Druckbare Version
Seinen in Kyoto wartenden Assistenten gab Prof. Alcamo am 9. Oktober 1997 zur Beschaffung der entsprechenden Unterschriften unter den gefälschten IPCC-Bericht folgenden Auftrag, den ich Ihnen hier komplett zur Kenntnis bringe:
http://www.wahrheiten.org/blog/2011/...limaberichtes/
Passt es nicht mehr? Die CO2-Konferenz von Kopenhagen hat aber noch genau diesen Törn drauf gehabt.Zitat:
Zitat von r2d2
Das IPCC hat das vor Jahren - 2006 - sehr wohl noch behauptet. Wenn's icht mehr stimmt, sollten sie - die Vertreter des IPCC - ihre irrigen Thesen vom CO2 und dem daraus abgeleiteten Klimawandel öffentlich widerrufen. Die Geschichtswissenschaft kennt die Beziehung Mensch und Klima längst. Hätten die Herren von der Super-Mips-Fraktion da mal reingeschaut, wäre ihnen aufgefallen, dass ihre Computer nicht denken können.
Nein, Dubidomo- sie kommen ohne Flußkorrekturen aus und bilden akkurat das Wettergeschehen ab, frag Bob!
Schon vor 1971 oder erst danach?Zitat:
Zitat von kotzfisch
US Senator Schmitt über CO2-Politik
http://americasuncommonsense.com/blo...dioxide/#r4_14Zitat:
The scientific rationale behind the Administration’s and Congress’ proposed massive intrusion into American life in the name of climate change requires more than a “consensus” of like-minded climate analysts and bureaucrats about “carbon dioxide.”
It requires a recognition that climate has changed in both the recent and geological past with little or no correlation with changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
Bad science and unconstitutional usurpation of the natural rights of the people and the constitutionally reserved powers of the States did not sit well with the electorate in 2010 and should not in subsequent elections.
Ganz interessante Frage.
Wie lange dauert es, bis anthropogenes CO2 in der Atmosphäre wieder abgebaut ist?
http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/TauL1b.pdfZitat:
In discussing carbon management and global warming, there is
a need for the participants to make quantitative judgments. The
concept (and significance) of a special parameter τL, the “effective
residence time” of atmospheric CO2 , does not seem to be widely recognized
or appreciated. This brief note advocates more attention be
paid to this parameter.
Zitat:
For some
unknown reasons, the actual numbers do not appear in the IPCC
Summary for Policymakers, nor in most (nearly all) of the articles
written for the general public. If indeed our policymakers are betting
the future of our world on the consensus IPCC value of τL being wrong
(too big by a large factor), the general public ought to be told.
Der weltbekannte Physiker Freeman Dyson schätzt die Verweildauer
von CO2 in der Atmosphäre auf 12 Jahre.
Periodische Schwankungen des CO2-Gehalts der Atmosphäre, wie sie z.B. bei den Messungen am Mauna Loa auf Hawai registriert wurden, können als jahreszeitlich bedingte Schwankungen der Vegetation auf der Nord-bzw. Südhalbkugel sehr plausibel gedeutet werden. Durch systematischen Vergleich mit anderen Stationen auf der Nord- und Südhalbkugel ergeben sich signifikante Details in Abhängigkeit vom Breitengrad der jeweiligen Stationen.
Daraus kann, wie Dyson zeigt, die Verweildauer von CO2 in der Atmosphäre ziemlich genau zu 12 Jahren bestimmt werden.
http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/...ling_graph.jpg
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...arming/?page=1
Zitat:
The graph has two obvious and conspicuous features. First, a steady increase of carbon dioxide with time, beginning at 315 parts per million in 1958 and reaching 385 parts per million in 2008. Second, a regular wiggle showing a yearly cycle of growth and decline of carbon dioxide levels. The maximum happens each year in the Northern Hemisphere spring, the minimum in the Northern Hemisphere fall. The difference between maximum and minimum each year is about six parts per million.
Keeling was a meticulous observer. The accuracy of his measurements has never been challenged, and many other observers have confirmed his results. In the 1970s he extended his observations from Mauna Loa, at latitude 20 north, to eight other stations at various latitudes, from the South Pole at latitude 90 south to Point Barrow on the Arctic coast of Alaska at latitude 71 north. At every latitude there is the same steady growth of carbon dioxide levels, but the size of the annual wiggle varies strongly with latitude. The wiggle is largest at Point Barrow where the difference between maximum and minimum is about fifteen parts per million. At Kerguelen, a Pacific island at latitude 29 south, the wiggle vanishes. At the South Pole the difference between maximum and minimum is about two parts per million, with the maximum in Southern Hemisphere spring.
Zitat:
The only plausible explanation of the annual wiggle and its variation with latitude is that it is due to the seasonal growth and decay of annual vegetation, especially deciduous forests, in temperate latitudes north and south. The asymmetry of the wiggle between north and south is caused by the fact that the Northern Hemisphere has most of the land area and most of the deciduous forests. The wiggle is giving us a direct measurement of the quantity of carbon that is absorbed from the atmosphere each summer north and south by growing vegetation, and returned each winter to the atmosphere by dying and decaying vegetation.
The quantity is large, as we see directly from the Point Barrow measurements. The wiggle at Point Barrow shows that the net growth of vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere summer absorbs about 4 percent of the total carbon dioxide in the high-latitude atmosphere each year. The total absorption must be larger than the net growth, because the vegetation continues to respire during the summer, and the net growth is equal to total absorption minus respiration. The tropical forests at low latitudes are also absorbing and respiring a large quantity of carbon dioxide, which does not vary much with the season and does not contribute much to the annual wiggle.
Klar, das IPCC geht von einer Verweildauer von mehreren Jahrhunderten aus.Zitat:
When we put together the evidence from the wiggles and the distribution of vegetation over the earth, it turns out that about 8 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by vegetation and returned to the atmosphere every year. This means that the average lifetime of a molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, before it is captured by vegetation and afterward released, is about twelve years. This fact, that the exchange of carbon between atmosphere and vegetation is rapid, is of fundamental importance to the long-range future of global warming...
Sonst funzt der Zertifikatehandel ja auch nicht!
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2...cs/well-gr.gifZitat:
There is a constant equilibrium interchange between atmosphere and the rest (biosphere/ocean). If I add a dollop of fresh CO2 to the atmosphere this has two effects:
[1] The eventual equilibrium levels are no longer the same because the total mass of CO2 in the system has changed. However, the changes in the equilibrium levels will be minuscule, even if my dollop had a mass of petagrams. This is because the ocean contains vastly (~50 times) the mass of CO2 that the atmosphere does. My dollop will represent a minuscule change to the total system even if it causes a significant change in the percent CO2 in the atmosphere.
[2] Because of the CO2 I added to the atmosphere, the system finds itself displaced from its (new) equilibrium state. It will now move towards its new equilibrium, getting halfway there in 5-7 years.
This is confirmed by the curve of the reduction of radioactive carbon 14 in the atmosphere following the atmospheric nuclear tests of the 50′s and early 60′s. The curve is consistent with an average residence time of 5-7 years:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/well-gr.html
Note that radiocarbon involved was totally new carbon created by interaction of neutrons from the explosions with nitrogen in the atmosphere – it played no part of the ongoing equilibrium exchanges of existing CO2 between atmosphere and the rest.
Die Verweildauer von CO2 in der Atmosphäre ist erheblich kürzer als was vom IPCC behauptet wird.
Es ist vollkommen unerheblich, wie lange ein bestimmtes CO²-Molekül in der Atmosphäre verweilt. Selbst wenn es nur ein Tag wäre, hätte das keinen Einfluß auf den atmosphärischen CO²-Gehalt.
Da CO2 ohnehin kaum klimawirksam ist, ist es völlig unerheblich.
CO2 Anstieg kam ja auch mit zT. Jahrhundertealter Verspätung
NACH einer Temp.Erhöhung, was (ja, Du hattest recht, ich hatte mich unsauber
und mißverständlich ausgedrückt) eine positive Korrelation darstellt und mit der zeitlichen Verzögerung eine KAUSALITÄT klar ausschließt.