This is according to a new report of the meteorological service, but at the same time the service's website is full of 'politically correct' wording that minimizes the human impact on the climate * Director of the service, Dr. Nir Stav: We feel the warming, and are aware of its human origin, but in our area, phenomena also affect Naturalness due to our invention at the seam between two climate zones
This week the meteorological service published a report on a change in the rainfall regime. In a previous report, it was stated that in Israel there was a warming of 1.4 degrees Celsius, as well as an expected increase of five degrees Celsius by the end of the century. But the service itself, which is a department of the Ministry of Transport, prefers very careful wording. By the way, the current term "climate crisis" does not appear on the service's website at all.
The email titled "Rainfall averages 2020-1991Draws a comparison between the three standard periods 2020-1991, 1990-1961 and 1960-1931.
Small changes in the amount of rain, big changes in its distribution
Here are excerpts from the introduction to the report: "A comparison between the last two standard periods reveals that there is no substantial change in the amount of rain in the national aspect. However, there is a slight reduction in the amounts of rain in the northeast of the country and a slight increase in the south of the coastal plain. In the national general aspect, it should be mentioned that the early standard period 1960-1931 was drier."
"Regarding the average number of rainy days in the period 2020-1991, it can be noted that compared to the period 1990-1961, there is a reduction of approximately 10% in the number of rainy days with a daily amount of 1 mm or more. On the other hand, at the high threshold with a daily amount of 50 mm or more, there is a certain increase in the average number of days, although, to begin with, it is a very small number of days (between 2 and 3 per year in the rainy stations) so the increase is not noticeable. This aligns with the warming trend that our region has experienced in recent decades - The warmer it is, there is a tendency for higher rain intensities and this may be reflected in the moderate increase in the number of days of rain at the high threshold."
In other words, less caution - there are far fewer rainy days today, which means we have become a desert even if the amount of rain has not changed, its distribution - the hot months until December (for example the drought that caused the Carmel disaster in 2010) and the floods after that leave no room for doubt, there is a change Gradual, and it is due to warming.
Indeed, this is a powerful warming, since the beginning of the measurements, the temperature in Israel has increased by 1.4 degrees Celsius. In the climate forecast report until the year 2100 issued by the service in August, it was stated that according to the severe scenario, the average temperature in Israel is expected to continue to rise by about 4 degrees Celsius until the end of the current century. According to the moderate scenario, in which greenhouse gas emissions will decrease starting in 2040, the average temperature will rise by the middle of the century by 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to the average of 2017-1988, and will remain unchanged thereafter."
Climatic political correctness in the era of Trump in the USA
Four years ago, a man named Scott Pruitt became the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). What he did was the exact opposite of protecting the environment as Trump's people in all offices have done. He fired managers and replaced them with people who had previously worked in the energy industry. Later, news began to appear that those managers censored scientific studies and at the very least demanded that the authors stop referring to warming as anthropogenic warming.
Although Pruitt left due to exposure of personal corruption, his successor continued the trend without media noise. Censorship did not decrease, it only became self-censorship. At one point the scientists censored themselves and so demanded of them mid-level managers who were not political appointees but did not want to clash with their managers. The result: resignations of course, but the surviving scientists had to play cat and mouse games, indirect formulations and sending research to journals privately and not through the agency. By the way, a similar phenomenon also took place at NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Authority. One of the first things that incoming US President Joe Biden said was that trust in scientists must be restored and science-based decision-making must be mandated.
Political correctness on the website of the Israeli Meteorological Service?
We thought that this could not happen in Israel until we read the The page dealing with climate change on the website of the meteorological service.
But what causes the warming? ask the authors of the site. It would be reasonable to read, as the scientific consensus states, that the warming is due to the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In this matter too, the service is preferred to the screen when the page dedicated to climate change on the meteorological service's website reads: "Climate change - what is it? The weather refers to phenomena that occur in a relatively short time: an hour, a day, a week. For example: rain that falls on a certain day, a heat wave that lasts for several days. The term "climate", on the other hand, refers to the set of meteorological conditions that characterize a certain area for a long time - an acceptable time span is 30 years. These conditions are expressed through their statistical properties such as averages, extreme values, frequency and the like."
What is climate change? A question of geography
The answer to that depends on the country we are in. This is how the term climate change is defined on the website of the British Meteorological Service. "Climate change is the long-term change in average weather patterns around the world. Since the middle of the twentieth century, humans have contributed to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air. This causes global temperatures to rise, resulting in long-term changes in the climate."
And in Israel, the definition is a little more vague. According to the meteorological service website, "According to the definition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change is a change in meteorological conditions that can be detected by changes in the average and/or the degree of fluctuations around the average. The change must persist for a long time, decades or more. According to this definition, climate change can result both from natural processes (such as changes in the solar cycle or volcanic eruptions) and from human contribution (such as excess emissions of carbon dioxide or significant changes in land use)."
Then comes the punch line: "The current climate change is the result of a combination of significant human factors against a background of great natural climate variability."
And if we mention the IPCC, these reports leave no room for doubt, the human influence is the most dominant by orders of magnitude, which means that the natural phenomena continue, but the fluctuation they create is around an increasing temperature line.
"Great natural variability? "
"The meteorological service does not shy away from very clear statements about the changes in Israel's climate and it regularly issues analyzes and reviews on this subject.: says the director general of the service, Dr. Nir Stav, in response to an inquiry from the Hidan site.
"The meteorological service assigns a significant portion of its researchers to both analyze the historical record of measurements in Israel and identify trends and to analyze the climatic forecasts for our region in order to produce climatic reference scenarios for the decision makers (required both for formulating appropriate policy measures to adapt to the expected changes, and for the need Understanding the importance of international action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions."
"Not because we cast any doubt on the human contribution to climate change, it's the local volatility"
Dr. Nir Stav, Director of the Israeli Meteorological Service.
Indeed, both on our website and sometimes in the reviews we publish, the "natural variation" is mentioned and not just the anthropogenic climate change, Stav adds: "Not because I cast any doubt on the human contribution to climate change, but because we know the strong volatility of the weather in our areas."
"We are located at the seam between the subtropical weather systems and the desert climate and the European, subpolar weather systems. A slight fluctuation of these systems to the north or south creates a strong shock in the weather for us and thus we can jump from record-breaking heavy rain events to cold waves and snow and back again, God forbid. Our area has always known the phenomena of severe and prolonged droughts and heat waves on the one hand and intense rain events and floods on the other."
"You are welcome to read the review that appears on our website about unusual weather events in the last century and you will see that in our part of the world the climate was "crazy" long before the discourse on climate change began. We also know the fact that there are naturally not only fluctuations in the climate from week to week or month to month or year to year, but there are also natural decadal fluctuations. For example, the period 1930-1960 was hotter and drier than the period 1960-1990."
"Thus, our climate history is a superposition of natural fluctuations on different time scales and of global anthropogenic climate change. We try using different statistical methods to distinguish between the natural "noise" and the "signal" of the ongoing global change."
"So for example, if you look at the temperature trend here, you can see trends of a decrease in the 70's and a sharp trend of increase in the last 30 years. We interpret this as a superposition between a global warming trend (which may be accelerating) and a downward decadal oscillation in the 70s."
"It is easy to identify the warming, but it is difficult to identify the change trends in precipitation"
"Due to the high variability in the rain series, it is not possible to distinguish a statistically significant difference between the periods. We do not interpret this as the absence of climate change, but as a case where the "noise" of natural variability is so great that it makes it difficult to recognize the "signal" of gradual anthropogenic change. "
It is worth noting that the effects of anthropogenic climate change are not uniform across the globe. There are places where the warming is more pronounced and there are places where it is less, there are places where there are significant changes in the rainfall regime and there are places where it is less (in contrast to the temperature, there are places where the precipitation increases and there are places where the precipitation decreases)."
We are in a small corner where it is very easy to identify the warming but it is difficult to identify the trends of change in precipitation. Our claim - this does not necessarily mean that there is no change, it probably means that the change in our precipitation patterns is not strong enough in relation to the natural variation."
Changing the center of gravity of the rain
In response to the feeling of many who lived in the 2019s that it used to rain all the time, and now there are lots of lulls and the season is late: "As you can read in the detailed report we published at the end of XNUMX, there is a slight trend towards a decrease in the number of rainy days per year. However, in the analysis of the historical series, we did not recognize that winter is getting shorter. It is probably about the possibility of longer breaks within the season and not a shortening of the season itself. The report shows that there is indeed an indication of a change in the "center of gravity" of the rainy season - a little more rain in the middle of the season at the expense of a little less rain at the beginning of the season, but it is doubtful whether this is statistically significant."
"Regarding high rain intensities/floods/floods - in the examination we did in 2015 of trends in the amount of daily rain, we did not detect an extreme, but it is possible that a trend of strengthening in shorter time scales is beginning (rain intensity per hour, for example). According to the theory, a warmer climate allows for a higher water content in the clouds and therefore allows for higher rain intensities (intensity = amount of rain in a short time unit such as an hour or half an hour or fifteen minutes, etc.). The subject is under our consideration in the coming year and we hope that by the end of the year we will be able to shed light on this aspect of climate change in our country. Fall summary.
By the way, a point to think about: the main headline on the website of the Ministry of Environmental Protection is: The climate crisis: the point of no return is near which refers to a video that was shown on the subject at the Eli Horowitz Society conference. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to move the meteorological service from the Ministry of Transportation to the Ministry of Environmental Protection?
More of the topic in Hayadan:
13 תגובות
Just because climate crisis deniers call their site The Green Bug doesn't mean they're right. Whoever enters there will simply be able to investigate in depth the spins of the energy company's publicists.
The climate crisis movement is anti-science. The big problem was that the mainstream science press turned a blind eye. Now maybe there are buds of heresy in the climate paradigm:
Below are two links to a new article on the matter from Nature - in which some of the leading modelers of the IPCC report explain that the response of the scientific and political world to the models is irrational not to mention misleading.
The article is making waves and has already been echoed in other magazines such as Science of the American Science Organization.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2?fbclid=IwAR3DFquSn0N8bkoo4Cn-yxZ1S4JkI-DO3WX9ulpMoCNLIXYb9fXsm2HD6wI
https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyLatestNews&utm_content=alert&et_rid=17051476&et_cid=4226545&fbclid=IwAR3Itz19NybZ0dRGkpS97ClCVNC7HAhzjtlngrxUGqCvX70uUv4Wmm1I7PY
An instructive quote from an article in the "Green Blog":
"What's wrong with the "climate crisis" story? In one word: oversimplification - on a huge scale.
Both in the section of the problem and in the section of the solution. The complexities, ambiguity and uncertainty of the existing knowledge in the climate field were hidden from the public eye and disappeared from the political dialogue.
The proposed solutions are inapplicable both technologically and politically at the global level. [ They are impossible at all levels. ]
Specifically on a scientific level: the uncertainty regarding climate sensitivity (the increase in temperatures due to the doubling of PADH concentrations) has three times the order of magnitude of uncertainty. (The uncertainty is 3 times greater than the value they are trying to predict). The frightening predictions of the climate models were made on the basis of an unlikely scenario - of an increase in the concentrations of PADH. The models ignore natural causes of climate change. And finally: reducing emissions will hardly affect the climate in the 21st century, it will affect (if you believe the models) only in the 22nd century and beyond.
Is warming dangerous? It's a matter of values - on which science has no (and cannot have) an opinion. According to the IPCC - there is still no evidence of an increase in extreme events (storms, droughts, fires). In the USA - the states whose population has grown the most are Florida and Texas - hot states. People choose to live in hot countries. Also real estate values near the seashores from Amirim. People are not afraid of sea level rise predictions. [People stopped believing the "experts"].
"Climate change" has become a grand narrative [fairy tale] - and has become the dominant cause of all social problems. Every bad thing - immediately they find the culprit (FDA emissions) and the solution - to stop producing energy from fossil fuel. This grand narrative leads us to think that if we just solve the emissions problem - all the other problems will be solved. This approach sabotages the attempt to find the real causes of many problems and prevents other actions that could be useful. It blinds our eyes and prevents us from dealing with complex and difficult problems facing us such as the problem of public health, water sources, climatic disasters and even national security..."
In short - a lot of people make a very good living from the false narrative of the "climate crisis" - and they won't let any real scientific data confuse them...
For anyone interested in some real scientific data - the green blog has dozens of articles that you can delve into...
http://www.green-logic.info/2021/07/blog-post_15.html
In an era listening to scientists.
That's the difference
Because he does so contrary to meteorological services around the world, and contrary to the scientific consensus.
Avi . This whole article and this confused interview stems from what deep insult you experienced? Indeed I connected your position with the cult of progressives. But all this is not really important. And the metrological service sticks to the data (surprise data.. on a science website) and lack of statistical significance that can indicate any change in the climate. What exactly is your foam on? ? About the facts as a whale?
moment
And when Biden replaces the managers with people who announce destructive man-made warming. It's OK?
The State of Israel is also part of the world.
My father, the British referred to climate change in a broad sense, the general change in the world. The Shemat referred to climate changes specifically in the Israeli climate, and because it is a small area there is a large statistical variation and it is more difficult to show significance in climate changes. that's it.
Too bad most people oppose political correctness only where it is convenient and easy
I refer you to the paragraph where I quote the corresponding page of the British service, which sticks to science without apology.
It's a shame that the scientist pretends to be in possession of the "scientific consensus". The wanton attack on the Metrology Authority's PC q is not clear. ? If the scientist is afraid that the authority on the "scientific truth" will be taken from his mouth. I'm sorry for the gross bias
Beyond that there is no scientific validity to the claim that there is a decrease in the amount of rainfall, and there is no scientific validity to the claim that the change in the Israeli climate is necessarily entirely due to global warming, beyond all that.
What does political correctness have to do with it? On the contrary! In Israel, if there is a phenomenon of political correctness, it is the silencing of those who claim that the warming is natural. Kudos to the Shemat for having the courage to stand up against political correctness and write only scientific claims.