Registreren kan je hier. Problemen met registreren of reageren op de berichten? Een verloren wachtwoord? Gelieve een mail te zenden naar [email protected] met vermelding van je gebruikersnaam. |
|
Registreer | FAQ | Forumreglement | Ledenlijst |
Buitenland Internationale onderwerpen, de politiek van de Europese lidstaten, over de werking van Europa, Europese instellingen, ... politieke en maatschappelijke discussies. |
|
Discussietools |
3 september 2012, 00:09 | #321 |
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
|
SRM is realiseerbaar met "gewone" vliegtuigen
Een kostenanalyse : Science Daily - Shading Earth: Delivering Solar Geoengineering Materials to Combat Global Warming May Be Feasible and Affordable ScienceDaily (Aug. 29, 2012) — A cost analysis of the technologies needed to transport materials into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting Earth and therefore reduce the effects of global climate change has shown that they are both feasible and affordable. Published August 31, 2012, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, the study has shown that the basic technology currently exists and could be assembled and implemented in a number of different forms for less than USD $5 billion a year. Put into context, the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is currently estimated to be between 0.2 and 2.5 per cent of GDP in the year 2030, which is equivalent to roughly USD $200 to $2000 billion. Solar radiation management (SRM) looks to induce the effects similar to those observed after volcanic eruptions; however, the authors state that it is not a preferred strategy and that such a claim could only be made after the thorough investigation of the implications, risks and costs associated with these issues. The authors caution that reducing incident sunlight does nothing at all to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, nor the resulting increase in the acid content of the oceans. They note that other research has shown that the effects of solar radiation management are not uniform, and would cause different temperature and precipitation changes in different countries. (!!!!!!!!!!!) Co-author of the study, Professor Jay Apt, said: "As economists are beginning to explore the role of several types of geoengineering, it is important that a cost analysis of SRM is carried out. The basic feasibility of SRM with current technology is still being disputed and some political scientists and policy makers are concerned about unilateral action." In the study, the researchers, from Aurora Flight Sciences, Harvard University and Carnegie Mellon University, performed an engineering cost analysis on six systems capable of delivering 1-5 million metric tonnes of material to altitudes of 18-30 km: existing aircraft, a new airplane designed to perform at altitudes up to 30 km, a new hybrid airship, rockets, guns and suspended pipes carrying gas or slurry to inject the particles into the atmosphere. Based on existing research into solar radiation management, the researchers performed their cost analyses for systems that could deliver around one million tonnes of aerosols each year at an altitude between 18 and 25 km and between a latitude range of 30°N and 30°S. The study concluded that using aircraft is easily within the current capabilities of aerospace engineering, manufacturing and operations. The development of new, specialized aircraft appeared to be the cheapest option, with costs of around $1 to $2 billion a year; existing aircraft would be more expensive as they are not optimized for high altitudes and would need considerable and expensive modifications to do so. Guns and rockets appeared to be capable of delivering materials at high altitudes but the costs associated with these are much higher than those of airplanes and airships due to their lack of reusability. Although completely theoretical at this point in time, a large gas pipe, rising to 20 km in the sky and suspended by helium-filled floating platforms, would offer the lowest recurring cost-per-kilogram of particles delivered but the costs of research into the materials required, the development of the pipe and the testing to ensure safety, would be high; the whole system carries a large uncertainty. Professor Apt continued: "We hope our study will help other scientists looking at more novel methods for dispersing particles and help them to explore methods with increased efficiency and reduced environmental risk." (!!!!!!) The researchers make it clear that they have not sought to address the science of aerosols in the stratosphere, nor issues of risk, effectiveness or governance that will add to the costs of solar radiation management geoengineering.
__________________
HIER Laatst gewijzigd door zonbron : 3 september 2012 om 00:15. |
3 september 2012, 10:44 | #322 |
Perm. Vertegenwoordiger VN
Geregistreerd: 24 januari 2009
Berichten: 19.886
|
Het toont ook weer aan dat wetenschappers global warming als serieuze bedreiging zien.
Hardcore komplotters zullen natuurlijk zeggen dat dit een dekmantel is, een excuus voor het onderzoek dat plaatsvindt met als doel de mensheid uit te roeien.
__________________
“It's only terrorism if they do it to us. When we do much worse to them, it's not terrorism.” |
3 september 2012, 13:45 | #323 |
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 2 september 2002
Berichten: 33.982
|
Waar het voor mij in deze thread verwarrend wordt : is heel dat gedoe nu goed of slecht ??
|
3 september 2012, 16:25 | #324 | ||
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
|
Citaat:
Niet alle wetenschappers zien global warming noch climate change als een serieuze bedreiging, noch erkennen allen het bestaan en/of eventueel de oorzaak ervan. Dat zuigt U zomaar even uit Uwen dikke duim. Meer nog, niet alle wetenschappers geloven dat de geoengineering een juiste keuze is. Integendeel, het is absoluut geen "winning card". Het is eerder een uiterst riskante bedoening met meerdere belangrijke reeds gekende gevolgen en andere volledig onbekende consequenties. Sommigen zitten blijkbaar met hun hoofd hoog in de wolken en de aerosols... Enkele voorbeeldjes uit Wikipedia : Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling. Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9] Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10][11][12] Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[13] Garth Paltridge, retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, Visiting Fellow ANU[14] Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[15] Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [16] Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus view 1860–1980: The similarity between trends in terrestrial sea surface temperatures and sunspots (related to changes in solar radiation) is evidence of the sun's influence on climate. 1979–2009: Over the past 3 decades, temperature has not correlated with sunspot trends. The top plot is of sunspots, while below is the global atmospheric temperature trend. El Chichón and Pinatubo were volcanoes, while El Niño is part of ocean variability. The effect of greenhouse gas emissions is on top of those fluctuations.[citation needed] Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17] Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19] Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20] Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21] David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22] Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America[23] William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24] William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25] William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26] David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27] Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28] Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada said in a 2007 newspaper article: [29] Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30] Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31] Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[32] Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia[33][34] Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[35] Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[36] Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[37] Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa[38][39] Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[40] Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[41] Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[42] John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[43][44] Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[45] David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[46] Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[47] Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [48] Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[49] Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[50] Dead scientists The lists above only include living scientists. The following are dead. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[51] Reid Bryson (1920–2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2007 magazine interview that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes:[52] Robert Jastrow (1925–2008) was an American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist. Together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg he established the George C. Marshall Institute[52] to counter the scientists who were arguing against Reagan's Starwars Initiative, arguing for equal time in the media. This institute later took the view that tobacco was having no effect, that acid rain was not caused by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides were not environmentally harmful and it was also critical of the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming. [53] Jastrow acknowledged the Earth was experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be natural variation.[54] Marcel Leroux (1938–2008) former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin[55] Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[52][56] Citaat:
Later meer daarover, you'll like it... Echter beginnen al Uw tervergeefse pogingen om dit topic af te doen als enkel voor "hardcore komplotters" en het herhaaldelijk vermelden van "het uitroeien van de mensheid als doelstelling" van de geoengineering enigszins medelijden op te wekken of hebt U "een agenda" ? 2012 zekers ? Dit alhoewel de ongekende en dus onvoorziene effecten op het klimaat en biosfeer grote zorgen baren. Maar goed... toegegeven, ik heb ondertussen wel een eigen theorietje ivm de geoengineering. Later dus meer daarover en als U op dat moment mijn theorietje aangaande als "hardcore komplot" wil afdoen, dan mag U dat gerust proberen met de nodige argumenten. Mag ik AUB nog even opmerken dat Uw basisloze vooroordelen en diskwalificaties aangaande deze materie/dit topic, van U geen ideale gesprekspartner maken en dat het dus niet onwenselijk is om alsook Uw "die-hard official story"-houding, bvb. in de 9 September-draad, vanwege deze bekrompen vorm van redeneren in vraag te stellen . U lijkt me namelijk geen persoon die de gegeven data op een onpartijdige wijze kan/wil beoordelen. Bovendien hebt overduidelijk een grootse voorliefde voor de zogenaamde officiële verhalen en doet U skeptische wetenschappers maar al te gemakkelijk af als zijnde komplotters of bijgelovige peasants. Soit, so be it... Maar staat U mij toe daar uiteindelijk toch enige vraagtekens bij te plaatsen. See you down the line... Stay tuned, 9 September komt hier ook spoedig aan bod.
__________________
HIER |
||
3 september 2012, 16:42 | #325 | |
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
|
Citaat:
Nochtans heb ik reeds meermaals de moeite genomen om U de zogenaamde verschillende pro- en contra-argumenten diets te maken, dit zelfs in enige recente posts. Hier hebt U een niet "verwarrende" samenvatting : Scientific American - The Hidden Dangers of Geoengineering - "Overshadowing Difficulties" Geoengineering is a seductive idea. Maybe too seductive By The Editors Hopelijk brengt dit enige turf aan de wal en zoals steeds, vragen staat vrij. Spoedig geef ik mijn "persoonlijk" inzicht in de problematiek. Ik zal deze theorie/vraagstelling in een paar uiterst duidelijke posts opbouwen.
__________________
HIER |
|
3 september 2012, 16:55 | #326 | |
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 2 september 2002
Berichten: 33.982
|
Citaat:
Er zijn reeds meerdere draden begonnen over de 'chemtrails', en de berichten zijn meestal vrij negatief, zelfs tot samenzweringsbullshit toe. Maar nu lees ik hier opeens dat het eigenlijk nodig is om bepaalde natuur-mistoestanden recht te zetten, zoals bijvoorbeeld de verwarmingvan het klimaat iets te milderen. Het motief is dus toch goed. Mijn vraag aan u is dus heel simpel: Is dit een positief verhaal, of een negatief verhaal. Graag als antwoord: 1) het is positief of 2) het is negatief. Quid? |
|
3 september 2012, 16:57 | #327 |
Banneling
Geregistreerd: 18 februari 2003
Berichten: 26.968
|
|
3 september 2012, 17:02 | #328 | |
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 2 september 2002
Berichten: 33.982
|
Citaat:
Dankzij uw eenvoudig bericht weet ik al meer dan met de 200 copy/pastes en links naar ellenlang gezeur en gezever (veelal in het Engels en met font 7) van zonbron. (no hard feelings zonbron ). Laatst gewijzigd door Antoon : 3 september 2012 om 17:04. |
|
3 september 2012, 18:23 | #329 | ||||||
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
|
Citaat:
U kon in deze draad reeds lezen (je moet hem lezen natuurlijk). Uit post nr. 5 http://forum.politics.be/showpost.ph...59&postcount=5 Citaat:
Citaat:
En hier http://forum.politics.be/showpost.ph...&postcount=292 Citaat:
Citaat:
http://forum.politics.be/showpost.ph...&postcount=320 Citaat:
Ik vind dit dus duidelijk geen positieve onwikkeling.
__________________
HIER |
||||||
3 september 2012, 18:32 | #330 |
Banneling
Geregistreerd: 18 februari 2003
Berichten: 26.968
|
|
3 september 2012, 18:39 | #331 | |
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
|
Citaat:
Het beinvloeden van een dynamisch uiterst complex systeem zoals het klimaat is meer dan onverantwoord (nuts). Jammer genoeg beinvloeden we ongewild het klimaat reeds gedurende geruime tijd en dat heeft niets met CO2 te maken. Dit is blijkbaar wat men tracht te corrigeren. Later meer daarover en dan zal alles duidelijker worden. If it's not broke don't fix it.
__________________
HIER |
|
3 september 2012, 20:39 | #334 |
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 2 september 2002
Berichten: 33.982
|
Dank u zonbron.
Ik denk wel dat ik na een avondje op cafe in uw aanwezigheid er zo zou uitzien: Laatst gewijzigd door Antoon : 3 september 2012 om 20:40. |
3 september 2012, 21:02 | #335 | |
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
|
Citaat:
Duvel, Gordon's (Platinum) of enkele trappistjes ? BTW : op cafe praat ik liefst wel over andere zaken hoor, echt belangrijke zaken bespreek ik liever hier, op het forum, speciaal voor U en Co.
__________________
HIER |
|
3 september 2012, 22:03 | #336 |
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
|
*** Persistent contrails aka Chemtrails en meer... onthuld ! ***
*** Persistent contrails aka Chemtrails en meer... eindelijk onthuld ! ***
Vanaf dit moment ga ik aan de hand van enige data, beelden, studies, sites, slide shows e.a. documenten de voor de sluierwolken verantwoordelijken ontsluieren... Lees mee en ontdek de echte samenzwering achter de gekende complottheorie(hoax), het zal een korte maar onthullende reis zijn die U een dieper inzicht zal geven in de huidige polemiek rondom "het aardse klimaat" en de "AGW/Climate Change" !
__________________
HIER |
4 september 2012, 02:05 | #338 | |
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
|
Citaat:
__________________
HIER |
|
4 september 2012, 03:22 | #339 |
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
|
*** ON TOPIC *** (belangrijk onderwerp)
9 september 2001 was een uiterst belangrijke datum, dit ook in verband met de zogenaamde AGW/Climate change. Drie dagen nadien 9 september 2001 werd het internationale luchtverkeer stilgelegd. Dit bracht grootsee gevolgen teweeg, vooral zeer opmerkbare temperatuurverschillen tussen de dagtemperatuur en de nachttemperatuur. Het temperatuurverschil tussen de temperatuur gedurende de dag en de nacht is zeer belangrijk (voor de biosfeer). Verhaal begint NU ! CNN News - 9/11 study: Air traffic affects climate August 07, 2002|Richard Stenger CNN The thin wisps of condensation that trail jet airliners have a significant influence on the climate, according to scientists who studied U.S. skies during a rare interruption in national air traffic after the September 11 terrorist attacks. During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day, said meteorological researchers. While the temperature range is significant, whether the jet clouds have a net effect on global warming remains unknown. "I think what we've shown are that contrails are capable of affecting temperatures," said lead scientist David Travis of the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater. "Which direction, in terms of net heating or cooling, is still up in the air." In many ways, contrails behave in the same manner as cirrus clouds, thin high-altitude floaters that block out solar energy from above and trap in heat below. As a result, they help reduce the daily range in daytime highs and nighttime lows. Contrails, by providing additional insulation, further reduce the variability. With air traffic growing and contrails becoming more prevalent, the natural variation will further decline and could disrupt regional ecosystems, some scientists (dus geen die-hard komplotters HIER IN DEZE TOPIC zoals bvb. @atmosphere insinueert) speculate. [B]Certain trees, crops and insect species depend on specific daily temperature variations for their survival.[/b] In some ways, contrails differ from their natural brethren. Cirrus clouds let less heat out than in overall, producing a net increase in the Earth's temperatures, according to climate scientists. With contrail clouds, they said they are not so sure. "Contrails are denser and block sunlight much more than natural cirrus clouds," said Travis, who with colleagues reported the findings this week in the journal Nature. "And contrails are much more prevalent when the sun is out," he said. "When this is factored in, there is a possibility that they offset global warming, and this is what we are trying to determine now." The researchers plan more studies to tackle that question, but they said they expect to rely on circumstantial evidence only. "We can only hope that the September 11 tragedy never happens again," Travis said.
__________________
HIER |
4 september 2012, 07:25 | #340 |
Europees Commissaris
Geregistreerd: 26 april 2012
Berichten: 7.485
|
Nu plots gaan we naar de wetenschappers luisteren?
Mijn bescheiden mening is zoals Deek Jackson van FKN Newz het ongeveer zegt: the planet's fucked, it's our fault and there's nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day.
__________________
Wortelloze bomen vallen |