14 Grad mittags am 14. Juli


Mit diesem einfachen Experiment, das jede Schulklasse im Unterricht aufbauen und mein Ergebnis überprüfen kann, widerlege ich das nobelpreisgekrönte Märchen einer vom Menschen verursachten Klimakatastrophe:

Wood-Schottlaender-Experiment

Wood-Schottlaender-Experiment

 

 

Dear Mr. President Obama, Secretary Chu, Lee Hamilton, BRC and DOE:

I have proved with an experiment that global warming – caused by CO2 –
is much smaller than the scientific community believes.

And no threat for mankind.

Even if we would burn in this 21st century all resources of coal and oil
– about 1000 Gigatons C, maybe more – temperature would increase only
by less than 1 (one) degree Celsius.

I am not a dreamer believing that just a little EMail like this
can compete with the wrong nobel prizes for Al Gore and IPCC.

Who are telling the public that CO2 is a threat.

The debate in the last 20 years has influenced your
thoughts and decisions – but all based on a wrong first assumption:

Kondratjew and Moskalenko have published in the 80´s
that earth surface temperature would be 33 degree lower
without the greenhouse gases H20, CO2, CH4, NOx and O3.

Vice versa:
Increasing of the CO2 content of our atmosphere would increase
earth surface temperature dramatically.

In numbers:
The scientific community believes that increasing todays
380 ppm pCO2 to 760 ppm would increase temperature by 5 – 8 degree.

This easy EXPERIMENT
– it can be reproduced everywhere from everybody –
shows that this is not true.

from: http://www.schottie.de/?p=87 :

“I ask you to deprive the Nobel Prize for the IPCC and Al Gore.

I ask also to take a look on the Foto-Wood-Schottlaender-Experiment attached here.
This experiment shows that even if mankind burns all oil, gas and coal
temperature increases less than a half degree Celcius.

Prof. Wood in the year 1909 and I, Rainer Schottlaender in the
year 2009, have proved with this experiment described here
that the common theory of a greenhouse is wrong.
Consequently all predictions of the IPCC are wrong.”

I put now for you the description – written in german language –
of the experiment into the GOOGLE TRANSLATER :

“Now comes the crucial idea that has motivated me for this experiment and this email:

Wafer-thin polyethylene film, household foil, only 0.01 mm thick, are transparent to infrared radiation.

I was wondering:

Is that what ever all claim, namely that the greenhouse effect by reflection – sorry Google, I mean: re-radiation –
and thus the trace gases come about?

My experiment disproves that – in the truest sense of the word – is crystal clear.

Although the walls of the imaged

“TEN-MT- I mean: this ten mikrometer thin foil -FILM GREENHOUSE”

infrared heat radiation to pass through unhindered, it generates heat when illuminated by the light (simulating the sun) almost identical to the identical aquarium glass.

************************************************** ********
It follows that it is not the re-radiation that causes the greenhouse effect, but the obstruction of convection.
************************************************** ********

The complete physical theory been taught this is wrong.

Probably it is true that in the atmosphere, but also in Venus, Mars and Titan, the temperature profile through the – is described adiabatic / feuchtadiabatische approximation of the trace gases play no role – in itself Meteorologists have long known:

dT / dH = – g / Cp

It follows that the human impact on our climate is much lower than previously thought.

Regarding the costs, consequences, and many other good ideas and reasons, I refer to my summary of work “37-theses-for-CO2″.

Schottlaender Rainer, Dipl.-Phys. 12587 Berlin, on 2 March 2009.

As the latest evidence that the wrong scientific
Advice to government and media by the generally accepted
Institutions like MPG, DFG, IPCC, DMG, BMU, DFG, BMBW
to the Nobel awards ceremony cheerfully continues, the following links:

ioniertderTreibhauseffekt http://www.dlr.de/caf/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2643/3955_read-5854/Wiefunkt?

“The greenhouse effect is a natural property of the atmosphere surrounding the earth …”
(Up to this point correctly)
“Without the natural greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, N2O) would be the average surface temperature of only -18 ° C, instead of the actual 15 ° C.”

This is wrong.

Not these five trace gases produce the 33-degree effect but simply the mass of the atmosphere.

formulated somewhat unscientific, but simple and clear:

If the shirt you wear just warming up,
it is not because of his color but the fabric.

The Max Planck Society spread on your site

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/presse/faqs/wie-funktioniert-der-treibhauseffekt.html

“2 The greenhouse effect In a world with no atmosphere, the surface temperature would be only by the balance between
incident solar energy and emitted heat radiation from the ground set. At the same albedo of the planet as it is today, amounts to the global average surface temperature about 18 ° C would. ”

Up to this point just about right.

“Even an atmosphere of pure oxygen and nitrogen, so the
Main components of our atmosphere (about 99%) form, would
not change this essential. ”

This is wrong.
Decisively wrong.
For on this assumption based all conclusions, forecasts and hasty legislation passed.”

Ten years ago I have tried to find out in another series of experiments
how much of the man made CO2 dissolves in the oceans.

The 500 grams water you see here on this foto
simulate the 1,3 x 10^21 liters in the oceans.
You see me with a 800 dollar CO2-measuring device.
CO2 is injected into the 1500 cm^3 air with a syringe.

It seems that not only 50 % – as IPCC says – but 60-80 % of man made CO2 dissolves from alone in the oceans in a slow process with a time constant of about ten years.

In a third series of experiments I have proved that even 780 ppms are no threat
for algaes, corals and the live in the oceans. http://www.schottie.de/?p=289

This would decrease oceans pH value from todays 8,4 only to about 8,35.

The whole debate of the last 20 years was not a scientific one.

More a mix of a religion, politics and infotainment.

I put now for you my 37 thesis for CO2 into the GOOGLE TRANSLATER:

1. Carbon dioxide is a life-giving useful gas, without which no plant grows and owe all the industrialized nations in the centuries acquired wealth.

2. Fortunately, carbon dioxide is present in the atmosphere. It is amazing that it is possible that the plants, of only 0.035% CO2 in air to live. Man is dependent on 21% O2.

3. was in ancient times, as today’s coal or wood, life flourished. With several percent of CO2 in the atmosphere.

4. It was not the cars of the Neanderthals, but natural causes, which forced the ice ages come and go.

5. It is possible that there is a small, man-made portion of the taking place for millions of years, global temperature T = T1 (of course) + T2 (humans) are.

6. The approximately 800 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere are in equilibrium with about 3000 Gt C of live and dead biomass as well as the 38 000 Gt of carbon, which are dissolved in the oceans. Since the beginning of industrialization, man has moved through the burning of about 400 Gt C of this balance somewhat.

7. In these 200 years, the local temperature increased by about a supposedly different degrees and sea levels by 20 cm. The human part of it was a few inches. The media (“Bad news is good news”) are grateful for any disaster, and therefore make molehills out of this. Which – when released – trampled not only the German porcelain industry.

8. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that we can meet in Germany to our annual energy needs of 500 million tons of coal (units) = 4,000 terawatt hours (thermal) to a greater extent by “renewable” energy source.

9. Comparing the current 200 TWh of nuclear power with this requirement, then it is clear that for a CO2-free economy 20 times as many new nuclear power plants would be built, as there are today. And while “Fast breeder” reactors that burn plutonium 239th Before you know at this high demand is a worldwide shortage of natural uranium used in only 0.7% occurring fissile isotope U 235.

10. Already 60 years ago were built in Russia simple solar power plants operating more economically than the current subsidy industry. Even today – supposedly innovative – wind turbines are less driven by the wind – than on funding.

11. Just the opposite is true of the media reported. CO2 abatement is extremely expensive. For “One percent of gross national product” – as the world cited Stern said – nothing works.

12. Germany has 357 022 km2. Even if the total area per hectare of 5 tons of dry biomass with a heating value of 4 kWh / kg harvested and burned with 100% efficiency, so the provided 714 TWh would cover only 18% of our energy needs.

13. 200 years ago the consumption of wood was so great that Germany had been largely cleared. Coal production in 19.Jht. made possible the reforestation of our forests.

14. In the Zwinger Palace, an old 2-meter parabolic mirror made of copper sheet metal and wood is ausgstellt, which could melt glass. August the Strong of Saxony and its enterprising would follow Germany in the allotment gardens have long flooded with solar – if it would count only.

15. It was just not the long-known “alternative” energy sources wind and water, biomass (wood), solar and geothermal energy, around which was the development of our industry.

16. Coal, oil and nuclear power were. James Watt’s steam engine, Thomas Edison’s light bulb and Rudolf Diesel’s engine driving light, and made possible our present comfortable life.

17. I discovered in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Volume 38, from the year 1916 the then knowledge summary work of James Kendall: “The Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere.” After that the CO2 in the air even then 353 ppm plus minus 12 ppm CO2. This goes against everything that is said of today’s climate “experts”: namely, that of the 280 ppm of the 19 Century – today’s was 360 ppm. I put this work to the Federal Environment Agency, climate researchers and journalists. She was silently ignored.

18. Svante Arrhenius, who first described the greenhouse effect estimated in 1903 that 83% of anthropogenic CO2 dissolves in the oceans. Without even having made a single experiment, writes today a climate “expert” on the other that it was half.

19. The values ​​in Section 6 support my hypothesis that the next 400 gigatons of the 21 Century to a larger part in the valleys and ocean biomass dispose of themselves.

20. By the nuclear testing in the 1950s the C14 atmospheric concentration of normal 1 x 10 28 atoms rose to 3 x 10 28 atoms. (Hess Heimer, Heimann, Levin, Nature 370/1994). After 40 years Stop nuclear test, the value is now back to normal. The C14 atoms disintegrate in 5780 years half-time or not. These are by humans into the atmosphere brought 2 x 10 ^ 28 atoms so within a few decades gone. The same happens with our CO2?

21. It is absurd to make any decision on CO2 before you understand the carbon cycle in nature. Therefore, my very valuable and instructive CO2-based experiment (see photo) is perceived to be recognized and continued.

22. After the equally arrogant as incompetent EPA also rejected this proposal and request from me, I forced the proceedings VG 20 A 43.95, the prevailing fundamentalists, at least make a statement. Whether my lecture “incomprehensible” and “completely unsubstantial,” you like – my current readers – to decide. Sadly previous final chord of this process was that I in case of defeat would have a total of 23,000 DM to pay, the Lord President of the UBA and its lawyers army but nothing.

23. Two of my newly discovered, could on pages 48 to 50 of my book PRIMAKLIMA described radiation-physical effects even lead to a cooling of surface air temperature increase in CO2. As my resources are limited, I could not handle this problem.

24. Are better sold the horror stories that could tip over the Gulf Stream. But millions of euros have been provided: Grants. Research funds. And many tons of newsprint. It is unlikely that a few hundred cubic kilometers per year melting Greenland ice desalinate the huge 2000 km x 2000 km x 5 km North Atlantic significant. In addition – imagine the currents in a pot of boiling water on your stove – the ‘flame’ sun forces the water movement in the “pot” Ocean.

25. Meyer went to work, CAME TO HEALTHY AND ALSO BACK HOME – is a newspaper with this headline difficult to sell. . Thanks to the global climate catastrophism is what the established “research” financially as well as never before …

26. Have you ever noticed that the papers show horrible smoking power plants, which blow the “pollutant” and “climate killer” CO2 in the air? On closer inspection, you realize cooling towers, which emit harmless water vapor is known.

27. The ice ages and warm periods of the climate history teach that there were far more dramatic change than the present. From natural causes …

28. Greenland – once grassland – AD was around 1000. popular destination of the Vikings and was used by up to 10 agrarian 000.

29. A slightly warmer Germany would prefer

Berlin under the ice sheet as the ice age.

30. I conduct a thought experiment: If it gets warmer everywhere on Earth 25 degrees, there would be no ice left. The sea level would be 75 m higher. That would be 300 cm sea level rise per degree. However, it was observed only 20 cm rise in the past 200 years. Was it – global – not warmer? (Study www.ncdc.noaa.gov). [Http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov). /]

31. A second indication that the sea level rise does not match the warming: The expansion coefficient of water is 0.00018 per degree. Multiplied by 3870 meter ocean average depth would result in an increase of 70cm. Even more accurate calculation, taking into account the anomaly of the water does not eliminate this contradiction.

32. Unnoticed by the public is here in Berlin at my desk instead of years a permanent World Climate Conference: with me as the only participants.

33. For me, the most logical and most likely forecast for the 21 Century is the linear continuation of what happened in the last 200 years: If the past, some to 400 gigatons of burnt oil, gas and coal, only tenths of a degree temperature change, and led only to a few centimeters of sea level rise, then the next 400 gigatons do the same.

34. Given the huge costs that come to your and every household in CO2 abatement, it is wiser to do nothing. Adapt. Living with the consequences.

35. I recommend the separation of church and state air: The completion of the discharge trade in CO2 certificates. The cancelation of all energy laws. The immediate dismissal of the Kyoto Protocol by Germany.

36. I have reduced my electricity provider plans. He boasts, for 40 million euros, which will pay for another from me, to build the first CO2-free coal power plant. I have put it expects that the current price multiplied when one operates CO2 disposal. In this process, at least half the energy that goes into a piece of coal, used for CO2 disposal, which formulation is wasted unnecessarily accurate.

37. In my dictionary is that politics is politics – I mean ART OF GOVERNANCE .
In the past 15 years, I realized that my dictionary is outdated.

Author / Copyright:

Schottlaender Rainer, Dipl.-Phys., Jastrow Weg 17, 12587 Berlin

Über schotti

* geb. 1949 in Berlin * 1967-1971 Physikstudium an der Humboldt-Universität Berlin * 1975 Diplom in München * 1976 wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am MPI für Astrophysik in Garching * 1977-1978 Redakteur beim Elektronik Journal München * 1979-1988 Aufbau eines Bauhandwerkbetriebes in München * 1989-1990 Songwriter/Sänger in San Diego (USA) * 1991-heute eigenfinanzierte Forschungsarbeit in Berlin

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.