Kerimo hat geschrieben:Das sind jetzt vorläufig mal nur 3 Fragen, ich kenne übrigens die Antorten... :roll:

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
...
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

Some "dissenting" voices :

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” -
U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Via the IPCC's gold-standard temperature dataset, it has become undisputed fact that global warming isn't - experts and pundits alike are searching for the reasons why and how this gross prediction failure took place, with most concurring (even the NY Times) that climate models' sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels was severely exaggerated - go figure
(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)

Multiple outlets, including the NY Times, have recently written about new research that is finding climate models' programmed sensitivity to CO2 levels being pegged too high. Sample articles explaining the underlying problem with climate sensitivity research can be found here, here , here, here, and here.

The adjacent chart points to the serious problem with the original high sensitivity estimates from the IPCC and others. (The gold-standard HadCRUT global and CET temperature datasets are plotted.)

In the case of the IPCC, they published a flat-out fear-mongering sensitivity that in computer simulations would produce a temperature increase of +6.4°C (pink line) by 2100AD, if CO2 emissions were not stabilized. This incredibly high computer output was designed to scare policymakers and the mainstream media into action.

And, there are even higher published estimates of sensitivity, which will never happen in the real-world, but are touted as potential realistic threats (climate science gospel) to the gullible with deep pockets and a pennant for government intrusion. Case in point:

“...one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action..." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan

As a reminder, this description of a scientist's behavior comports with the incredible level of climate scientist fraud, deception and falsehoods revealed by the embarrassing publication of the Climategate emails. Venal, corrupt anti-science attitudes continue to run blatant and deep in the climate science community.

Back to the chart...in reality, CO2 emissions have not stabilized, they are growing in a 'business as usual' manner yet the impact on global temperatures has been minimal. As the chart depicts, over the last 15 years global warming is increasing at a 0.17°C per century rate, a sliver-fraction of the IPCC absurd sensitivity simulated outcome. Other straight red lines on the chart tell the same story - the IPCC's climate sensitivity produces temperature predictions out-of-touch with this real-world empirical observational evidence.

"But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan

The same story holds true for the chart's plot of Central England Temperatures (CET) (green curve and lines). Over the last 15-years, the CET century trend is a surprisingly minus 3.8°C. That is a significant cooling trend (in contrast, the last 15 years has the U.S. at a minus 0.94°C trend) that should not happen in a high sensitivity, tipping-point type of warming world.

Conclusions:

#1. There is no scientific consensus about the correct climate sensitivity to CO2 levels.

#2. A scientific consensus is building though regarding the IPCC and other climate model agencies having exaggerated the sensitivity in the past, and a need to lower the models' said sensitivity to better match reality.

#3. Past real-world global warming (see jagged red chart curve) is not dangerous, nor accelerating - instead, it is presently flat with an equal possibility of becoming a cooling trend, or resuming its non-alarming warming trend

#4. CO2 levels would appear to have a weak influence on both global and regional temperatures.

#5. The spectacular documented failure of climate agency computer models is likely due to the erroneous (i.e., overly high) sensitivity parameters,

#6. 100% of climate scientists would agree that the current empirical evidence does not support the proclaimed runaway, tipping point acceleration that was supposedly taking place.

Additional modern temperature and climate-model charts.

schimmel hat geschrieben: Indien hat die meisten Vegetarier und die höchste Zahl an Hungertoten (270 Millionen), es exportiert Weizen wie auch Rindflesich.....diesen Widerspruch verstehe ich nur, wenn ich sehe, dass der Einzelne im Staate Indien nichts bedeutet....Tiere sind dort wertvoller als Menschen...evtl. ist DAS ja das Ziel unserer Vegetarier: Indien unser Vorbild!

Ach, und kannst wiederkauen und Gras fressen?

420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Man-made

The global warming debate is one of the biggest topics of the last few years. It makes it’s way into the political, financial, environmental, entertainment and social arena. While it appears as though the verdict is in and we are in fact responsible for the recent warming, we must take the time to really look at all the possibilities here.

Note: Please read the whole thing through before drawing conclusions.

What will be presented in this article is an in depth look at data from research done at the Vostok station in the Antarctic. Hardly new data, it still remains more of a quiet topic as it without a doubt diminishes the importance we put on man being responsible for global warming. The research was done over many years by a group of Russian and French scientists. Why it is important to know who did this research is because we can better remove the potential bias due to financial or political gain. Before we jump into the data, I want to make it clear that this is not false data, made up or hypothetical, it is very real. One final note, when it comes to the treatment of our environment I will be the first to say that I do not agree with the use of harsh chemicals, fossil fuels, clear cutting, dumping, toxic waste disposal etc etc. I know that what we are doing to our environment is a serious issue, but is very overlooked due to the attention and distraction global warming creates. We need to change our ways, but global warming is not the biggest issue.

Vostok Data
The Vostok ice core sample was obtained by drilling down into the ice above Lake Vostok to a depth of 3623m. The graph built from the Vostok ice core data shows us the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. Contrary to current belief today, the Vostok data shows us that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. This means that CO2 is not the cause of the increased temperatures, although it might potentially play a small role. This cannot be confirmed at this time however. The Vostok graph also shows us the cyclical pattern that occurs with warming and cooling as well as the increase in CO2 levels. The graph below indicates the approximate 110,000 year cycles that took place over the past 420,000 years in which there is a clear relationship between higher temperatures and increased CO2.