Torsten P. Kersten surely sun is the only energy source ! for climate on earth. Since suns energy output doesnt differ that much over several decades, as observable along the suncycles and since the last years since 2008 represent the most active output phase (solar Max in late 2013) in the actual, so called small suncycle and since there are heat-up phenomena observable on planet earth which cannot be caused by sun, since we dont see from solar data a matching additional energy input on planet earth - since all these facts exist I cannot support the upper implicated statement, that CO2 emissions dont have an measurable impact on climate, that there would be no significant man-made component or driver. Sorry, argumenting from sun alone the energy and output data doesnt suport the upper statement. quite contrary the data on the past 100 years of solar activity does not suggest a solar factor for rising stronger rising seasurface temperatures rather than measured in the decades before. But ocean surface temperatures do rise faster in annual mapped data comparison. And this is only one indicator. There are many others as well, but it cant be denied that atmosphere has become more insulating and conserves heat better than without the heightened CO2 levels. We now may perhaps discuss at which extent the volcanic activity and billion of tons of emitted volcanic CO2 contributes to the total. But the data and the arguments for the mankind caused climate change is quite convincing. there is no flaw in the geo-physical or atmospheric chemistry argumentation propagating the impact factor of burning fossiles. And then the above statement completly denies the perhaps only possible method to perhaps stop or soften the system tilt for the next generations? Just to have now a cheaper energy bill? I find this irresponsible. Honestly. You may check the data yourself. I just know I didnt talk bullshit. My statement is we might have a chance to soften a process which kills people, species and will force us to think about how world comunity will handle a challenge like a 500 million refugee problem in 2050 or perhaps 2075. It does matter when we have to face such a question and whether we may have an impact on numbers. And according to physics and logic the only little regulator we might still have on a process of planetary scale is cutting carbon emissions, to re-define growth, and lifestyle and way of life coz we will not cut carbon consume (there is not enough political will in the growth oriented and energy hungry countries) and our kids or grand kids will be put in harsh conditions. I also refuse to accept contra arguments which only aim on discrediting the published international best science teams data and revisions. I admit that the complexity of modelling climate change and to find a reliable forecast model with enough predictive strength is still under construction, but I also argue the actual version(s) already have become much better than the ones before. The foreseeable effects today discuss 4.8 °C until year 2100 and further increasing if we dont zero fossiles until then. And even then still annual average mean temp will rise further until 2200. And the last and yet best data foresees 3°C opt out if mankind would commit today on challenging objectives. We will not have the the opportunity to see all 198 nations acting in the neccessary measures. This means we only discuss whether we will reach 3°C earlier or a bit later. And neither me nor any other yet living human beeing except few few neard do have an idea what 3°C annual average mean temp plus means. 3 degrees sounds so innocent and belittles the meaning behind the word average. One can try to transpose 3°C plus in billions of tons of vapor additionally eroding landscapes as flash floods. One may be able to transpose 3°C plus in additional windspeed potential, hail size, tornadoes > category 5 probabilities, or number of dying species or phantastillions of not existing money coz global village wont run smooth under such heat. The climate extremes caused by 3°C plus in different parts of globe are not budget-able yet. But they will cost. And we wont be able to pay the bill ... Cutting carbon is the only chance left. Well see how much TIME mankind will lose until mankind has become smarter than today. Sounds dramitic, but each f***ing second already costs lives and future potential. Sorry, thats the picture I see after studying solar and terrestrial data each day in the past three years. I also can show you the data on the solar output. Day by day, cycle by cycle and the data I refer to in my arguments. I also have seen all major critical and significant reports, studies, discussions etc. Lets have a beer or a joint or a brandy and swallow the pill. We wont stop it coz there will be no global comittment. And this would be neccessary to smooth the change. Lets see whther the next generation is smarter than we were. Necessarily their kids have to face it .... cheap energy creates a lot of money in shareholder value. I can show you antique shares. Collectors items for some nerds. The todays created shareholder value will melt off like the northern pole ... cheers. 1.1.1.4/bmi/swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/f10.gif * actually we are have cycle #25 - one is 11 years, with details per suncycle on sunspotsize and numbers and radiation data like x-ray output, protons, electrons etc
Posted on: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:02:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015