---

"Jesus-loves-you" skrev

7314 news:l_yWi.4$7x4.3@news.get2net.dk
6755 news:Jplli.12$q25.1@news.get2net.dk
6749 news:xF1li.11$Rt7.3@news.get2net.dk
4893 news:cz_df.275$Cl2.2546@news000.worldonline.dk
4469B news:ZCNYe.68661$Fe7.231513@news000.worldonline.dk
>
> Man kunne - ude i rummet - faktisk godt bygge en kæmpestor solfanger, som
> dels produkserede energi til en rumby, samtidig med at man fik
> Atlanterhavets temperatur til at falde.
>
> Et realistisk projekt i år 2200 ?


News:

=== citat start ===

TV3 DK (p124) Tor 29 jan ()2009, CET) 12:48:29

Al Gore advarer mod klimakollaps

Planeten er i fare ...
.... klimaforandringer er tættere på ikke at
kunne genoprette, end de fleste er
klar over.

newspaq - 09:03

=== citat slut ====


Øh ...

Dét, I skal være klar over, er, at ismasserne ved polerne fungerer -
klimatologisk set - som en art buffere.

Der går således 80 cal/gram is til smeltevarme, mens der *kun* går blot
sølle én cal/g·°C (vands varmefylde) for at opvarme den samme mængde vand
med én grad celsius.

(Is' varmefylde er på 0,50 cal/g·°C, så den fungerer ikke som en særlig god
buffer.)

Så når vi ser, at ismasserne smelter bort hurtigt, da er det denne buffer,
som er ved at blive opbrugt.

Det vil så - med andre ord sige - at når først ismasserne er smeltet bort
ved polerne, ophører "varme-absorberingen", hvorved ustabiliteten i det
globale klima øges (herunder voldsomme temperaturudsving) med måske helt op
til 80 gange (in worst case).

Orkaner bliver måske ligefrem et hverdagsfænomen.

Og skaderne herfra bliver ugenoprettelige, idet jorderosion (på få
dage/uger/år) vil ødelægge mange tusind års opbygget muldjordsaflejringer.
Planter vil derfor ikke kunne vokse længere i den ufrugtbare jord, og
ørkenspredningen vil blot sætte yderligere gang i temperaturudsvingene osv.
En meget, meget ond *selvforstærkende* cirkel ...


Med venlig hilsen,
Mogens Kall, The servant of Michael, the *fool* of Christ.
--
Coming up news: Iran hit by a meteor. Iran is no more (Jer.49,34- Jos.10,11)
Last OUTPUT: 8358 news:gls7ac$ult$1@newsbin.cybercity.dk
http://groups.google.com/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/msg/3e916b6e1fa8a8f8
( http://groups.google.dk/group/no.kultur.folklore.ufo/ ). File-number: 8359

---

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:27:20 +0100, "Jesus-loves-you"
<John15.13@1.John4.8.Heaven> wrote:


>Al Gore advarer mod klimakollaps
>
>Planeten er i fare ...
>... klimaforandringer er tættere på ikke at
>kunne genoprette, end de fleste er
>klar over.

Spørgsmålet er hvad årsagen er. Walter Russell advarede om
ozonhullerne allerede 20 år før de opstod, og ifølge ham skyldes de al
den radioaktive stråling vi har sendt ud i atmosfæren i de seneste
mange år:


By John David Mann

The "Ozone War," as it came to be called, was principally responsible
for ushering in a new era of planetary policy. Fifteen years later,
the ponderous gears of human response are finally grinding into
action. Aimed at coping with the infamous "ozone hole", a spate of
local and global policy-making is pushing its way forward in an
unprecedented atmosphere of international cooperation.

Rep. Al Gore (D-TN), the seasoned environmental advocate who helped
uncover Love Canal and has stalked the Greenhouse effect for years,
recently introduced legislation to ban production of CFCs (the
chemical generally thought responsible for the ozone crisis) within 5
years. As Gore observed this February: "The political sentiment is
changing very rapidly... I think people are mad about this and ready
for dramatic action."

But are they the right actions? Not according to Walter Russell, who
predicted the ozone dilemma 35 years ago -- a full 20 years before the
Rowland/Molina research made headlines -- and ascribed it to an
entirely different cause. If Russell's views were correct, then the
chlorine chemistry of CFCs is not the prime culprit, and no one is
looking in the one direction that matters most. In fact, according to
Russell, there is one overarching solution to the atmospheric
emergency: stop making nuclear stockpiles -- immediately.

The year is 1954. Sherwood Rowland's ozone prognosis is two decades in
the future; Three Mile Island is a quarter century still to come. To
most of us, the "Greenhouse effect" connotes little more than a better
way to grow tomatoes. The word "ecology" scarcely exists in the
mainstream lexicon........Three years later the Russells publish a
book, Atomic Suicide?, whose principle message is that the development
of the nuclear weaponry and industry, if allowed to continue, will
eventually destroy the planet's oxygen: "The element of surprise which
could delay the discovery of the great danger, and thus allow more
plutonium piles to come into existence, is the fact that scientists
are looking near the ground for fallout dangers and other radioactive
menaces. The greatest radioactive dangers are accumulating from eight
to twelve miles up [in the stratosphere]. The upper atmosphere is
already charged with death-dealing radioactivity, for which it not yet
sent us its bill. It is slowly coming, however, and we will have to
pay for it for another century, even if atomic energy plants ceased
today." (Atomic Suicide?, page 18.) Later in the book, they predict
that the oxygen-destroying effects of radiation would not be noticed
"until the late seventies."

It was an uncannily accurate forecast: ozone depletion was first
noticed over the Antarctic in 1982 -- and scientists have since
concluded that it first appeared in 1979. But then, as now, the
Russells' voice received little notice.......

So, then, what would happen? In Russell's estimation, the lighter
pressures of the stratosphere would retain the majority of radioactive
fallout, and would be the first region that would reveal the wholesale
destruction of oxygen. That's oxygen, not just ozone: if played
through to the end, the last act of the nuclear drama would see the
disappearance of all oxygen on the planet, whether as ozone, water or
the O2 we breathe. In this context, the ozone hole, as serious as it
is in its own right, emerges as an early warning sign..........

As the centerpiece of this effort, Dr. [Timothy] Binder is
coordinating a thorough scientific effort to test, verify and document
radioactivity's role in ozone depletion. Combining an exhaustive
review of existing literature with new laboratory experimentation, the
project owes its impetus in part to Binder's frustrated efforts to
obtain accurate data from past observations.

Last year, to explore mainstream views on the possible radiation-ozone
connection, Binder visited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, Colorado, where he spoke with NOAA
researcher George Mount. He was told, "Oh, yes, we know that radiation
destroys ozone, but we don't consider it significant." Pressing
further, Binder learned of an earlier "insignificant" government
finding: "during the bomb tests in the 60s [before the ban on
atmospheric testing drove the detonations underground] they found a 2
percent reduction in ozone." Given the current alarm over a global
reduction of 1.7 to 3 percent, 2 percent would certainly seem to us to
be "significant." Binder was told that a review of this data was in
process; when he later tried to obtain this information in print, he
received reports with figures that contradicted Mount's statements.

Commenting on his investigations, Binder offered this conclusion: "As
the government is now reviewing the old data on the 60s' testing, it
sounds like they are reconsidering the nuclear connection to ozone
destruction, but don't want to tell [us] about it yet.....


--
Rado

All the answers are already within us.
It's finding the corresponding questions
that's so darned difficult.
- Swami Beyondananda