Global warming and Fairbanks’ power solution

Ytterligare en av dessa vetenskapsmän ( Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D.) som INTE förstått att ”Debatten är över” och ”det fins inget att diskutera”. Att de aldrig lär sig! Ja menar komma här med vetenskapliga fakta när det finns sådana intellektuella giganter som Al Gore som har fått Nobelpris och allt. Att de inte skäms. Det är ju omoraliskt att ens tänka tanken (Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!).

Artikeln finns här:

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Global warming and Fairbanks‘ power solution

Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D., Community Perspective

Published Sunday, March 30, 2008

In the future, nuclear energy might become more attractive for many regions worldwide, even for Interior Alaska. However, I am not sure whether the public will accept a renaissance of nuclear energy.

In Germany (Kalkar) and Austria (Zwentendorf) nuclear power plants were built consuming billions of German marks and Austrian shillings, but they never did produce energy because of political decisions. The German re-conversion plant Wackersdorf, also very expensive, never reconverted nuclear waste. Environmental groups celebrated these political decisions as their ”greatest victories.”

In his Community Perspective (March 9) Mr. Swift suggested that nuclear energy might help to reduce the impact of global warming. This is sole wishful thinking because his conclusion is based on inaccurate statements like ”the level of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has been almost constant over the past 100,000 years – until the beginning of the industrial age,” ”climate models all show a direct causal relationship between the rise in CO2 levels and global warming”, and ”the evidence that mankind is drastically altering our climate is overwhelming.”

First, the emission by Alaska’s electricity production in 2005, based on Alaska Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections, corresponds to 0.01 percent of the global CO2 emission observed in the same year.

Second, the Vostok (East Antarctica) ice core results indicate that the CO2 concentration was varying between 200 and 280 parts per million during the last 420,000 years (Petit et al., 1999, Nature, 399, 429-436). However, there are also indications that the CO2 concentration variations lag behind the atmospheric temperature in the southern hemisphere (Mudelsee, 2001, Quaternary Science Reviews 20, 583-589).

Third, climate models are still in a state of infancy. They produce scenarios, but are not able to simulate any real climate change of the past.

Fourth, the ”overwhelming evidence” is based on so-called cherry picking, i.e., any indication that does not fit the agenda of global warming activists is ignored. It is one of the merits of Professor Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu to document that the rise of the annual mean global near-surface temperature by less than 1.8 degress during the last 160 years may be related to a recovery of the Earth from the Little Ice Age.

Last year Science published a paper written by eight authors of the fourth report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which recent climate observations were compared with climate projections. This paper documents a fundamental scientific misconduct because the first 12 years of the Mauna Loa CO2 observations were neglected because the projections disagree with the observations. In my comment to this paper I showed that in 1988 when the IPCC was established and thirty years of Mauna Loa CO2 data were available no correlation between a rise of the CO2 concentration and an increase of the mean near-surface temperature in the northern hemisphere did exist. Meanwhile, I wonder why the IPCC was established.

In 1977, a book titled ”The Weather Conspiracy – The Coming of the New Ice Age” was published. An excerpt of this book reads: ”Many hot-earth men believe that global temperature will rise by at least 3.8 (degrees) by 2020, given that the volume of carbon dioxide is doubled in the next 50 years. If this happened, ships could well sail the entire Arctic Circle, and the melting of the polar ice caps could cause the sea level to rise by 200 to 400 feet. London and New York would vanish. So would Rome, Paris, Brussels, Antwerp, Marseille and hundreds of other cities. Trees would grow in Alaska and Siberia; cattle would be raised on what was once tundra.” This excerpt is accompanied by a map of Europe showing large areas with cities of more than 1 million inhabitants that are affected by flooding if the polar ice caps would melt. The cited author is Bert Bolin, the first chairman of the IPCC.

Let me quote Maurice F. Strong, one of the world’s leading environmentalists and senior advisor to various U.N. Secretaries-General: ”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?”

This means that the western civilization is threatened, rather than our climate.

Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D. is an atmospheric scientist with the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.


Etiketter: , , ,

Ett svar to “Global warming and Fairbanks’ power solution”

  1. brodie Says:

    I met Gerhard last week. He is so awesome! I had to go shake his hand and thank him for this.


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in: Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: