First of all: I'm asking this question because, in my opinion, there's no downside to a speed limit. However, there are still people who are strictly against a speed limit.
I would be interested to know your reasons for opposing this.
I've added a little poll.
PS: I'm talking about 130km/h on German motorways.
(31 votes)
Loading...Hello, Yesterday I was at a friend's party and asked her permission to park my car in her yard. When I went to my car several hours later, I received a handwritten note that said, “Private property, no parking.” Is it possible that the residents will now report this to the police and I will…
My father wants to re-register a car and the appointments can only be made online. Does anyone know what I have to select when re-registering? Thank you in advance
Hello dear team, Have any of you ever experienced an incident with an aircraft or even an aircraft accident?
Germany, which always wants to be so stressed European, is the lawn paradise of Europe, because the automobile lobby has the thumb on it.
The question of the speed limit becomes unnecessary with increasing electrification of passenger cars because of the range.
The time advantage in fast driving is no longer calculated with the increased power consumption, but rather turns to the negative at the charging column.
The argument that the Porsche, BMW, DB, Audi then go down the brook when a speed limit would come can be depressed with the USA, where these brands are strongly demanded, despite the speed limit.
By the way, I also like to ride very fast, but on the race track with motorcycles and have guided several race trainings as an instructor.
Should AKW build in order to do it in other countries?
In addition, all major German car manufacturers simply did not want to see it earlier on on alternative motorization forms.
You could be on with other forms of drive if you had previously included this “target group”, because the subject is not new.
But from now on, it doesn’t work. The automotive industry did not want to be “innovative” in that point. If Audi, Bemw and Co. get the receipt for it (but what I don’t think in fact…) it wouldn’t be indebted.
⭐
“We should do it because the others do it too,” is one of these widespread non-arguments that are being introduced if one does not have a good foundation to demand something.
So I am honestly not for or against a speed limit. There are enough arguments for me. but also those against.
the most important against is simply freedom! However, one must also say that the freedom of one is also often a restriction of others.
I also think in the context of noise pollution and a certain risk potential.
It is clear to me that accidents that occur because a road user that is far too fast, and I can no longer brake this too fast at the speed limit but at the relative speed, because before him someone who draws the speed of the approaching underestimates, are comparatively rare. but usually violent.
A good compromise would be for me if one would generally limit the speedy pit to 130 kmh on two-track pieces. Let’s take the Chrion as an example. at speeds far beyond 300 kmh, on a 2 lane section hardly one traffic participant has the chance to notice the bullet that comes from behind in time or to estimate the enormous speed.
what many others do not know: who is on the road beyond 130 on the highway can, in the case of a (un) case, obtain a partial debt even by unadjusted speed if exactly the scenario described above occurs e.g.
Lg, Anna
Very simple by driving and watching hundreds of thousands of km with a “average car” (VW Golf Diesel):
Slower driving saves from today’s ingenious motors (calculated after driven km and danced Sprit test periods I have made enough, again and again drove only 120 a month, this at any time of year) only 0.1 l/100 km. My golf needs 5.7 l/100 km when I feel it, 5.8 when I let him walk. If I don’t use it through fast, I can take a lot of time out. I often drive long distances and I can already win a quarter of an hour to half an hour – which I am home, BEVOR I can get tired.
What Sprit needs without end is not to drive foresight. I can also drive my golf up to 7 l, which my car needs when I pull a horse trailer. If you drive fast, you have to drive forward, otherwise it is always only on the brake and speed. It doesn’t make joy or anything else. If you are looking forward, you can lower it in time by 10 to 20 km/h, that you can complete the overhaul process before you do it without ever getting very close to it.
I also travel a lot abroad, visit relatives, appointments. Since I always look to be at home again in the evening, I ride a lot on the highway. DIE are largely unforeseen because they always lose so much time due to their limitations that they hope to push them up again and push them up again or, if you can accelerate again, you don’t have to think about whether you lose time by another driver. If you don’t have a chance to get lost time back in and you know. in Switzerland, with how much km/h nothing happens about it, which I don’t know so exactly, in Austria it is very similar to us, then one obviously likes to push ancestors to get the last time out. In the restricted countries and in the case of restrictions with us I set the tempomat and roll there, cut from the right, from the left, the signs of the rearmen can no longer read because they are so close that they are covered by my trunk, the trailing serpent lines in the hope of a gap to overtake right or left … With us I will not be forced when I drive 120, nor when I get 200. Even if I’m driving with horse trailer 80. There are, of course, always people who feel crowded, but when driving along I notice that this feeling always has those who drive insecure, who in no way manage to observe in front of themselves and in the mirror only two traces, let alone three, which would actually be the basic prerequisite for the acquisition of the driving licence. These are the people where I am happy when returning to the shared parking lot, if not the parking space next to my car is free, because I do not trust those accident-free parking because they have already stayed in a garage before. These are talking about “racers” getting mad when someone goes behind them at a distance of 150 m… they’ll always be there and everywhere, whether there’s a speed limit or not.
I cannot understand any of the alleged advantages of a speed limit. The statistics are presumably high with outdated engine technology… The Churchill-quote “I no statisticsI not even fake they have.” Winston Churchill (1874-1965) always sounds like miscalculating. But with any statistics, you have to set boundary conditions – and they will have to choose somehow. The subconsciousness of man also plays a role.
Basically, I see that. Without a speed limit, it is simply much more pleasant and there are fewer “drugs”, I also have the impression that this makes it more civilized with us than in neighbouring countries. I can also confirm that with consumption, 6 liters at 180 vs. 5.8 liters at 140 (Ford Diesel).
Now the big But: In gasoline, the difference will be significantly greater. And as you write yourself, many people are simply unable to drive forward. I don’t have to use my brake because I can estimate how long vehicles need to get over and get off the gas at the right moment so I can’t lose speed. Many drivers do not do this, but keep on holding on and then braking to the speed of the overtaking vehicle. The constant deceleration and acceleration will make the difference in consumption significantly higher for these drivers than for us.
In addition, there are also serious accidents of people who are unable to drive foresight and travel on a two-track highway, for example, to a car that runs on a truck. Or a starter who lends himself to Papa’s AMG and thinks that in rain and a lot of traffic it is possible to give plenty of gas.
If everyone would drive like you, a free highway wouldn’t be a problem at all. Unfortunately, not everyone can handle the responsibility you have when driving fast. So rationally everything speaks for a speed limit.
I’m still opposed because it’s worth the risk and it’s just nice to have this freedom. It is more pleasant and driving is fun, unlike in countries with speed limit. However, I can understand it very well when people are for a speed limit. In the long term it is unfortunately unavoidable that it will come.
I am in favour of the tempolimit, but I can imagine that someone who has just put a lot of money in a fast car feels this investment as useless if it is not allowed to drive faster than anyone else.
Now it could be asked “Why do people buy fast cars in countries with speed limit?” I can’t understand, but maybe they have something to compensate for.
In order to decide whether or not you are, there is only one characteristic for my feeling: The accident statistics.
In principle, environmental reasons play only a minor role, as other factors are much more decisive: too low anticipation – and therefore constant deceleration and acceleration, uneconomic switching, insane route planning, double trips, etc.
And as far as accident statistics are concerned, we are better in Germany than France with its continuous speed limit. So it can’t be alone.
To this end, it must be noted that most routes on Germany’s motorways in densely populated regions are already subject to a speed limit.
I could find myself somehow at Tempo 130 (as in France) because I also feel this as a pleasant travel speed, but only for ideological reasons? What if it has no effect on nothing?
It would be more useful to limit the performance of the motorization for the first about five years (analogous to the motorcycle, i.e. 80 hp) as well as on the other hand a short check of the suitability for seniors from 65.
There is no single individual measure that can only solve the climate problem, which is why several measures are required.
And if Germany does not even manage to enforce the fastest feasible, most cost-effective measure, for which now is a clear majority of the population, I see absolutely black and almost every other country in the world as much as Germany for climate protection in this country.
In contrast to the introduction of a speed limit, you can’t change it.
You see several logical faults here:
1. Even if Germany were by far the most secure country in the world, from which it is light years away, this would not be justification for not making it even safer by introducing a speed limit.
Two. “Also happen with speed limit accidents” is not an argument against a speed limit, just like “Also happen with police Thefts and Murders” is not an argument against the police.
3. If one looks at only the accident statistics on motorways, there are actually more than average accidents in Germany in the EU comparison:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zul%C3%A4sige_H%C3%B6chstspeed_im_Stra%C3%9Fenverkehr_(Germany)#Arguments, Subsection Road Safety
There are generally the least accidents on motorways in each country, as one is driving straight ahead and there are no counter- and cross-border traffic, cyclists, trees and other obstacles.
The fact that Germany is one of the safest countries in the world in terms of overall traffic safety and that it only cuts off below average on the motorways shows that Germany’s motorway system does not work without a speed limit in terms of safety.
4. Even if any other country is more uncertain than Germany, this would still not trigger the physics that applies in Germany. Or, in other words, there are fewer accidents in Germany, completely independent of other countries. Or do you think insecure countries would suddenly be safer if they were to drive even faster?
Wrong, it’s 30%.
The demand for a general speed limit on German motorways is purely ideological and derives all proportionality!
Many people claim that one must introduce a speed limit, “because it has no disadvantages”. Or better said “because for themselves has no disadvantages” and it doesn’t matter that…
The advantages of a speed limit are negligible.
Dear Greens and Co, I strongly advise you to reconsider your position on a general speed limit on German motorways, as it represents a purely ideological restriction of freedom and hardly brings advantages. Such ideological demands contribute significantly to your abduction, also hatred and rush (which is of course also wrong). Please let us address the important issue of climate protection together and not by splitting society with ideological measures, which is counterproductive and not targeted.
I see the speed limit with a laughing and a crying eye. I’m against a total regulation of our lives and the politicians are supposed to keep their fucking hands out of it! On the other hand, car traffic has cost millions of people for more than a century. (The Americans had much more dead by road than by all the wars they have ever fought!) I have the question of whether one preverges a traffic system that is 100% dependent on the skill and skill of the handlebars and in which more than one ton of sheet metal is usually moved to transport a little more than one person. There are just people who will never understand and also those who look at our roads as a race track and their property and not as a traffic system. I used to drive strong and fast cars and have a 3-liter car for 23 years, with which I rarely drive faster than 120. And oh miracles, – I’m just as fast at the goal, at a fraction of the cost. In addition, as a mechanical engineer, it stinks enormously to me that the car industry has been adamaging us for 100 years. In the long run, it would be possible to build reasonable cars with consumption around 1 liter. But we buy hollow roller boxes that consume a lot. Even SUV’s we buy. The stupidity cast in metal! In other countries with a speed limit, the average is even slightly higher than with us! Why don’t you just try it for three – five years and then make a referendum? The lobbyism of the car industry should also be stopped. The penners don’t show up, and if it goes on, the wind from the Far East and America will flush the guys down the toilet anyway. In China, the barracks are already making themselves ridiculous.
Motorways were originally also built to get ahead quickly. And if you’re supposed to drive slowly again, the advantage is there.
We already live in a world of limitations and guardians. Here, unnecessary freedoms would be circumcised.
Everyone is allowed to drive on the highway as slowly as he considers it right within the traffic rules. No one is forced to lawn.
I personally observe an amazing driving discipline on German motorways despite the lack of limitation. The time of the dringer and the light horn user seems to be over. Most even think about the target speed of 130 km/h, that an accident is handled quite differently with more than 130 insurance technology.
I am also surprised that in the recurring discussion on the speed limit on motorways, the country roads will be completely forgotten. If all the arguments for a speed limit on the motorway were to be applied, the limit on the road would also have to be reduced to 80 km/h.
I find such bans affecting one person and no or little value for the generality always have very questionable one should also consider by the high tax revenues from the car industry is only possible in climate protection
and if I have the choice between freedom and climate protection, I would always opt for freedom
In addition, the green ones are only required to vote their best, just like the exit from nuclear energy without understanding and very questionable
It can also be abused for political and financial purposes. I just need to look at Stuttgart. Since there is only 40 in the city, the traffic jams have been growing, and thanks to “genial” traffic lights, fewer cars are coming through. I remember, at the time when you were allowed to drive 60 on the B 14 in Stuttgart, there was never a fine dust alarm. This was only introduced when 50 and later 40 were allowed. Strange, strange…
I am opposed to arbitrary limitations of my leisure movements or alienation of my lifetime. Who determines the speed limits based on what parameters?
Exception 2 tracks per direction of travel, green middle strips, 4 km only straight, little traffic, dry: from 130km/h to 600m with 60km/h due to 50m “Fehlenliche Strassemarkierung”-BLITZ
A travel speed of ~120 km/h makes sense for me for reasons of efficiency.
The (present) vehicles have a better efficiency at certain speeds, the so-called “sweet points”, in which the speed is in a good ratio to the fuel consumption.
Usually there is a point at ~60km/h and another at ~120 km/h. This is different from car to car.
Nevertheless, I do not want to be punishable if, for example, I want to go home on an empty route and well-developed road.
I can’t understand why you’re a speed limit. For me, the arguments that are always executed are just some stubborn things. Because you’d like to avoid life for others.
I don’t see a problem when the highway is free, the weather is playing along and the general conditions are what you shouldn’t give on the Knallgas motorway.
I personally do not always drive to the limiter, but find a nice travel speed for me (for longer trips) 150-160kmh.
Respect and thank you.
Simple and well put to the point.
Knallgas or brown gas, known as the product of the electrolysis of water, has already been used successfully in a motor on a generator for power generation and would possibly be even directly or metanized as fuel.
Tag: Gumpert Auto Munich.
But knew what a nice noteworthy point is?
By means of sprays, powerful motorists and pilots who have fallen victim to perfid propaganda.
But before, you have to thank the lockdown, that is, the closure of the mental prisoners, because I have never seen 400km/h in the tacho for so long.
I know many who have to go to work 50 to 200 km a day. If a congestion occurs which was not known before, the time must be recovered again, because the worker is obliged to appear on time at the place of work under all conditions.
Less speed creates less congestion.
only by sleepers who do not use the gas pedal stand out
Wrong. Less cars generate less traffic jam.
That’s exactly the problem, not the speed limit. For even without you have the same problem. The boss’s crap is a mess about the fact that you can’t influence the driving conditions, such as traffic jams and accidents.
There is no one-way road from the highway. Who does not know where to overtake the left lane and gas pedal is not to complain.
Inform yourself, perhaps you will come to knowledge. You’re talking about a crazy world.
Take away the driver’s license which is not under control and does not stop the distance and there is no traffic jam. Protects the climate as fewer cars on the street.
What you say is nonsense
The reason for the measure is because no one adheres to the right-wing command.
Higher speed does not help against traffic jam.
The higher the speed, the stronger the brake is pressed and slightly overreacted. This leads to a chain reaction which ends in dam.
Traffic management is the speed to reduce.
What you’re saying is just bullshit.
No, he shows how serious accidents can be prevented and what helps against traffic jam. Then the speed differences are zero.
So not by high speed over 130. There is no traffic jam at minimum speed and few cars.
Security distance is already law. Germany. Traffic management does not help a speed limit.
The link is simply irrelevant for Europe.
Be aware of the subject of phantom traffic and traffic management.
Here is a summary:
Phantom stowing is caused by sudden braking by speed differentiated among vehicles.
In which one lowers the speed and keeps more distance, the congestion can dissolve again or not arise at all.
No. A
Is already a traffic jam due to too much cars on the road. The speed is reduced in order to prevent incidents.
A high minimum speed would prevent accidents and congestion:
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/transport/at leasttempo-abu-dhabi-autobahn/
Yes, yes. What do you think will reduce the speed (if possible) at the beginning of traffic jam. This prevents a so-called phantom stow.
No, it’s not.
Right. But that’s true at speed, too.
I am for the complete exit from the auto company, not only burners but also electric cars should disappear (with few exceptions for the disabled, craftsmen with equipment, police, firefighters…). I’m for a massive expansion of the train. A new building program even more extensive and faster than at the time at the beginning of the railway age. There should be many thousand kilometers of rail per year. The train should be nationalized again and every employee should become an official with a high salary, so that train jobs attract many young people. There wouldn’t be a Ministry of Transport, it would be called the Ministry of Railways.
If you live in the country, you need a car.
And that’s exactly what I want to change!
I’m clear. It makes absolutely no sense for me. The German motorways are built for faster speeds. The cars also create this quite loose and the accident probability would not be really reduced. It makes a difference whether you are 160/170 km/h or max. 130 km/h. It’s about freedom, too. Just because there is a tempo limit in all other countries, it does not mean that we need it. No one is forced to drive fast. In my opinion, without the speed limit, you are much more attentive on the highway. At 130 you get the tempomat in and that was. You can easily be distracted by other things because there is hardly anything to do. Without a speed limit, you have to look a lot more at other cars, the right-wing ban makes sense at all.
The argument with the climate is absolutely ridiculous. Can you read my other answers to the climate? I am a doctorate in climate research and can only assure you that this absolutely does not change anything in the climate.
If you want to get the topic of lawns under control, only much more controls, flashers and distance measuring systems help. It’s just harder to go through. However, the problem will be as present at 130 km/h as with unlimited. There are always people who want to pass you, whether speed limit or not.
Thank you for your factual comment. I am of a different opinion, but you have so far been the only one to explain your opinion.
Thank you.
You have a doctorate? In what subject?
Me? Yes, in climate sciences.
I see that as well. Firstly, it is pointless to develop large and fast engines, which you should never and nowhere drive out, and secondly it is our freedom to decide how fast we drive. We may be in a hurry today, because the woman is in the hospital and gives birth to the offspring, and tomorrow we’ll go chilly at 110 over the train.
Yes, so I might set a general limit of 200km/h. With 250km/h or even faster you don’t have to drive now. The probability of accidents then rises because one simply has a considerably greater speed difference and thus does not necessarily calculate each road user and often underestimates the speed of the other. At any rate, I’m not a lawn, but if it allows traffic density, I’d love to drive 180 km/h, but don’t stop by any car. 200 and a little more I’ve been driving, but that’s already a “race” from my point of view. If you really want to test the limits of your high-motor vehicle, you should do it more on the race track. I’ll figure it out. But a maximum of 130 is absolutely ridiculous for me.
Absolutely right.
Can you mislead your claim?
If I go to your profile, I don’t see any answers or similar that would make your statement…
I can send you a few themes where I wrote answers and I have made a detailed statement on climate change and forecast security.
Seriously?
Just because you claimed 13x so far?
From your answers I couldn’t read this out…
Then don’t stop. I don’t care if you believe it or not. However, it is quite possible to understand my answers if one knows the matter.
Hi, I have a question. Which limit would you put it if there was one?
I’d be at max. 200 km/h, at least during the day, or set a variable speed limit in response to traffic. There is certainly a way to measure traffic volume and then adjust the maximum speed. 200 km/h on a very full highway is more dangerous than 250 km/h at night.
This is a very good argument. I’ve never been tired at a high pace. I also often travel in Switzerland. At 120 on the highway, I turn the tempomat, make it comfortable in my seat and let me slide there. I have to fight against slept for a lot more often. – I know colleagues who do office work on the highway at 120 even, fly over files, make notes and phone calls on the running band.
As a doctoral climate researcher, you say that CO2 doesn’t make any difference technically whether you drive from A to B instead of 130km/h 200km/h. In the normal case, most climate researchers adhere to natural laws and physics.
Since you are a researcher, you could set up a small sample calculation, which proves this or alternatively a scientific study from a trusted source.
There are many studies that have demonstrated a positive development for climate protection based on the speed limit. Tempolimit | Umweltbundesamt
In addition, the accident is likely to be greatly reduced due to the lower speed and also the congestion probabilities.
And no. The probability of accidents does not decrease when one limits the speed, rather on the contrary. You are not so attentive for a long time, because everything is monotonous and as far as the probability of congestion is concerned, it is also illogical. The congestion is caused mainly by a lot of traffic, construction sites and associated tight up and braking. If traffic is dense, you can’t drive fast anyway. I am a hobby pilot and fly directly on the highway, which is limited exactly to the altitude of the airfield from unlimited to 120 km/h. The congestion is very often, but only in the area of the 120 area, never before and especially at times of occupation and construction sites. You can see from the air very well what exactly leads to jam and that is definitely not the unlimited speed.
No, I didn’t say that speed doesn’t make any difference in CO2. I believe everyone knows that a motor produces more exhaust gases at higher output. I said, however, that this will not change at the Earth’s climate. These are two completely different things. I’m still standing for my testimony.
And NO: You can’t set up a small sample calculation because the state of research does not allow that. Why? In other answers to the subject of climate change, I have already explained this in a zig-zag way… even if you read not only articles that are presented to you by the state. A little bit of self-researching and you will quickly find that certain things do not fit together.
In short: There is agreement that the Earth’s climate is a chaos system, i.e. minimal changes in input can create a completely opposite output. In the case of forecasts, a system is modeled, which can be regarded as chaotic and in which the smallest changes lead to completely different results. Now you have to look at the state of climate research. There are numerous processes and mechanisms that have not yet been researched to such an extent that one could consider them qualitatively or quantitatively in a model. The simplest and most well-known example is the Gulf Stream, which is part of a global system that is crucial to the temperatures of many regions of the world. The system is called thermohaline circulation and, as is known, the Gulf Stream contributes to the fact that it is extremely mild in Europe for the high latitude. The reason for this is that the salt content of the seas is different in different places. There is no salt in ice, which is why the salt content in high widths in the sea is significantly higher than in the vicinity of the equator. Thermohaline circulation is basically only a balancing flow (such as the wind in low and high-pressure areas), which transports warm low-salt water into high widths and cold salt-containing water into the low widths. If now the pole caps and glaciers melt due to global warming, the salt content decreases in the high widths. Logically, the intensity of the thermohalic circulation decreases, which is why it should become cooler. However, the research is not yet so far as to be able to meet detailed statements as from when a measurable cooling will occur and how strong it can fail. It is not to be ruled out, after the current state of research, that further global warming will not quickly lead to strong cooling. So what are these calculations? One encounters this known problem of the chaos system so far that one simply calculates extremely many modelling with different input data and then looks where the large majority of the output lies. These are the forecasts you’re talking about. Of course, it is not mentioned that these are based on non-original models. So what use infinitely many modelling if the model does not fit? Even if it is possible to reproduce the historical climate reasonably well, it does not mean that it always works and not at all if the earth’s surface has changed as extreme in the last 150 years as it was with us. There is no reasonable basis for modelling at all.
But why is it still done and also put in place as the only truth? With panicmache, the economy can be driven very well, new technologies are better sold, money flows only if you deliver appropriate results. Nobody wants to hear that you simply do not know how the climate will develop. It is also absolutely senseless to think that by saving emissions the climate could be changed because there is simply no point in reference to how much what exactly should be changed. Not to be forgotten is the fact that even for purely natural reasons there can be much more violent releases of CO2 (e.g. from the sea). What will you start to introduce a speed limit in a country, so that the CO2, which is only present in very small quantities in the air and from which only a tiny percentage is anthropogenic, is emitted somewhat less and thus possibly, that is only after the xxx. It’s just complete bullshit. If you really want to control the Earth’s climate, geo-engineering is the only reliable option. It is precisely that man is ashamed to have developed and to see no right of existence for himself because he has changed the earth’s surface.
I didn’t say I already had a Master’s degree. I said I’m currently studying my master. Whether you want to believe me or not, it’s up to you. I don’t care.
Of course. We worked here mainly with Fortran, Python and MATLAB. C/C++ is then added a little later – for high-performance simulations.
Something else I didn’t say. However, we hopefully agree that this has already taken place for a while in the geological past.
“Concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O increased from 1750 to 2019 by 131.6 ± 2.9 ppm (47.3%), 1137 ± 10 ppb (156%), and 62 ± 6 ppb (23.0%) respectively. These changes are larger than those between glacial and interglacial periods over the last 800,000 years for CO2 and CH4 and comparable magnitude for N2O (very high confidence).”
Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (ipcc.ch)
The problem: Since the beginning of industrialization, the CO2 concentration has increased from 280 ppm (the value of the previous millennia of the Holocene) to 421 ppm. This increase is entirely due to humans. Before the human intervention in this system, it was almost exactly the same. What used to be or not more than 800’000 years ago is quite irrelevant here. So, as we know the cause, we can estimate the consequences approximately, so we should also act. Whether it is wise to introduce a speed limit, I did not claim.
I do not think it is a matter of control, but rather of regulating our influence.
It’s hard to believe you have a master in matter. Did you program and create models? That is, in my opinion, the point at which the whole thing can be properly understood and questioned.
And no: There were times in climate history, where there was a faster release of CO2 than now, purely for natural reasons. So it doesn’t matter at all what the reasons are, it’s nothing that would never have been there. In recent climate change, man is the main cause, but nature can also be responsible for such emissions. Think about the CO2 release in the sea. There was an incident in which, within a very short time, much more CO2 has been released from the sea than is now the case by people. Difference to today is that man has changed the earth’s surface. This changes naturally, but not to the extent that is clear. This has nothing to do with climate change. The trigger and course are two completely different things. If it had been purely natural causes, it would not change anything, because these changes in the Earth’s surface (sealing etc.) would be just as different from historical data.
That is why it is pointless to adopt the approach of saving measures such as speed limits or flight bans. I naturally support the development of “environmental” technologies, but my motive behind it is not the goal of controlling the Earth’s climate. That’s basically the target, isn’t it? The Earth is currently reacting as if the causes were natural. Humanity has a problem with such changes, and it is undesirable that the earth does not care about it. If one wants to prevent such changes, it is simply pointless to try to do this with such laughable austerity measures. It’s just not a solution. Instead of trying to persuade disputes and measures that restrict people’s personal freedom, you should look more at geoengineering. This is now the only reliable method to keep the climate within certain parameters. That the whole thing is still in the infancy because it is rejected by the so-called “environmentalists”. These are people who are not so deeply anchored in matter. The majority of people working in the climate/environmental sector are not scientists at all. These are people who are only concerned with climate change and the environment, but do not have deep censuses about climatology. If you were able to send people to the moon just over 60 years ago, it seems ridiculous that geoengineering does not do much or that research in this field is considered very specic and that the previous technologies are more likely to be rejected. This is thanks to those people who think it is preferable to limit the lives of people than to support research and progress in the field of geoengineering.
Nobody forces you to write to me. Your ongoing discreditation attempts are also somehow tiring. Of course I read “articles” provided they come from scientific sources. That’s exactly how I read various studies and reports. Is that bad? No, that’s a completely normal scientific process. If your argument builds on discreditation, you’ll only be disgusting.
Didn’t I? However, the Master in “Atmospheric and Climate Science” addresses these points. Wouldn’t it help if you put forward solid arguments instead of always relying on unfounded, unscientific submissions?
I know that. However, I prefer to stand here on the side of science and relate my knowledge to my professors (dozents), scientific literature/studies and summaries of the IPCC. I actually know the argument more from the series of climate sceptics who want to prevent such a science-based discussion.
No one has spoken of facts. However, climate models have long been able to map or map our climate system with a certain accuracy. To make forecasts for the future. I have already explained to you above and called serious sources. There’s nothing from your side. I am well aware that climate models cannot properly simulate the entire climate system, but it is already possible to create forecasts based on certain guidelines that are more or less consistent with the empirical data of reality.
Climate Models and Their Evaluation — IPCC
Where is this done? Give me an explicit example.
Is this assessment based on a dairy girl bill? The fact is that climate change is far in the shadow of the benefits. Of course, it will bring benefits to certain regions, overall the disadvantages will prevail. This is a scientific consensus, and there are thousands of independent studies and reports.
Just don’t stop at this pace. And this is all about the subject.
As already said, this is not the idea at all.
Fully senseless talking to you. You read articles, and then you think you can “clear” things. You have no deep knowledge of statistics, climate models and generally of the entire climate system.
In particular, you have no insight into how much climate change depends on the government, on funding and public opinion. You can also lie with statistics, that’s clear to you, right? A chart or a table are no facts yet, just like a model calculation. There are only estimates with error probabilities. A model that is not complete, and that is always the case with climate models, is absolutely inappropriate to describe the results as facts.
I am using p-values, error probabilities, data analysis, etc. every day.Do you think I would say that if I don’t know it myself from experience? One has to think completely logically: climate forecasts are based on models that try to replicate the historical climate as accurately as possible. In other words, you look at all influencing factors, evaluate them and then create a rugged model with thousands of factors. Then you simulate different sections of the historical climate with this model and compare it with the actual values. On the basis of the difference, you can then conclude accuracy. In order to optimize the model, one is screwing around the factors until the error (difference between actual and simulated historical climate) goes against zero. This allows you to give a model with which reasonable forecasts can be made under the exact same conditions. ABER: The conditions are not the same. It has changed a lot, especially in the last 150 years. It is possible to estimate the changes and then to modify the model with correction values, but these are still estimates and, in addition, those to which one has no references at all and whose basis originate on a clearly not complete model. It is based on only one phase of industrialization. There’s only 1x in our Earth’s history, so one has only one comparative period. We must not forget that it is also a mess system.
All these reasons make me strongly doubt the accuracy of these forecasts. It is all based on estimates of estimates. It basically doesn’t matter how much warmer it will be. You just don’t get anything with the approach of savings plans. It is an absolute milk maid bill that does not grant any collateral and only brings with it dispute, provocation and division of the population. Research in the field is important, but putting these forecasts as set and thus predicting a very terrible future for humanity is simply a joke. Absolutely senseless. For example, the fact is that climate change has also advantages for certain areas. Some regions can only be populated in this way, agriculture is only made possible in many areas. If one judges the whole as negative for mankind, it is only negative, because the human being must make the effort to adapt in certain regions. It is simply logical that the sea level never remains the same, it is no surprise that glaciers and pole caps melt etc. everything that comes with climate change would also come if the causes were natural. And that is the point at which it is completely pointless for me to try to set any limits with strict austerity measures in some countries that do not even come out of a safe source. See how many times there are corrections. Savings are in no way sustainable if you look at the development. Not even all states are industrialized. The global emissions will not fall in the future. There are more and more people, more and more technologies and there are soon times when a lot of countries will go through the industrialization phase.
If mankind really does not want changes to the current climate, geoengineering is the only sensible solution. A speed limit on motorways is an absolute salmon number, a complete schnapps. Let life and live. One lives only once and bans, in which one can quite logically understand that they will make some difference in the short-term, are simply complete crap. In 100 years, people were laughing at saying that they could stop climate change with a speed limit.
Am I? The text I quote from you says more or less exactly that.
If any state which would emit less emissions than Germany would argue, around 50% of the global emissions remained unchanged. However, this need to sink is a scientific consensus.
I don’t want to teach you here, I just make certain things clear.
Of course, I think you know about it as a climate scientist. With the statement “a few more degrees, nothing is bad” I am not really sure if you are aware of when these tilting elements are triggered and what potential effects result.
You don’t have to discredit. I never said I was a climate scientist. However, my academic background includes a “Bachelor of Science in Earth and Climate Sciences” and I am currently in master’s degree. Because of this, I wouldn’t call myself a layman – but how you want. The problem with you is, even if you pretend to be a “climate scientist” that doesn’t mean that all your statements are correct. If we only reduce ourselves to certain “titles”, we have not understood the scientific process.
What’s that? The natural cycle? Of course, there are also animals which can change landscapes (e.g. beaver or coral reefs), but these are not so relevant in comparison to the influence of man. In addition, these changes by animals are usually limited to a region and do not lead to something global.
I don’t know why you always distract from the subject. The emphasis on evolution and the natural processes of human development does not affect human-made climate change. It is therefore completely irrelevant for the subject of the current discussion.
Current climate change is much faster than most natural climate changes in the geological past. Our entire society is also built on the current climate.
And about humans and the environment. Your throw is very illogical. There are also animals that can greatly change landscapes. Your boundary is completely free invented. The fact is that man could only arise through climate change, it was definitely not God. That’s all evolution and what’s unnatural about it? The climate of the earth is also constantly changing. What about these phases in which such abrupt climate changes occurred? Sudden CO2 release in the sea, volcanic eruptions etc. …all completely natural, but the evolution of man shouldn’t be it? It’s completely unstoppable.
You’re twisting everything. I never said that CO2 plays no role in climate. I’m just saying that the CO2, what Germany could still save is so little that it doesn’t contribute to the matter. In the long term, this is simply completely useless in this way to try to change anything at the climate. You don’t seem to get it. You don’t need to teach me here. You only write the classic things that stand in articles. I know that, but I just know that certain things are not right as they stand! Do you think I don’t know about it? I don’t need to look at your contributions, you’re 100% not a climate scientist, but only once again a green man who thinks he knows himself in a subject area, just because he reads articles. In no industry this is as extreme as in climatology. If you read medical journals, you will certainly tell a surgeon how to do an operation.
I quoted you very clearly:
“What will you start to introduce a speed limit in a country, so that the CO2, which occurs only in very small quantities in the air and of which only a tiny percentage is anthropogenic, something less is emitted and thus possibly, so only maybe sometime after the xxx.
This makes you seem not to understand that it is not only the amount of a “gas” in the atmosphere, but also its effect. With the “experiment” I have linked you, I have shown you what direct influence CO2 has. The interactions which then assume are surely aware of you. The natural portion of the emitted CO2 is basically irrelevant – since in a closed circuit – you also do not mention this statement. So it makes the impression that you want to call the influence of CO2 on the climate “less significant”.
If so, then man would be part of the natural cycle. It would not have a significant influence on the climate, since the CO2 which it emits is part of a closed cycle, for example by breathing. What is emitted is absorbed by photosynthesis. However, as the human being pusts additional anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere, the CO2 content continues to rise in our atmosphere and thus has a warming effect.
That’s all right. However, it is rare that the climate changes greatly within the shortest time. Yes there are certain phenomena (e.g.: cold collapse 6000v Ch.), but these are rare. In addition, it is not currently natural factors that change the climate, but anthropogenic. So we can do something about it.
It is more like that we try to adapt more to nature and bring together the natural cycles that already exist millions of years.
By introducing a speed limit, you do not assume that it will suddenly become colder. The speed limit is an idea to get closer to the Parisian objectives, as we have hardly made any progress in the field of transport (CO2 savings) in recent decades. The Paris Agreement, in turn, aims to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius. The speed limit is therefore an idea which would be helpful for achieving international goals.
This is mainly about the speed and prevention of triggering of the tilting elements. When these tilt, the temperature is not only 2-4 degrees higher, but up to 15 degrees. That would not be very pleasant. Climate change is also expressed not only by higher temperatures, but also by various other points such as extreme weather. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the pure temperature increase for the survival of humanity will not be a real problem. There will also be regions in which people can still live without great problems when the average temperature increases by 4.5 degrees. I have already written here:
I really see something different from you. Working means for me that the technology is present, resulting interactions are clarified, risks have been evaluated and the effect is really known.
I don’t know what to do with this post now. Where the hell did I contest that CO2 has no impact on the climate? I’m just saying that I feel it completely meaningless to get people with bans and restrictions now. Man is now on this earth and, in principle, a part of nature as well as all other beings and plants. It is normal that there is a dominant species. So what’s all this token?!
The fact is that the climate can change extremely quickly and intensively even without people. There is no climate to be protected. This is pure egoism of the human being who, under the guise of this alleged climate action, tries to keep the climate within parameters that are pleasant to man. The climate is basically adapted to people. Where’s something green? The earth only reacts, as it would do, the causes would not be anthropogenic. It would be more useful if man adapts to the climate, not with prohibitions and restrictions. This is in no way forwardable. This is an extremely short-sighted view. A speed limit in Germany will have absolutely no impact on the climate. It’s like a drop on the hot stone. It’s a global problem and it’s just naive to think that savings would change anything. Most countries are unable to do so. Emissions in Germany have been steadily decreasing for decades, but pollution continues to rise. It’s just the wrong way. I am absolutely in favour of the development of renewable energy, I am super interested in new technologies that are as economical as possible to deal with resources. But we don’t have to deal with such ridiculous bans that simply do not make any difference globally. The argument that everyone in the world simply has to hold on is stupid, absolutely not feasible.
It is whining around for a few degrees, which is comparatively ridiculous, to what has already happened repeatedly in climate history for purely natural reasons. There are now far more functioning systems from the geo-engineering area than most think. Unfortunately, this area is completely rejected by many and instead is set on austerity measures.
CO2 und einige wenige andere Gase (Wasserdampf, Methan und noch ein paar) enthalten drei oder mehr Atome im Molekül. Solche Moleküle fangen zu schwingen an, wenn sie von Strahlung einer bestimmten Wellenlänge getroffen werden (passiert z.B. mit dem Wasser in der Mikrowelle auch). Bei den sogenannten Treibhausgasen handelt es sich um Wärmestrahlung, die ursprünglich von der durch die Sonne erwärmten Erdoberfläche ausging. Das Molekül wird dadurch aktiviert und gibt anschließend die Bewegungsenergie wieder ab. Dies erfolgt durch (1) die Freisetzung von Wärmestrahlung, also Photonen mit der gleichen Wellenlänge, die das Molekül nach kurzer Zeit wieder verlassen, oder (2) durch Übertragung der Bewegungsenergie auf ein anderes Molekül oder Atom in der unmittelbaren Umgebung durch direkten Kontakt.
Im Fall (1) trifft das Photon wahrscheinlich auf ein anderes CO2-Molekül und das gleiche geht von vorne los. Da die Abstrahlrichtung zufällig ist, kann sie (1a) in Richtung Erdoberfläche zurück oder (1b) Richtung Weltraum orientiert sein. (1a) führt dazu, dass ein Teil der Photonen irgendwann wieder die Erdoberfläche erreicht und diese erwärmt. Das kann man messen und die Messungen dem jeweiligen Treibhausgas zuordnen (siehe Abb. 1). (1b) Wenn die Photonen eine bestimmte Höhe erreichen, wird die Dichte der Treibhausgase so gering, dass die Wärme in den Weltraum abgestrahlt wird. Wenn jedoch die Dichte der Treibhausgase, insbesondere des CO2, zunimmt, verändert sich die Höhe, auf der die Abstrahlung erfolgt. Dies kann gemessen werden und den entsprechenden Treibhausgasen zugeordnet werden (siehe Abb. 2). Im Fall (2) werden benachbarte Moleküle der Atmosphäre, ähnlich wie in einer Mikrowelle, erwärmt, was zur Erwärmung der Atmosphäre insgesamt führt.
Wenn sich also die Konzentration des CO2 in der Atmosphäre erhöht, dann wird durch (1a) die Erdoberfläche stärker erwärmt, die Abstrahlung bestimmter Wellenlängen verschiebt sich durch (1b) nach oben, und die Temperatur der gesamten Atmosphäre wird durch (2) erhöht.
Wie man nun nachweisen kann, dass dieser Anteil CO2 einen Effekt auf unser Klima hat, siehe hier:
“(…) A 30-year experiment with pre-industrial conditions, piClim-control, is also performed as a reference case, and all results presented in this paper are with reference to piClim-control, accounting for the possibility that models may have a non-zero pre-industrial TOA flux imbalance. Results from the 4×CO2 experiment are also rescaled to the ratio of 2014 to 1850 CO2 concentrations of approximately 1.4× pre-industrial by a factor of 0.2266, being the ratio of RF from 1.4×CO2 to 4×CO2 from the Etminan et al. (2016) formula. This is performed to isolate an estimate of the CO2-only contribution to the present-day forcing and is based on year 1850 and year 2014 CO2 concentrations of 284.32 and 397.55 ppm respectively (Meinshausen et al., 2017) along with the 1850 concentrations of 808.25 ppb for CH4 and 273.02 ppb for N2O. Except where explicitly stated, we present results from this experiment as 1.4×CO2.”
“(…) The experiments and results presented in this study follow on from the assessment of ERF and adjustments in 11 models contributing to the Precipitation Driver and Response Model Intercomparison Project (PDRMIP; see Myhre et al., 2017) in Smith et al. (2018b). In Smith et al. (2018b) idealised experiments of 2×CO2 concentrations, 3×CH4 concentrations, 10× black carbon (BC) emissions or burdens, 5×SO4 emissions or burdens and a 2 % solar constant increase were analysed from CMIP5-era and interim models. Only the 4×CO2 experiment has a similar experiment for comparison in Smith et al. (2018b), whereas the RFMIP protocol focuses more on combinations of anthropogenic forcers. In addition, extended model diagnostics allow us to determine cloud responses and aerosol forcing in more detail in this study.”
ACP – Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models (copernicus.org)
Wenn man nur die Möglichkeit dazu hätte…
Which part did you specialize in? There’s nothing like “climate researchers” in general.
Now and yet, past models agree fairly well with today’s reality. It is not right to assume that due to the complexity, “precise” future models are not possible. Climate models have long since been able to accurately reflect future developments.
Conclusion ofHausfather et al. 2020which model projections from 1970 to 2007 have reviewed:
“We come to the conclusion that climate models from the past five decades have deliberately predicted later changes in the ground temperature.”
The IPCC has dealt with this issue in detail over 100 pages and concluded:
“The models reflect the observed patterns and trends [of the climate] over many decades of the Earth’s surface temperature on a continental scale, including the stronger warming since the middle of the 20th century. century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions. ‘
WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf (ipcc.ch)
Warming would be very likely to be mitigated in parts of Europe, but globally, a defeat of the North Atlantic current (i.e. the continuation of the Gulf Stream that is relevant to us) would accelerate the anthropogenic global warming.
There is no scientific evidence that further warming could lead to global cooling. If so, call me a serious study.
Who says the model doesn’t fit? And who says that if a model doesn’t fit, you shouldn’t go on researching it? Science is an evolving process that now includes the further development of models in relation to climate change.
Knowledge is a bad concept in terms of future scenarios. Do we have sufficient data to accurately predict the future climate? Yes and that has already shown us older “unreasonable” models.
The human portion of the current heating is known. The radiation drive of CO2 and the other greenhouse gases is also known. It is also known that we are constantly pusting into the atmosphere. Your assertion that it is senseless to save emissions is scientific nonsens.
And is that the case? No, at least not in the forearm as it could justify the current warming.
The CO2 savings amount to about 6.7 million tonnes at 120km/h. The far less high CO2 savings are logical due to physics. We need to save every gram of CO2. We are no longer coming Carbon Capture and Storage by.
Source: Tempo limit: CO2 savings significantly higher than expected | National Geographic
Study on the source for more detailed reading: Liquid Transport for Climate Protection and Air Purification (umweltbundesamt.de)
What? How do you know I’m in the minority? What exactly? I do not deny climate change. Did you ever read anything about what I wrote? There is basically no point that can be refuted in my speech. The main difference between my opinion and that of other people is that I say,
There are a number of experts who agree. I know, unlike you, many experts in the field. When it comes to climate change, you cannot speak freely. Money flows quite well in the industry if you have the “right” opinion. It is always assumed that one must be the absolute eco-frey when one is an expert in the field of climate and environment. But the fact is that most scientists are not exactly that! Who’s sitting on the street and sticking on? You don’t find a single person who really studied the Earth’s climate. If then the people who do something directly with environmental protection, but have hardly any idea of the climate itself. It is not always true what is somewhere, even in expert reports like the IPCC. Just as they choose their scientists is quite ridiculous.
And where do I change climate with weather? You mean in that quote? I don’t change anything!! Do you even know what the difference between climate and weather is? Weather is what short-term, but climate is the long-term weather. Where did I ever say anything?
The Climate is according to IPCC “a coupled, nonlinear, chaotic System.” The weather forecast is considered to be chaotic, so a climate model is also a chaos system. Even if only minimally different input data are produced, an opposite output can arise.
https://www.dwd.de/DE/wetter/thema_des_tages/2020/6/8.html
https://eike-klima-energie.eu/2011/06/20/die-chaos-theorie-self-draw-der-klimamodellierung-den-boden-unter-fuessen-weg/
The vast majority of climate researchers believe that climate change is already underway and that it will worsen over the coming years and decades if no effective measures are taken.
There are many studies that try to quantify the consensus among climate researchers, and most of them come to the conclusion that over 90% of climate researchers are of this opinion.
A comprehensive study by Cook et al. (2013) examined almost 12,000 scientific articles on climate change and concluded that: that 97.1% of those who expressed a clear opinion on the topic considered that human activities contribute to climate change.
My question
You are absolutely in the minority with your views on climate change. I would therefore expect you to justify your opinion more concrete than that:
or here where you can change weather with climate:
Conclusion
Are you not more aware that you are part of those people you describe here?
Basically, there are only 3 points that can be clearly researched and which are already proof that the forecasts basically have a very high error probability and are actually unusable. The points are:
But why is it pretending to be clear what will be in 30, 50 or 100 years? That is why governments are right when people get restless and think they need to change something. Change is in the case, new technologies that emit fewer emmisions. This sells better if citizens are made aware that this would be necessary for the survival of all. It is also necessary to know that these IPCC reports are not completely undisputed. Seriously, do you think that all governments in the world would not take radical measures if something really were to be at stake? Everybody’s stupid? If you just don’t scum what’s going on in front of you, but you think and investigate yourself, then you can really get that something can’t be right.
Isn’t so often. In Augsburg, for example. Here is a list:
https://www.deutsches-klima-konsortium.de/de/bildung/klima-im-studie/bildungsdatenbank.html
Where do you study climate science?
We already have a speed limit.
Due to the many permanent construction sites, trucks and already existing speed restrictions, a speed limit would no longer make any difference. In this respect, I believe that the discussion is superfluous.
That’s, pardon, bullshit. 57% of German motorways have no speed limit. At about 20% there are speed limits due to construction sites.
It is more absurd to ask a question if you do not want to hear the answer. I have listed reasons which are actually a speed limit.
Then this is the very best reason for Tempo 130km/h.
Absolutely.
and I don’t understand why you always have to limit everything. go to China if you like strict rules!
Total nonsense.
What is after the traffic jam, the slow-flowing traffic?
You twist cause and effect.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. It doesn’t matter if you introduce it or not, because you can hardly drive faster anyway than pretend a speed limit. The discussion is therefore unnecessary. If the government wants a speed limit, it can introduce it. This would only marginally make a difference for the drivers.
The fact that you can’t drive quickly does not mean that there is a TL. Such situations are not at all.
Too bad you get insulted!
So you’d be totally silly if a general speed limit is issued tomorrow?
You don’t seem to understand. Where did I say I’m against a speed limit? I think that the discussion is superfluous.
More than half are still unlimited.
Especially since I don’t understand why you’re so vehement against a general speed limit if you don’t think anything changes anyway.
Then take your 57% speed limit, add 20% speed limit due to construction sites to it, take another 10% to where traffic is coming back from these construction sites, count the traffic jams by accidents and breakdowns and finally take the countless trucks to rejuvenate the two-track roads on a lane, or slow down the traffic by overtaking maneuvers (also a long return means).