INCALZIREA GLOBALA – o teorie ce ramane fara sustinatori?

Via blog Zona de criza am gasit o postare „Joaca de-a Terra”  despre ultima aberatie SUA in materie de isterie legata de incalzirea globala 

Preşedintele Barack Obama consideră un plan radical pentru combaterea încălzirii globale prin poluarea atmosferei cu o serie de substanţe care ar reflecta o parte din căldura soarelui.

Controvesatul experiment a fost prezentat ca ultima soluţie pentru controlul temperaturii globale de către noul consultant pe ştiinţă al preşedintelui Barack Obama, John Holden.

„Trebuie să verificăm şi această posibilitate. Nu ne permitem luxul de a trece cu vederea vreo metodă”, a declarat Holden. Acesta a subliniat idea că împrăştierea de particule de dioxid de sulf, dioxid de aluminiu sau aerosoli, în stratosferă, ar putea răci planeta prin reflectarea radiaţilor solare, înainte să fie absorbite de suprafaţa Pământului. 

Tunurile navale, rachetele, avioanele de mare altitudine şi chiar baloanele cu aer sunt metodele de răspândire a diverşilor agenţi, propuşi de John Holden. 

INCALZIREA GLOBALA – o teorie ce ramane fara sustinatori?

Daca teoria cu „incalzirea globala” este un hoax atunci ce efect ar avea „solutia” propusa de Holden si ai sai sustinatori ? 

Intr-o postare mai veche ( aici ) despre ce pregateste „Mama” UE in materie de familie, mentionam despre oamenii de stiinta care sustin ca toata povestea cu incalzirea globala nu este reala. Hai sa reluam:

Pe site-ul Comisiei pentru Mediu a senatului SUA  exista multe articole si rapoarte interesante despre oamenii de stiinta care se distanteaza de teoria „incalzirii globale cauzate de om” precum si de „efectele prognozate” care … nu prea se confirma.

Articol: Gore’s (Really) Inconvenient Timing – ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008 

Fostul Vice-Presedinte Al Gore a venit la  Washington in data de 17 July, 2008, pentru a livra un alt discurs de avertisment legat de „criza climatica”.

“Experti de seama estimeaza ca avem mai putin de 10 ani pentru a face schimbari dramatice in poluarea ce genereaza incalzirea globala inainte de a pierde sansa de a ne reveni din aceasta criza ecologica” a declarat Gore.

DAR fostul vice-presedinte, care de cativa ani buni ne tot avertizeaza legat de acest termen de „10 ani” , pare sa nu fi luat la cunostinta ca Natiunile Unite au inceput deja numaratoarea inversa a celor 10 ani in ….. 1989!! […] 

In timp ce Gore repeta discursul sau standard ce promoveaza ingrijorarile legate de influenta umana asupra climei, cea mai mare parte a comunitatii stiintifice internationale se distanteaza deschis de teoria ce sustine ca incalzirea globala este cauzata de om.

Mai jos sunt DOAR CATEVA exemple din evolutiile ce nu convin lui Gore, ONU si mass mediei mainstream.  Studii peer-reviewed, analize,  si oameni de stiinta ce continua sa declare deschis respingerea teoriei climatice. Majoritatea datelor prezentate mai jos nu sunt mai vechi de 1 luna sau 2. 

[nota din articol: de vazut si articolul de aici care arata disproportia usiasa intre finantarea de care se bucura sustinatorii „consensului” de „incalzire globala” versus finantarile de care au beneficiat oamenii de stiinta dizidenti ]  

Cam ce se spune in articolele si link-urile mentionate:

– nu exista nici un consens real legat de „incalzirea globala”. In 2007 erau 400 de oameni de stiinta care se distantau de aceasta teorie, in martie 2009 sunt peste 700. 

– mass media mainstream prezinta finantarea de 19 milioane de dolari a studiilor facute de sceptici dar uita cu desavarsire de cele peste 50 de miliarde puse la dispozitia celor care sustin consensul celor 52 de oameni de stiinta de la ONU. Oare unde se duc banii?

[Note: The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate. (LINK) ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone) Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears. In August, a State Treasurer in California „proposed a $5 billion bond measure to combat global warming,” according to the Sacramento Bee. (LINK) Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore’s unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails.(LINK) ] Update: Gore to launch $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age. (LINK)

–  in 2007  James Hansen si grupul sau au fost nevoiti sa „repare” un bug Y2K descoperit de un statistician canadian in procesarea datelor de la termometre. Rezultatul ? 1998 nu mai este statistic cel mai fierbinte an .. ci 1934. Dar nimeni nu s-a grabit sa repare public „greseala” ce a plantat in capetele oamenilor „1989” si corul plangerilor despre incalzirea globala.

As a result, 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record in the United States – 1934 is. The temperature adjustment is admittedly small, yet there seemed to be no rush to retract the oft-repeated alarmist statements that have seared „1998!” into our brains as the rallying cry for the fight against global warming.

– in august 2007 apare o analiza a studiilor stiintifice publicate intre 2004 si 2007 si …. doar 7% dintre studii sprijineau in mod explicit „consensul” incalzirii globale.  Daca le adaugam si pe cele ce ce sugerau consensul dar nu explicit, ajungem la 47%. In timp ce 6% dintre studii rejectau existenta „consensului”, cea mai mare categorie de studii (48%) erau neutre, refuzand sa accepte sau sa nege ipoteza. 

„Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no ‘consensus,'” according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics’ finds no „consensus” on global warming.

– sunt foarte multi bani la mijloc pentru cei ce sustin teoria incalzirii globale:

„Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story,” Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK) „Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab,” Spann added.

– raportul „U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009″ contine chestii interesante:

Bryan Leyland, head of the International Climate Science Coalition and an engineer, disputed man-made global warming fears in 2007. „Let us start with a simple question: ‘Is the world warming?’ The surface temperature records used by the IPCC show that it has warmed by 0.7 deg C since 1900. The world has not warmed since 1998 and temperatures have been steady since 2002. So the only answer can be: ‘It warmed between 1900 and 1998. Nobody knows if the current slight cooling trend will soon end or continue,'” Leyland wrote in a November 2007 commentary. Leyland also disputed any link between man-made CO2 and temperature. „Computer models of the climate show that if it did, the largest increase in temperature would be 10 km above the tropics. Radiosonde observations published in 2006 show NO sign of faster warming. Therefore, we can be sure that man-made carbon dioxide is not causing global warming,” Leyland wrote.

– la pagin 230 din raport, exista o sectiune interesanta, despre ceea ce spun oamenii de stiinta inca necontorizati ca sceptici: evidentele geologice arata ca in urma cu milioane de ani nivelul de CO2 era mai mare – in unele cazuri de cateva ori mai mare – decat acum; modelele matematice folosite sunt „ajustate” ca sa dea rezultatele dorite, :

The following scientists may not be referred to as „skeptical” but they make very important and noteworthy points: (Note: The below scientists are not included in total tally of skeptical scientists)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Amy Frappier labeled climate fears oversimplified. Boston College’s professor of Geology and Geophysics Frappier explained in a February 1, 2007 article in Boston College’s newspaper The Heights,

„The geologic record shows that many millions of years ago, CO2 levels were indeed higher – in some cases many times higher – than today.” Frappier noted that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but gases instead stabilize in the atmosphere and cease having a warming effect. „At some point the heat-trapping capacity of [the gas] and its effect get saturated,” said Frappier, „and you don’t have increased heating.”

According to the article, Frappier, who believes mankind is having an impact on the climate, criticized Gore because „his movie fails to mention any ancient incongruity between carbon dioxide and temperature.”

Scientists Claim Computer Model Predictions are ‘Useless Arithmetic’ – Orrin H. Pilkey, a coastal geologist and emeritus professor at Duke and his daughter Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, a geologist in the Washington State Department of Geology, wrote a book in 2007 entitled Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future. Thought the authors stress their book does not specifically address man-made global warming fears, it does present „an overall attack on the use of computer programs to model nature,” according to a February 20, 2007 New York Times book review. The Times book review explained how these models „may include coefficients (the authors call them ‘fudge factors’) to ensure that they come out right. And the modelers may not check to see whether projects performed as predicted.” „Nature is too complex, they (the authors) say, and depends on too many processes that are poorly understood or little monitored – whether the process is the feedback effects of cloud cover on global warming or the movement of grains of sand on a beach,” the Times article explained. „And instead of demanding to know exactly how high seas will rise or how many fish will be left in them or what the average global temperature will be in 20 years, they argue, we should seek to discern simply whether seas are rising, fish stocks are falling and average temperatures are increasing. And we should couple these models with observations from the field. Models should be regarded as producing ‘ballpark figures,’ they write, not accurate impact forecasts,” the Times article continued. The coastal models are so flawed that Pilkey recommends dredging up a lot of sand and dumping it on the beach „willy-nilly” and he predicts you would end up with the same result, minus the „false mathematical certitude.” (LINK)

[..]

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate changefor none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is „settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

Intregul raport este extrem de interesant. Dupa ce citesti parerile si studiile, parca apare un gust amar; campaniile care canta sus si tare „incalzirea globala” si „excesul alarmant de CO2” incep sa sune precum strigaturile din categoria „hotii striga hotii”. „Ei” detin tehnologia bazata pe combustibili fosili si tot „ei” pun frana oricarei tehnologii alternative .. dar „ei” striga la noi … ca noi suntem de vina ca mergem cu masinile, ca tehnologiile neconventionale au ramas neconventionale in ultimii 30 de ani. Ei tin fraiele .. si noi suntem de vina! „Ei” si ai lor taie padurile si restul omenirii este de vina ca sunt „ecologici nesimtiti”. Mda .. probabil ca „noi” suntem de vina, totusi. Inca nu am auzit de vreun popor care sa ceara prin referendum unui stat sa listeze ( nu sa divulge tehnologiile)  toate patentele legate de energii neconventionale si aplicatiile lor + sa aloce buget de stat pentru punerea in practica in cel mai scurt timp al acestor . Mai ca imi vine sa pun pariu ca initiatorii unui astfel de referendum si legi ar muri de pneumonie … ca era glontu’ rece.

Ahaaa .. apropos de paduri si de influenta lor vanturilor, iata ceva interesant. Descoperirea paleooceanografului elvetian Gerald Haug ( de la Institutul Geologic din Zürich ) si a colegilor sai te cam pune pe ganduri. 

It sounds like the stuff of science fiction, but nearly 13 millennia ago Europe was plunged suddenly into a deep freeze that lasted 1300 years–and the change happened in little more than a year, according to new data. The evidence also suggests that strong winds, not ocean currents, drove the rapid climate change.

Soon after the end of the last ice age, some 12,700 years ago, Europe suddenly fell into another perpetual winter. Average temperatures on the continent plunged as much as 5°C, and global temperatures overall dropped about 3°C. This extended cold period is known as the Younger Dryas, and paleoclimatologists studying Greenland ice cores and other evidence have known for some time that it began quickly, perhaps within just decades. But until now no one was sure exactly how rapidly the climate had changed or why. One hypothesis was a sudden shift in–or even a shutoff of–the Atlantic Ocean current that brings warm water from the tropics to Western Europe and helps the present-day continent maintain its relatively moderate temperatures. 

Paleoceanographer Gerald Haug of the Geological Institute in Zürich, Switzerland, and colleagues hunted for clues in sediments from Lake Meerfelder Maar in western Germany. Nestled inside an ancient volcanic crater, the lake is the only place known to hold well-preserved sediments that span the Younger Dryas. The fine-grained layers even reveal seasonal changes. 

In particular, the team studied deposits of siderite, a mineral formed by microscopic lake plankton during relatively warm months. Using x-ray scanning techniques to examine the deposits, the researchers found that, after several hundred years of seasonal changes, the siderite production stopped abruptly. „It gave us quite a surprise,” Haug says. That suggests that the Younger Dryas began within a single year, the researchers report in the August issue of Nature Geoscience. 

Moreover, the cessation of siderite formation in the lake was caused by a significant strengthening of the North American westerly winds, the researchers argue. Siderite forms at the lake bottom when the surface is calm and relatively warm and the water lacks oxygen. But strong, cold winds churn up and chill the surface and slightly oxygenate the water. The sedimentary record shows that the churning–and hence the cooling–must have lasted at Lake Meerfelder Maar for a long time. „It’s a strong example of how dynamic the [planet’s] climate system can be,” he says, referring to the speed and duration of the change. 

The findings will require the climate community „to question their dogma” that changes in ocean circulation caused the Younger Dryas, says oceanographer Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who has been a skeptic of ocean-driven climate change. This research suggests instead that the advent of strong winds may have shifted ocean circulation.

 

 

 

One response to “INCALZIREA GLOBALA – o teorie ce ramane fara sustinatori?

  1. Pingback: Razboi întru Cuvânt » BASARABIA PE CRUCE (Noutati 11-13 aprilie 2009)

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile despre tine sau dă clic pe un icon pentru autentificare:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s