Wo bleibt denn nur der Treibhauseffekt?

[Touchdown]

Die Messungen natürlich, das ist das was ich schon lange sagte.
Das was der Spiegel da verzapft ist BULLSHIT.
Hier das Original:
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]
"that excess energy is "hiding" in Earth's oceans,"
Im Artikel steht auch was von "lag time" der auch niergendwo
berücksichtigt wird. Tatsache ist, dass wir die Wärme geniessen, der
sich seit 300 Jahren langsam angesammelt wurde, anlässlich der Ende des
kleinen Eiszeites. Was man an die Menschen ankreiden könnte von
1950-2000 wird frühestens in 100 Jahren aktuell. Geld kassiert wird aber heute schon mit fadenscheinigen Argumenten.
Im Artikel steht nichts über "anthropogene" Effekte. Es ist ein Beweis für die solar verursachten Klimaschwankungen ohne jedwede Einfluss irgendwelchen Menschen.
Die Oceane werden durch Sonneneinstrahlung geheizt nicht durch
Luft-CO2 Gehalt. Wärmere Oceane gasen viel CO2 aus, damit wird also nicht der anthropogene Effekt belegt sondern die natürliche Variante.
Wärmere Oceane geben mehr Wasserdampf ab, der um faktoren mehr zur Klima beiträgt als alle sogenannte "Klimagase" zusammen. Das wederum wird mehrfach jährlich anlässlich der Fön im Alpenbereich eindrucksvoll bewiesen.

Gruss
Andy

Hast du den letzten Absatz nicht gelesen?

This delay provides an opportunity to reduce the magnitude of anthropogenic climate change before it is fully realized, if appropriate action is taken. On the other hand, if we wait for more overwhelming empirical evidence of climate change, the inertia implies that still greater climate change will be in store, which may be difficult or impossible to avoid.

Da steht also nichts über den anthropogenen Klimawandel? :rolleyes:

Not only is Earth absorbing about 0.85 Watts of energy per square meter more than it is radiating back to space, but a sizable chunk of that excess energy is "hiding" in Earth's oceans, its full effect on the climate system still unrealized.

Der Erdboden erhält mehr Energie, als in den Weltraum abgestrahlt wird. Dies kann nur durch einen verstärkten Treibhauseffekt verursacht werden. Dieser Treibhauseffekt kann nur durch den Menschen verursacht worden sein. Der Mensch hat durch Verbrennung von fossilen Brennstoffen Treibhausgase in die Atmosphäre geblasen, was zur Erwärmung führt. Diese Erwärmung setzt weitere Treibhausgase aus dem Ozean frei, wie du richtig sagst, CO2 und Wasserdampf, eine positive Rückkopplung also. Eine weitere Erwärmung ist die Folge.
Weiterhin besagt die Studie, dass es noch nicht genug Erwärmung gegeben hat, wie sie von dem gemessenen Ungleichgewicht erwartet wird.
Die Energie wird im Ozean gespeichert, es wird also eine weitere Erwärmung geben, selbst wenn der Treibhausgasausstoß vollständig gestoppt wird.

Das bedeutet schlicht und ergreifend, dass wir mit unserem Treibhausgasausstoß heute schon das Klima in 100 Jahren beeinflussen.

Ich lese in dem Artikel nichts über das Ende der kleinen Eiszeit und auch kein Argument gegen den anthropogenen Treibhauseffekt.

[AndyH]

Hast du den letzten Absatz nicht gelesen?
Da steht also nichts über den anthropogenen Klimawandel? :rolleyes:

Da steht klipp und klar, dass es keine Beweise dafür gibt. Eher das Gegenteil wie es im Artikel eindeutig steht.

Der Erdboden erhält mehr Energie, als in den Weltraum abgestrahlt wird. Dies kann nur durch einen verstärkten Treibhauseffekt verursacht werden. Dieser Treibhauseffekt kann nur durch den Menschen verursacht worden sein.

Dümmer geht es immer. Wenn der Erdboden Energie enthält kommt es entweder von der Sonne oder aus dem Erdinneren.
Und selbstverständlich wird alles abgestrahlt. Sogar die Zusatzheizung der Erdmittelpunkt.
Das alles zählt aber kaum. Wetter und Klima kommt von der Oceanen, wie sehr richtig im Artikel steht.

Der Mensch hat durch Verbrennung von fossilen Brennstoffen Treibhausgase in die Atmosphäre geblasen, was zur Erwärmung führt.

Absolute Blödsinn. Wann hätte es tun sollen um jetzt für gutes Wetter zu sorgen ?

Diese Erwärmung setzt weitere Treibhausgase aus dem Ozean frei, wie du richtig sagst, CO2 und Wasserdampf, eine positive Rückkopplung also. Eine weitere Erwärmung ist die Folge.

Ja. Das ist die einzige Wirkungskette. Der Mensch hat da nichts beigetragen.

Weiterhin besagt die Studie, dass es noch nicht genug Erwärmung gegeben hat, wie sie von dem gemessenen Ungleichgewicht erwartet wird.
Die Energie wird im Ozean gespeichert, es wird also eine weitere Erwärmung geben, selbst wenn der Treibhausgasausstoß vollständig gestoppt wird.

Weil der Treibhauseffekt so wie vorgebetet wird nicht das geringste damit zu tun hat. Die Oceanen speichern Sonnenenergie und nichts anderes. Immerhin tobt die Sonne wie seit 1000 Jahren nicht mehr.

Das bedeutet schlicht und ergreifend, dass wir mit unserem Treibhausgasausstoß heute schon das Klima in 100 Jahren beeinflussen.

Das bedeutet dass in 100 Jahren die gespeicherte Wärme aus dem Oceanen wirksam wird, nicht etwas Abgas oder ähnliches.

Ich lese in dem Artikel nichts über das Ende der kleinen Eiszeit und auch kein Argument gegen den anthropogenen Treibhauseffekt.

Und wo etwas dafür ?

[Touchdown]

Dümmer geht es immer. Wenn der Erdboden Energie enthält kommt es entweder von der Sonne oder aus dem Erdinneren.
Und selbstverständlich wird alles abgestrahlt. Sogar die Zusatzheizung der Erdmittelpunkt.

Ja dümmer gehts immer, da bist du das beste Beispiel. Offensichtlich verstehst du nochnicht einmal die zentrale Aussage des Artikels.
Der Erdboden erhält 0,85 W/m² mehr Energie, als am Oberrand der Atmosphäre abgestrahlt wird.
Denk mal darüber nach, an welchen Prozessen in der Atmopshäre es liegen könnte, dass 0,85 W/m² Strahlungsenergie nicht in den Weltraum gelangen.

Ausserdem versteh ich deine Grundeinstellung nicht. Du sagst doch selbst, dass das CO2, welches aus dem Ozean freigesetzt wird, für eine Erwärmung sorgt. Warum in aller Welt gilt das dann nicht für das CO2 was der Mensch freisetzt???

[AndyH]

Ja dümmer gehts immer, da bist du das beste Beispiel. Offensichtlich verstehst du nochnicht einmal die zentrale Aussage des Artikels.
Der Erdboden erhält 0,85 W/m² mehr Energie, als am Oberrand der Atmosphäre abgestrahlt wird.

Nicht ein Wort steht dort von "Erdboden". Es handelt sich um Wasser. Ganz andere Paar Stiefel. Der Erdboden kann z.b. Wärme nicht durch Konvektion umschichten. Deswegen gibt es Thermik über Festland und nicht über Wasser.
Auch deswegen kannst in der Sahara nachts wasser zu Eis frieren dort wo tagsüber Eier kochst. CO2 gibt es dort genausoviel wie anderswo auch, und trotzdem ........... Rate mal was fehlt. Was unterscheidet z.B. Kontinentalklima von Küstenklima.

Denk mal darüber nach, an welchen Prozessen in der Atmopshäre es liegen könnte, dass 0,85 W/m² Strahlungsenergie nicht in den Weltraum gelangen.

An garkeinen. Nicht die Atmosphere speichert die Energie. Das steht doch überdeutlich im Artikel. Die Atmosphere erhält lediglich zusätzliche Menge an Gasen aus der Oceanen.

Ausserdem versteh ich deine Grundeinstellung nicht. Du sagst doch selbst, dass das CO2, welches aus dem Ozean freigesetzt wird, für eine Erwärmung sorgt. Warum in aller Welt gilt das dann nicht für das CO2 was der Mensch freisetzt???

Was für CO2 ? Klimawirksam ist lediglich das Wasserdampf (Als Gas und als Wolke). Die freigesetzte CO2 aus dem Meer wiederum ist ein vielfaches davon was die Menschen emittieren und ist für die Erhöhung der atmospherischen Konzentration. Die Menschheit mit seinem 3-4% Anteil an Gesamtumsatz ist vernachlässigbar und uninteressant.

[Touchdown]

@AndyH: Deine Theorie hat schon einen fundamentalen Fehler. Die NASA Messungen bedeuten dass 0,85 W/m² mehr Strahlung am Boden oder auch an der Meeresoberfläche ankommen, als in den Weltraum emittiert wird. Das liegt am Treibhauseffekt.
Nun hat sich die Atmosphäre allerdings nicht so stark erwärmt, wie man es aufgrund des Ungleichgewichts vermuten würde. Der Rest der Energie muss also im Ozean gespeichert worden sein. Das ist alles was da steht.
Da steht zwar nicht explizit, dass der Treibhauseffekt für das Ungleichgewicht verantwortlich ist, aber nur weil das offensichtlich ist.

[AndyH]

@AndyH: Deine Theorie hat schon einen fundamentalen Fehler. Die NASA Messungen bedeuten dass 0,85 W/m² mehr Strahlung am Boden oder auch an der Meeresoberfläche ankommen, als in den Weltraum emittiert wird. Das liegt am Treibhauseffekt.
Nun hat sich die Atmosphäre allerdings nicht so stark erwärmt, wie man es aufgrund des Ungleichgewichts vermuten würde. Der Rest der Energie muss also im Ozean gespeichert worden sein. Das ist alles was da steht.
Da steht zwar nicht explizit, dass der Treibhauseffekt für das Ungleichgewicht verantwortlich ist, aber nur weil das offensichtlich ist.

Lesen bildet. Niemand erzählte was bei der NASA über die Erdoberfläche, nur über die wärmespeichernde Wassermassen.
Die Wassertemperaturen liegen aber keinesfalls am Treibhauseffekt, sondern alleine an den eingefangenen Solarenergie. Diese wirkt einige Dutzend Meter tief, nicht nur oberflächlich. Es steht nicht , dass der Treibhauseffekt für das neu entstehende Gleichgewicht verantwortlich ist, weil es eben nicht so ist.

[AndyH]

Computer models wrong.

A new study by two physicists at the University of Rochester suggests there is a mechanism at work in the Earth's atmosphere that may blunt the influence of global warming, and that this mechanism is not accounted for in the computer models scientists currently use to predict the future of the world's temperature. The researchers, David H. Douglass and Robert S. Knox, professors of physics, plotted data from satellite measurements of the Earth's atmosphere in the months and years following the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. The results, published in an upcoming issue of Geophysical Research Letters (and now online), show that global temperatures dropped more and rebounded to normal significantly faster than conventional climate models could have predicted.

"All we did was chart the data," says Douglass. "We can be confident that our numbers are accurate because we aren't using computer models and assumptions; we're using simple observations. Despite whatever models might say, the analysis of the actual data says that the atmosphere rebounded from the Pinatubo volcano much faster than was expected." In addition, the analysis of Douglass and Knox showed that the amount of the cooling measured could be explained only if there was some mechanism producing a kind of self-correcting feedback. In other words according to Douglass " This feedback mechanism prevented the Earth from becoming much colder."

In an attempt to approach the climate warming issue from a data-centered, rather than model-centered, way, Douglass and Knox looked for a global temperature-changing event that was well-recorded and did not occur at the same time as other events, such as El Nino or particularly high solar activity. They found their candidate in the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines, the largest volcanic eruption in the 20th century. The volcano forced millions of tons of debris into the Earth's atmosphere, which blocked some of the Sun's heat from reaching the Earth. The average temperature of the world dropped more than half a degree immediately following the eruption.

The Rochester team zeroed in on the years during and after the eruption, and extracted satellite temperature data to carefully plot the rate at which the atmosphere rebounded to its pre-volcanic temperature. Within a single year, the global temperature was already rebounding, and within roughly five years, it was back to normal.

When conventional atmosphere models were used to predict the rebound, they suggested that the rebound would have been much slower, taking many years to finally reach equilibrium.

"This return to normal temperatures is important because some climate models say that volcanoes affect the global climate for much longer, and that would mean they would have a cumulative effect, where each cools the atmosphere a little more," says Douglass. "This is used as a justification to say that volcanoes are helping to mask the effects of human pollution. But if volcanoes' effects last only a few years, then there is no accumulated cooling, and we can't say they're masking anything."

Douglass and Knox point out that the mechanism producing the negative feedback may be the "Infrared Iris effect" due to clouds proposed by MIT professor Richard Lindzen. Clouds can both cool the Earth by reflecting light from the Sun, and warm the Earth by trapping heat between them and the ground. Since cloud formation is influenced by temperature and humidity changes in the atmosphere, the team suspects that clouds may form and dissipate in a way that tends to push the global temperatures back to steady normal.

Since the explanation of Pinatubo by the computer models was wrong in regard to the response time and the negative feedback, Douglass asks, "Are the computer models right when they consider the change to the climate caused by carbon dioxide?"
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

[AndyH]

IPCC

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation - though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements - would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely, Chris Landsea

[AndyH]

Hier das Original:
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

Schon Antwort da:
April 28, 2005
James Hansen Increasingly Insensitive
Filed under: Climate Models -

It seems that the longer NASA scientist Jim Hansen studies the climate, the more insensitive he, or should we say, his interpretation of the climate, becomes.

Climate "sensitivity" is the change in surface temperature expected for each additional Watt of energy that is re-radiated onto the earth's surface and lower atmosphere by slight changes in the greenhouse effect. The main cause of these changes in the greenhouse effect, of course, is the increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

You would think that it would be big news when Hansen-the guy who started all this mess with his incendiary 1988 congressional testimony-lowers his estimate for the sensitivity to two-thirds of the value he used back then.

After all, he does get a lot of ink. That's what happened in October, 2004, when he traveled to hotly contested and environmentally sensitive Iowa the weekend before the election, and publicly berated his Boss' global warming policy. Talk about insensitive!

Hansen's most recent figure, just published in Sciencexpress, is that the surface temperature ultimately changes 0.67?C per Watt per square meter (W/m2). In 1988 he said it was a full degree, and in 2001 he lowered it to 0.75.

The lower the climate sensitivity, the less that the global temperature will rise in the future (given the same amount atmospheric carbon dioxide) and the lower the threat of catastrophic climate change.

But the greenhouse emissions are also much lower than people expected. The standard modeling technique raises the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere 1% per year, but the actual rate of increase for the last three decades has been around 0.45% per year. And, despite scary news stories, there's little evidence for any sharp upward change. There was a lot of press when the 2003 concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide rose considerably, and virtually no coverage when it was balanced out by much smaller changes in 2004.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumes an average change of roughly 0.65% per year in carbon dioxide, or 41% greater than the observed, very constant rate.

Hansen has written repeatedly a variant of his 2001 statement that "much of the warming of the next 50 years" will result from emissions already in the atmosphere, and that's also in his latest work. Because is characteristic of climate models to warm at a constant (not an increasing rate), Hansen is really saying that the recent (very modest) rate of warming is likely to continue.

He arrives at the conclusion by using a combination of climate model output and observations of heat build-up in the global oceans. Hansen calculates that since the 1880s, there has been, in net, an added +1.8W/m2 of radiation reaching the surface, (resulting from positive additions from greenhouse gases, solar changes, black carbon aerosols, and negative changes from sulfate aerosols and land-use changes). His Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) climate model produces a total change in temperature as a result of the 1.8W/m2 of added energy to the earth's climate system of about 1.2ºC (indicating a climate sensitivity of about 0.67ºC/Wm2). Since the planet has warmed up about 0.6-0.7ºC between 1880 and now, that leaves another 0.5-0.6ºC of warming yet to occur. By "yet to occur" we mean that it is not yet being measured by thermometers at the earth's surface. Using the "old" sensitivity of 1 degree would give a remaining warming of 1.1?C, or nearly double what is now expected.

These are big changes and should be big news, but it is apparent that those who report on these matters may be far from a hand calculator.

Hint to taxpayers, who fund over $4 billion per year in climate change research (at least that's what's in the proposed budget): all of these calculations are pretty much unnecessary. It is already become well established over the course of the past 35 years or so that the rate of global average temperature rise is a remarkably constant 0.17ºC/dec. That would give right around 0.8ºC additional warming to 2050.

In his new work, Hansen is really just doing what any rational scientist would do: adjusting the sensitivity for what has been observed in the real world.

Of course, there could be a more cynical explanation for the reduced climate sensitivity, namely the rational tendency to cover ones back. Here's what Hansen wrote in 2003 in the Journal Natural Science.

Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate?scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.

(The logical parsing of that paragraph was that it was OK for scientists to lie to gain policies they wanted, and that they weren't being objective).

In climate science, we really have only two tools: computer models and observations. And it is clear, when the two are combined, that future warming is going to be at the low end of the wild projections that have been made by the IPCC. What Hansen has done is really nothing more than this, lending more evidence to what we already pretty much know. The rate of future temperature rise will be modest, as will be the accompanying climate impacts. Some will be positive, some will be negative, but they will all be at the low end. How insensitive!

References

Hansen, J.E., et al., 1988. Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, 9341-9364.

Hansen, J.E., and M. Sato, 2001. Trends of measured climate forcing agents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 26, 14778-14783.

Hansen, J.E., 2003. The global warming time bomb? Natural Science, [Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

Hansen, J.E., et al., 2005. Earth's energy imbalance: confirmation and implications. Sciencexpress, April 28, 2005.

Michaels, P.J., et al. 2002. Revised 21st century temperature projections. Climate Research, 23, 1-9.

Michaels, P.J., 2004. Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Cato Books, Washington DC. 272pp.

[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]

[houndstooth]

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
Sincerely, Chris Landsea

Angefangen hatte es mit Mann's 'spiked script'.

• Warum wurde der script 'gespiked' ? => "...motivated by pre-conceived agendas ".
• Wer ist Auftraggeber der 'reports? => IPCC
• Wer ist Auftraggeber der IPCC ? => U.N.O.

Egal mit wieviel 'face saving' Data IPCC ihre Position verteidigen will, fact ist , sie promoten, produzieren und foerdern 'junk science'.