurt! Careful handling of the recources is a Compelling knowledge, which also has a geo-strategic component and America always to tempted to run into foreign countries and supposedly there to care for democracy.
If America would be on climate policy at last from the biggest polluters and energy consumers into a global player who does not need to protect its energy reserves result in more war, then I would be the calculation examples, if 3 mm or 1, 90 meters in 100 years no matter.
The fact is, man exploits nature and themselves with such from that new technologies for the future energy needs of the utmost importance.
Interestingly, the analysis is likely to be where suddenly the wind comes, blows against the "Klimahysteriker"?
So I think it's strange at first times that you may practice on the official "climatology" no criticism, without being brought a) with the nuclear lobby or alternatively b) with the oil lobby in conjunction. Of course, a blog is not the forum. "About layer operations" set, but he cares more ongoing Teilsapekte certain topics that elsewhere are detailed discussed. Of course, in my opinion a lot of things have gone, I had read, not least at Zeitgeist (online & print), z. B. in the print edition of the article, "The Myth of Scarcity".
For me, therefore, there are 3 things that: There is no consensus as to whether there is any one global warming, there is no consensus as to whether, if there were such, that man-made CO2 is to blame and third, there is even a good chance that the oil (and natural gas) abiotic origin, are therefore recreated again and again from the earth itself.
To the current "Climategate" scandal: I recommend the latest issue of Focus Money. It is the only print publication, which currently is the huge climate science fraud scandal turns. The German media substantiate otherwise in a totally unethical manner. All information you have to obtain as German (r) from the Anglo-Saxon countries.
It's about 3,000 internal e-mails and 72 relevant files hatte.Tatort posted online on 19/11/2009 a Whistleblower: The Climate Research Unit of the British University of East Anglia, the international "IPCC" (IPCC) "official. "temperature data provides. The authenticity of the emails can be viewed as a secured inter alia by the fact that the institute's director, Phil Jones, stepped down because of the revelations. It is nothing less than to years of manipulation of climate data, the misappropriation of material to the public and to scientific fraud. U. a. Want to hide from the world public that has always alternated warm and cold periods on our good planet. So the temperatures from 1400 to 1500 were far higher than today - the early Middle Ages was therefore a time of cultural heyday.
But what particularly excites me is next to this aspect that will be made about the mechanism of the increase in the cost of resources "as a punishment for CO2" of course, first the poor, and with us and the world. Really bad to me is when I hear that more and more "biodiesel" produced for the climate world, which drives up the price of staple foods such as maize in the height; (Slept through the large churches as always the topic: What would Jesus have said to such a sacrilege?) In Germany, the three-field system is increasingly abandoned and only for "Bio" fuel-GM maize, grown for example in Saxony.
The topic is really complex - not only in the German media landscape: since rolled back the propaganda roller.
Oddly enough, forget the "followers of the climate change religion", in their frivolous criticism AGAIN, the benefits just the ATOM and PETROLEUM LOBBY most of the CLIMATE CHANGE-CO2-LIE - you support such measures ACTIVE !!!
A) the nuclear lobby sells itself as "green, because CO2-free, energy suppliers". Thus justified an extension of maturities etc.
B) That which deserves the PETROLEUM industry, thanks to rising production of plastic wind turbines, heat-intensive production of solar systems, to transportation, construction and maintenance, and ultimately disposal - is just as much as consume German car throughout the year - ergo , a nice return business.
Of the fraudulent transactions when Emmissions-rights trading (speculation on hot air), I will not even begin here!
So - love CRITIC the critics - be careful with your unsustainable, long refuted slander accusations. Begin something more to think - as always aping any ECO PROPAGANDA!
It's not all black and white - in between there is plenty GREY AREAS ...
Nice 3rd Advent yet
Love Friederike
It's nice when discussing sometimes contrary opinions in the blog. Surely you know the changes tungsten Weiner, the right wing and conservative neoliberal stock of "Cicero" to "Focus" as editor. Weiner also has the opinion of you even flogged in his columns in the star. Why do I say that?
Because the worriers and reconnaissance "Ökohysterie" for the most part all come from the conservative liberal economic wing.
The whining against any burden on industry always came from this corner. It has since really trying to discredit everything about the movement. Quite "coincidentally" is now on the climate conference as a PR Nummere. Who would have thought. And the Focus full front here. Mark Word is an avowed hater Green! And Weiner is not much different.
To me it's not about the climate critics speak of mistakes freely, but rather not to give exactly the impression everything is wrong what comes out of the corner and we can continue as in the days of the Industrial Revolution.
It's "En Vogue" became a swing against climate critics. I find his criticism must, for example, the "biodiesel number" has the disadvantages described by you. So, away with the idea.
Basically, it's just about the finite nature of fossil Energierecourcen and the use of renewable energy to cope nergieversorgung the future without the environment in which more and more people live to charge. That's why you go. In the Herculean task I can not dikreditieren a whole movement of short-term monetary and makes political motives, as it runs in the campaign journalism from certain circles at the time yet.
Even uranium is finite and the reduction of environmentally harmful, apart from storage.
The nuclear lobby soielt a two-faced game. On the one hand, it does so as if nuclear energy would be clean and therefore climate-friendly, on the other hand knows every enlightened person, that it is not so. Let alone the legacy storage. While the gains collect the shareholder bear the storage costs to taxpayers. Just incredible.
Therefore, the argument that "EBM" was because of nuclear power "clean energy" is simply wrong. This energy is neither clean nor cheap. On the contrary. It is "stupid" because it is permanently an incalculable risk for future generations.
What bothers me is the Generalverriß and the hysteria of the critics critics who takes the wind out of the wind turbines, the entire movement. This is fatal.
And with all due respect EBM, the "nonsense" to you because over the "plastic production of the petroleum industry for wind turbines" writing, you can file them under "satire" here. Your last three sets were good. Keep in mind though.
In this sense,
Even more beautiful day after the third Advent
Hello again,
Your assessment of "Cicero", "Focus" and corresponding publicist is certainly true. Unfortunately, those who the current Kliamgate scandal that a scientific fraud and a betrayal of the public is in the core, which has a right to proper climate data and serious science,) for all the money flowing), no other forum the Internet; and you can not resist it, that sometimes applause and support from the "wrong" side coming, so from people who are close to may of the nuclear lobby (And on the latter, we are now really an opinion). However, does this change anything to the obvious over the years had taken place manipulation of climate data from the CRU (Climate Research Unit), University of East Anglia, which in turn provides its data to the IPCC (IPCC) of the UN.
The real problems of our world such as hunger, deforestation, waste and waste we do not get me CO2 indulgences certificates in the handle, but only lasting a total reform of the economic and financial system. Because especially the latter is the ax that threatens to run away the branch on which we sit all: The greed for quick returns, economic growth at any cost instead of production for real need and demand. The whole climate change debate can not be performed without a discussion of our sick money system. Therefore, I am consequently on the introduction of a "Monetative"!
Love Friederike
I agree with you absolutely that the turbo-capitalist financial and capital market is the root of all evil. Hunger and social chasms that exist in the tiger economies is the more surprising when you "like the Caymans off shore tax havens" are to be believed, an analysis of. The largest investors (tax evaders, black money launderers) are now countries like India, China, Africa.
I am a friend of economists like Akkerlof, Stiglitz, who Keynes rehabilitated. The FTD Stiglitz calls for the destruction of mega banks recently. I can only underline.
The value of the work to be socially re-discussed and negotiated. For this purpose, the mirror has published a remarkable study that underlines a theory that I represent a long time. Here is the link:
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,666917,00.html
So, there is plenty to do!
[...] Different, more drastic in each new report numbers to us prophesy the end of the world, but [...]