C'est pendant les périodes chaudes que les civilisations se
sont développées dans les pays tempérés !
Werner Munter: Warming
up, the man has nothing to do with it!
I suspect for example variations in the intensity of solar radiation to play a central role in climate change!
I suspect for example variations in the intensity of solar radiation to play a central role in climate change!
Recognized avalanche
specialist, the Swiss Werner Munter plank day and night for three years on global
warming.
And for him, man has nothing to do with it!
And for him, man has nothing to do with it!
You say that man has
nothing to do with global warming. Why ?
First of all, I do not dispute the warming itself.
I saw him as a mountain guide when the glaciers receded.
The one who faces us for example has lost 100 m since I bought this apartment in 1989.
First of all, I do not dispute the warming itself.
I saw him as a mountain guide when the glaciers receded.
The one who faces us for example has lost 100 m since I bought this apartment in 1989.
In 2005, the Bonatti
pillar of the Drus collapsed due to the warming of permafrost.
What I question is the causes of this warming.
They have nothing to do with humans or with CO2 as we are serine.
I came to this conclusion for three reasons.
What I question is the causes of this warming.
They have nothing to do with humans or with CO2 as we are serine.
I came to this conclusion for three reasons.
What are these reasons?
The first is simply the analysis of reconstructed climatic data over millions of years.
In the last 10,000 years alone, there have been five peaks of temperature comparable to the one we are experiencing.
These optima correspond to natural cycles.
In the Middle Ages, for example, it was possible to go to the Aosta Valley from Arolla with the herds because the glacier no longer existed.
In the first two optima, the Sahara was a savannah with lakes, trees and elephants.
The first is simply the analysis of reconstructed climatic data over millions of years.
In the last 10,000 years alone, there have been five peaks of temperature comparable to the one we are experiencing.
These optima correspond to natural cycles.
In the Middle Ages, for example, it was possible to go to the Aosta Valley from Arolla with the herds because the glacier no longer existed.
In the first two optima, the Sahara was a savannah with lakes, trees and elephants.
Before that, for
hundreds of thousands of years, it was hotter than today.
And sometimes up to 7 degrees warmer!
The IPCC focuses on the last 150 years.
In other words, he looks around his navel.
Paleoclimatic reconstructions also show that for hundreds of millions of years there has been no correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature on Earth.
And sometimes up to 7 degrees warmer!
The IPCC focuses on the last 150 years.
In other words, he looks around his navel.
Paleoclimatic reconstructions also show that for hundreds of millions of years there has been no correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature on Earth.
Your second argument?
The concentration of CO2 - which is said by passing a vital gas and not a poison - in the atmosphere is negligible.
There is a little less than 0.5 ‰ in the atmosphere, and up to 5% of this amount is attributable to humans.
For one million air molecules, there are only 20 molecules of CO2 produced by humans.
And each year, our industrialization adds 4 molecules of CO2 for every million molecules of air, but half is absorbed by oceans and plants.
And we want to make us believe that this tiny proportion due to man is a disaster?
I can not believe it (laughs).
The concentration of CO2 - which is said by passing a vital gas and not a poison - in the atmosphere is negligible.
There is a little less than 0.5 ‰ in the atmosphere, and up to 5% of this amount is attributable to humans.
For one million air molecules, there are only 20 molecules of CO2 produced by humans.
And each year, our industrialization adds 4 molecules of CO2 for every million molecules of air, but half is absorbed by oceans and plants.
And we want to make us believe that this tiny proportion due to man is a disaster?
I can not believe it (laughs).
Why then the official
thesis is almost consensus? Your fellow scientists are not all fools!
These theories aim to make us feel guilty.
When scientists like the IPCC say they want to save the planet, I say they are not credible.
They lie to preserve economic interests including theirs.
Because there is a whole business behind the fight against global warming.
There is a desire to scare people for example by dramatizing the rise of the oceans, while they rise only 2 to 3 mm per year!
It's also an intellectual manipulation to talk about CO2 in tonnes rather than proportion.
Tons, it impresses, but remember that the atmosphere weighs 5,000 .000. 000 .000 .000 tons!
These theories aim to make us feel guilty.
When scientists like the IPCC say they want to save the planet, I say they are not credible.
They lie to preserve economic interests including theirs.
Because there is a whole business behind the fight against global warming.
There is a desire to scare people for example by dramatizing the rise of the oceans, while they rise only 2 to 3 mm per year!
It's also an intellectual manipulation to talk about CO2 in tonnes rather than proportion.
Tons, it impresses, but remember that the atmosphere weighs 5,000 .000. 000 .000 .000 tons!
Your last argument is
that the official thesis contradicts the laws of physics. That is to say ?
That of thermodynamics in particular.
To put it simply: the earth is 15 ° on average.
The supposedly polluted CO2 atmosphere is roughly at -30 ° to 10 km altitude.
It warms the Earth, which is much hotter than it is an aberration.
Thermodynamics tells us that the heat always goes to the cold and never in the opposite direction, which corresponds to our daily experience.
That of thermodynamics in particular.
To put it simply: the earth is 15 ° on average.
The supposedly polluted CO2 atmosphere is roughly at -30 ° to 10 km altitude.
It warms the Earth, which is much hotter than it is an aberration.
Thermodynamics tells us that the heat always goes to the cold and never in the opposite direction, which corresponds to our daily experience.
So in the end, how do
you explain this damn warming?
I do not have an answer because too many factors come into play.
However, I have hypotheses.
For example, I suspect that variations in the intensity of solar radiation - which respond to cycles - play a central role, as do the complex and unknown nuclear processes at work in the center of our Earth.
Anyway, it's arrogant to believe that in 150 years of industrialization we have changed the climate.
Nature is much stronger than man, we are not the masters of the Earth!
I do not have an answer because too many factors come into play.
However, I have hypotheses.
For example, I suspect that variations in the intensity of solar radiation - which respond to cycles - play a central role, as do the complex and unknown nuclear processes at work in the center of our Earth.
Anyway, it's arrogant to believe that in 150 years of industrialization we have changed the climate.
Nature is much stronger than man, we are not the masters of the Earth!
SAISI
No comments:
Post a Comment