2024 - Uli Weber Religious Climate Madness

Link: https://klimanachrichten-de.translate.goog/2024/01/02/menschengemac hte-beweise-und-computersimulationen-bestaetigen-den-religioesenklimawahn/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en#more-3665 Please see link above for source text.

Man-made evidence and computer simulations confirm religious climate madness January 2, 2024 by Climate News Editor

By Uli Weber

1

Figure: Screenshot from December 31, 2023, 11:39 a.m., from the crossstate flood portal When spreading such horror reports, interested politicians naturally do not forget the climate policy agenda setting: the floods in Lower Saxony must have consequences for political decisions, demanded SPD leader Lars Klingbeil. “The extent of the damage is shocking,” he told the Tagesspiegel ( December 30, 2023 ). He warned of the consequences of the climate crisis: “In order to stop man-made climate change, which is causing such extreme weather events more and more frequently, we must make every effort to achieve our climate goals.” However, not all disaster reports seem to be based on force meteorological majeure . For example, on December 27, 2023, WELT reported “ Okertalsperre full – Braunschweig expects a tidal wave ”. According to Wikipedia, the Okertalsperre is operated by the Harzwasserwerke and some of its water is also used to generate electricity in the Romkerhalle hydroelectric power station and to produce drinking water. The Okertalsperre therefore serves four very different purposes: ● Low water compensation 2

● Flood protection ● Electricity generation ● Drinking water supply The first two points are purely cost factors for the operator, while there is money to be made with electricity and water. While points [1], [3] and [4] require the highest possible utilization of the storage volume, flood protection, on the contrary, requires the largest possible free capacities, which apparently were not available at the turn of the year 2023/24 . The question therefore arises as to what priorities the management of reservoirs and retention basins in Germany should take. It can't be the so-called "climate change", even if it is always used as a reason for man-made flood disasters. For example, it says on the Deutschlandfunk Kultur website on December 15, 2021 under the title “From problem case to possible model project”, quote: “ In July, a dam burst at the Steinbach dam near Euskirchen was narrowly prevented. Five months after the flood disaster, the struggle over the future of the dam has begun because: It could play an important role in flood protection .”

In the end, all of this information boils down to the question of whether concrete human errors could be euphemistically subsumed under the term “climate change” without the climate having played even the remotest role.

The real climate madness is essentially explained by the results of esoteric computer simulations. And because the simulants of climate madness cannot go fast enough with our earth's self-immolation, they are now even trying to mix their specifically determined lottery numbers with the actual measurement data.

In a Nature article from December 1, 2023, it says under the title “ Approaching 1.5 °C: how will we know we've reached this crucial warming mark? ", quote in GOOGLE translation: “ Assessing global mean temperature rise based on average warming over the last decade or two will delay formal recognition of the point at which Earth will exceed the Paris Agreement's 1.5-degree guardrail. Here's what you need to avoid the wait.

3

In observations of the climate, the global average temperature in the last two decades (2003–22) was 1.03 °C higher than in 1850–1900 (although uncertainties in the data mean that the true value is 0.87 °C or could be up to 1.13 °C; see Supplementary Information). And measurements from 2002 to 2021 suggest that warming exceeded 1°C for the first time in 2011.

But we don't know what the 20-year average is, centered on 2023.

Assuming the world stays on its current warming path, the IPCC forecasts suggest the 1.5 degree mark will be exceeded around 2030. However, based on 20-year averages, exceeding 1.5 °C would not be officially recognized until around 2040. ” It is not for nothing, however, that relevant wisdom says, “Predictions are difficult, especially when they concern the future.” This quote already has many fathers, including the poets George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain, the statesman Winston Churchill and the physicist Nils Bohr. However, the author still leans more towards the prophets Murphy (practical application of chaos theory) or Bohlen (popular science explanation for the DunningKruger effect). Ignoring the above wisdom about the true nature of forecasts, this disturbing Nature article actually proposes linking the temperature measurements of the previous decade with the computer simulations for the coming decade, as shown in the figure below:

4

Figure from: “ Approaching 1.5 °C: how will we know we've reached this crucial warming mark? ” Such a hybrid combination of “has actually been measured” and “wish for climate madness” can end up proving anything, as the figure below exemplifies:

5

Image: From a press release from the Met Office Hadley Center for Climate Science and Services dated Tue 9 Feb 2021 at 2:00 p.m. (UTC) This Met Office press release entitled “Climate change will affect how European countries experience summer” states, quoting GOOGLE translation: “ The study not only analyzed summer trends and extreme events by modeling precipitation changes, but also considered the effects of temperature warming through changes in evapotranspiration under SSP2 4.5, a medium emission scenario. The findings, published in Science Bulletin, shed light on how communities must adapt as they prepare for water availability shortfalls and heatwave-related droughts .”

Computer simulations are also playing an increasingly important role in planning adaptation measures to the predicted climate change. However, all of these computer simulations are based on the religiously based trinity of actually existing climate speculation: ● There would be a clear “natural” pre-industrial global temperature [ Info ] ● There would be a direct connection between the atmospheric CO 2 content and the “measured” global temperature [ Info ] 6

● There would be a scientifically clear separation between natural and man-made climate change [ Info ] However, the planned programs to convert our energy production to so-called “renewable energies” would require qualified model calculations in order to seriously examine the effects of such a scientific short-circuit action on the natural climate engine ( here question 3 ). Because energy is fundamentally not renewable. The first law of thermodynamics clearly states that energies can be converted into one another, but cannot be formed or destroyed. And this physical fact cannot be changed by either a coalition agreement or a party conference resolution - yes, not even by the Federal Constitutional Court.

So nothing will happen with the free electricity supply to 3,000 households from the canonized wind turbine. Rather, we openly and unscrupulously steal this “non-renewable” energy from our earth’s climate engine.

According to the German Wind Energy Association, there were a total of 28,443 onshore wind turbines in Germany at the end of 2022. According to the Federal Statistical Office, these together with offshore wind generated 24.1% of German electricity consumption or 122.6 billion kWh in 2022.

With the contribution of photovoltaics of 10.6% or 54.1 billion kWh, in Germany alone in 2022 there will be an extraction of 635 terajoules plus conversion losses from our earth's non-renewable climate engine. Of course, this in turn has an impact on the climate. The Scientific Services of the German Bundestag have provided some information about this in their documentation WD 8 - 3000 - 007/22:

7

Figure: Wind turbine wake with helix of the blade tip vortices from documentation WD 8-3000-007/22 The result is that a maximum of almost 60% of the energy can be extracted from the wind by a wind turbine (WEA), but in practice it is much less. The latter restriction may apply to a single wind turbine, but what about an entire wind farm? Under the title “Wind farms generate long wake turbulences” it says in a press release from the University of Tübingen, quote: “ It was shown that, especially with stable atmospheric stratification, when warm air flows from the mainland over the cold North Sea, wakes arise behind wind farms (see Figure 2). In stretches of up to 70 kilometers, the wind speed is reduced compared to undisturbed currents. With these findings, the influences on downstream wind farms can be better predicted and model simulations improved in the future .”

8

Figure [2] (Andreas Platis) Wind speed measured with the research aircraft on September 10, 2016 north of the Amrumbank West wind farm. The black dots mark the 9

Amrumbank West, Nordsee East and Meerwind South/East wind turbines.

The wind speed was measured along the flight path (black line) and interpolated perpendicular to the main wind direction (wind direction 190°, black arrow). The blue color directly behind the turbine shows the lowest wind speeds.

So here's a good idea: wakes behind wind farms mainly occur when atmospheric stratification is stable, when warm air flows over a cold surface. Behind a wind farm, the wind energy is reduced by up to almost 60% and a wake of up to around 70 kilometers is created. Now what does that mean? Well, warm air can hold more moisture than cold air. So if warm air behind a wind turbine or a wind farm gradually comes close to the ground over a distance of 70 kilometers due to turbulence, it can absorb further moisture; This moisture is then missing in the soil. In such cases, the common vernacular speaks of drought.

Question: Is it possible that some parascientific-religious climate lurkers are trying to sell us the effects of “non-renewable” energy extraction from our earth’s climate engine as a “manmade climate catastrophe” and thereby open up entirely new tax bases for the CO 2 panic? – Or to put it more briefly, are we creating the climate madness ourselves?

10