About 56 million years ago in the intermediate period between the Paleocene and the Palaeocene-Eocene, a process called "maximum warming" took place for about 15.000 years. The point is that then there was no drunkenness and hunting
It is to be hoped and assumed that there is a wide awareness of the dangers of global warming, even if there is no agreement on the causes of warming, the negative effects are already giving their signals everywhere: extreme storms, the melting of glaciers, rising water levels in the oceans, desertification, rising acidity of the oceans... these are just some of the processes that warming and rising concentration The DTP cause their empowerment and reinforcement.
There are those who show that nature manages to overcome the damage that man causes, or how the natural environment develops despite or because of warming. The rainforests of the equatorial region are the subject of any environmental discussion, the accepted assumption is that "due to the rise in the level of the DTP and the warming, the variety of plant species in the rainforests will decrease", this is because of the lack of adaptation of the plants to the rapid warming.
But a new study suggests that perhaps the opposite is true, at least from the historical evidence of before the existence of man? Because in the distant past "the increase in the concentration of DTP in the atmosphere and warming caused the development of more species than those that became extinct", at least that is what researchers (paleobiologists) from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama claim. The researchers led by Carlos Jaramillo who published their findings in Science returned to the distant past to understand how the diversity of species is affected by climate change and limiting warming.
About 56 million years ago in the intermediate period between the Palaeocene and the Palaeocene-Eocene, a process called "Maximum Warming", (hereafter HM) Thermal Maximum (PETM) took place for about 15.000 years. The concentrations of DTP increased to double the levels of today and in a short time (relatively) there was a warming of about 3 to 5 degrees,
The warm conditions lasted for about 200.000 years. To see the effect of H.M. The researchers examined the remains of fossilized powder, with the help of dating the rock layers, the researchers ensured that the powder was collected from periods before AD. At the time of H.M. and after that,
It was found that although a considerable number of plant species have disappeared, many new species have evolved, that is, an increase in the DTP levels and warming stimulated the diversity of species, "the diversity of species in the rain forest increased in a short time". New families such as the myrtaceae (eucalyptus, myrtle, guava), or "passion plants" Passifloraceae owe their appearance to H.M.
The proliferation of new species elevated the equatorial forest to the habitat with the greatest diversity of species since (H.M.) until today. On the face of it, this is good news, but Guy Harrington, a paleobiologist from the University of Birmingham, UK, warns that "every positive factor for a variety of species can be canceled if the warming is faster than the plants' ability to adapt", the availability of water is also important, During the period of H.M. There was no lack of water, nowadays - it is not clear how climate change will affect the amount of rainfall in the equatorial region?
Even if the equatorial forests receive enough water, the benefit from the warming will be limited to the equatorial region only, Harrington examined fossils from that period in North America and according to him many of the species died and disappeared when the degrees rose, probably due to lack of water. Harrington fears that skeptics of all kinds will use the "positive" findings as arguments against the need to act. Jaramillo agrees but claims that the main danger to the forests is not the warming but the felling and (direct) destruction by man.
Similar to the rain forests, the polar bear is a "kind of flag/banner" whose image serves as a symbol of the impact of warming, we have all seen the pictures of a bear swimming tens of kilometers in the open sea, open because the glaciers are melting, on the glaciers (which are not) there are seals that make up the main The food of the world's largest land carnivore, despite its scientific name Ursus maritimus ("sea bear") - it does not hunt in water, it needs a stable surface to attract its prey, the ice serves as an activity and resting surface for seals which are "bear food", the melting of the glaciers forces bears Pole to look for food on land, (arrive on land earlier than usual), i.e. move away from their natural habitat to "new territories". The fear is that due to a lack of food the bear population will be harmed... and will become extinct.
But it may be a false fear. During spring observations in terrestrial areas in the Arctic Circle, polar bears were observed collecting eggs at the nesting sites of snow geese Chen caerulescens. The geese migrate north and create nesting colonies of millions of individuals, it turns out that the bears learn to reach the colonies at the appropriate time (spring) and instead of hunting seals (which are not) from the ice (which is melting) they eat goose eggs in a computer simulation made by researchers at the American Museum of Nature Natural History (AMNH) It turned out that goose eggs are a good substitute for the traditional hunter of the bears, a menu "rich in eggs" provides the bears with the energy and fat that allows them to go through hibernation. Geese hatch in the spring and up until a few years ago, a number of bears arrived on land towards the end of this nesting period, since the geese migrate according to the length of the day, while the "migration" of the bears is dictated by the melting of the ice,
The innovation was created because, due to the warming, the ice melts and the bears reach the shore earlier, and thus a new "buffet" is spread before them. Following the observations, there was concern that there would be damage to the goose population, but the computer simulation showed that due to the large number of nesting areas and due to different timing between the areas and within them: large differences in the laying times for individuals, the bear menu will not harm the goose population, so collecting goose eggs will save the polar bear population.
All this does not mean that the warming is positive, since it is necessary to prevent and stop the process due to the many negative consequences that outweigh the positive ones.
I have already said that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
26 תגובות
Advice - using words such as "the DTP" or all kinds of other acronyms in articles on the website, does not really make it easier for new readers to read and understand and join the website's readership. I would prefer whole words over saving a few seconds of the writer's time, so that I too could continue reading and understanding. Hope that makes a difference.
experience
Vitaly
Regarding the global warming debate, I do not understand the position you represent. In response number 17 you write:
"As the commenters presented to me in detail, there is no connection, and even if man wanted to, he cannot affect warming. The most significant thing that has affected the climate throughout history is the core of the earth and the sun in particular."
The issue of whether man is the cause behind global warming is a question that is currently under scientific debate. As of today, a significant part of the scientists claim that the warming is man-made, but there are other parts of the scientists who claim that the warming is natural (or even that there is no warming).
I understand the position of my father and his ilk who say that since, as of today, most of the leading scientists in climate research are in favor of warming being the result of human actions, they also believe it. This approach means that since I am a layman in the field I will adopt the approach of most experts.
I accept a position which says that the science of climate change is a very young science and it is possible that the climate changes are the result of human actions or natural changes. This approach differs from the first in that it does not favor one explanation or another, but postpones the decision to the future. At the same time, people who support this approach should ask themselves whether the correct policy is to wait until we have enough information to decide the issue, while taking the risk of a total catastrophe in case the warming is man-made.
But the one I can't understand is you and your ilk who firmly state that the risk does not exist. Do you really understand the study of Earth's climate in order to determine that a 5% increase in this or that greenhouse gas cannot affect global warming? I know you can pull an article from the internet that supports this position, but you are quite clear that there is (at least) one article that presents the opposite position. Where does this incredible self-confidence come from to call us to ignore such a great risk to our child and continue to pollute as usual? How do you allow yourself to state that there is no connection between man and global warming when you do not understand the field?
What you do is analogous to the following hypothetical case: suppose that medical tests revealed that your friend has a high fat percentage. The person goes to consult doctors and nine out of ten doctors recommend a serious diet in order to lose weight lest he suffer a heart attack. On the other hand, the tenth doctor claims that the connection between obesity and heart attacks is purely statistical and in fact the main connection is between physical activity and heart attacks. Since those who do not exercise tend to be fatter, the statistical relationship between heart attacks and fatness was created. Moreover, he claims that the studies that indicate a link between obesity and heart attacks are appointed by various food supplement companies. A man from the settlement, if he had heard about this story, would have told his friend to start a diet because even if the tenth doctor is right, the risk is too great. But not Vitali who hears about the story and tells his friend: "Go on with the steaks and the cheesecakes because I, Vitali, know that the tenth doctor is right and the other nine are wrong." And it is said: "If friends are like that, who needs enemies"
It is a shame that you are not ready to remove the censorship from the ideas that are contrary to your perception.
I do not advocate anything that only seems strange if I do not see conclusive and proven evidence of their existence, if there was
A little trying to see things outside the box in which you forcefully close your world, you would have come to know that it has long since turned from conspiracy theory to practice.
If you were only willing to search, research and delve deeper, there would be an abundance of books written by the ruling elite and accessible to everyone where they explain in the most detailed way the form and manner in which they are going to do population reduction, what is the practice and ideology behind it, due to their arrogance and their knowledge that the vast majority of people They will not believe that the light at the end of the tunnel that they see is not sunlight but the light of the train's headlight that is speeding towards them, the people will not believe until the train hits them (and there are enough examples of this in history).
It is difficult for you to re-examine the foundations and the concept of the mutts to which you and I were raised. I understand that it is simpler and easier for you to claim that all these are delusional nonsense. your right
Just in case you want to test anyway: see this book, note who it was written by, one of the top scientists in the Obama administration. And notice what the book is about and what it invented to do with humanity.
If that's not the train rushing in front of you then I don't know what is.
Ecoscience (eugenics manual) by President Obama's science czar, John P. Holdren
http://remixxworld.blogspot.com/2009/08/ecoscience-by-john-holdren-pdf-of.html
Good luck with editing the site.
Thanks.
Vitali, if you don't use common sense, you can come up with different theories. There are enough sites for that, science has one site and as you can see from the variety of news here, the news is fascinating even within the framework of common sense (without quotation marks).
I'm not censoring, I just believe that conspiracy theories have no place in a real scientific debate. This is not a legitimate scientific opinion like, for example, if they disprove Einstein's theory in an experiment - his thing has a place on a scientific website.
I understood that you are advocating the strange theory that there is a cult of senior officials who wants to do everything to reduce the world's population, I explained to you that this does not make sense, and even if the believers of the theory create a thousand YouTube videos, it will not make it a legitimate Torah, a shame for the surfers' precious time.
good morning father
With all due respect to the editors of the site and your internal wars and yours in particular Avi, with Ron and other people, in my opinion the above approach is fundamentally wrong. I don't understand exactly where I committed a crime when, in addition to my quite detailed answer (as much as possible within the limits of the talkback), I added references and links so that it would be possible to delve beyond my answer, therefore it is not clear why you write: "a few words and shelling out links" so really not a few words but an answer that is quite detailed , and 5 links, in my opinion, this is not an exaggeration, this is a deepening of my answer to anyone interested in it.
That's why I don't understand exactly where there was a violation of the site's rules, in my opinion, any common sense would actually ask for references and citations (a kind of bibliography) of the sources, as is also customary and accepted by the same scientific and academic consensus whose ideas you are fighting so fiercely here.
I noticed that on this site there is a kind of disrespect and disdain for ideas that are not acceptable and contrary to the ways of thinking of the site editors or the site consensus (this is the first impression I got at least in the above article), a matter that makes it difficult to have an in-depth and interesting discussion of new ideas and creates conceptual stagnation, my point as a son A person who tries to think beyond the scientific consensus (which the SDA has often erred and misled for thousands of years since science existed on various topics) which I was fed from a young age, which most people treat as a sacred religion that cannot be challenged and anyone who thinks outside the box or defies the truth is put on the gallows.
In addition to that, when you say: "The argument of the Shoi Olam's attempt to reduce the population does not meet any logical criteria", then I will add and say, it does not meet your healthy and subjective logic and my humanistic one, perhaps thinking from the rather narrow perspective of an exhausted person who is not Able to grasp the idea beyond the framework of the norms and ethics on which he was raised and educated by the system which, by the way, is fundamentally built by exactly the same people.
Just try to think for a moment that the distance between the education that we as a people have received is so radically different that you are not even able to think of an option that the one who controls you does not think at all in the way you and I think and the abyss is so deep that most people will never accept this assumption that someone would want to harm humanity . But if you want, we can do an analysis of the last 1000 years, just for the sake of demonstration and you will find endless proofs that most of the rulers/elites caused more suffering, sorrow, wars, oppression and murders than contributing to the well-being of the people, so it was, so it is now and apparently it is It will continue to be so.
When you are in it and try to attack and think that the way of thinking of the super-elite is the same way of thinking as yours and mine then this is where the mistake lies. This is exactly what I'm talking about, that in order to understand the above logic you have to think outside the box, outside the common sense that is healthy because it is acceptable to you and you are not ready to accept that there is someone up there who is not enough who does not think according to your common sense (which the above common sense tells you : After all, who will buy the products they produce. The more important question here is, is this their main goal, to sell you some facial cream or a bag of milk or is there something beyond that) but even despises it.
In conclusion, my father, as soon as you want to see beyond your personal "common sense" (and I'm not trying to insult here) and diversify intellectually and hear from me a more detailed explanation of the things I presented before that have a very logical explanation once you look through the prism of the super-elite, in time That you happen to be "illogical".
But I have a request, first of all, to end the censorship regarding and present my previously censored talkback.
Thank you and good day.
Vitali there is a surfer named Ron who is constantly bombarding and when I say bombarding I mean ten responses in a row of links to conspiracy sites and exactly in the way you referred - a few words and bombarding links. Since it goes against the basic rules of etiquette it is blocked, and since you behaved exactly like him I was convinced that it was him who bypassed the block. And I wanted to prevent the next dozen shellings.
However, as I explained to you in the blocked response, the argument of Shoi Olam's attempt to reduce the population does not meet any logical criteria, then who will buy the products produced by the billion rich people who will give up according to the same conspiracy theory you support, if 6-7 billion other people are eliminated? And this is just a small example of this illogicality.
Assaf's opinion regarding population control is his personal opinion only, and it can be done by way of avoiding childbirth and not necessarily by killing and disease.
Whoever it is, and whatever your name is, you will have the length of the site. So first of all the censorship you operate on talkbacks only lowers the value of the site, and you probably have a certain agenda in choosing the comments that are more suitable to your beliefs.
In addition, your lack of politeness also does not contribute to the professionalism and quality of the site and the discourse in it. In it you will try not to get down to the personal things ->> conspiracy theories indicate more about the one who believes in them than there is any truth in them.
Also, if you would like to get all the answers you asked me and I have answers, then you will start behaving respectfully to the people who visit the site and respect their opinion as well as not labeling them trolls and names.
And by the way, you were wrong, since this is my first visit to the site, I mean, this is the first article I read on the site and commented on, so it's a shame that this is the reference given by the site's editors. No one has exclusivity over knowledge. It's a shame that the website editors don't do their "homework" before they make accusations against talkbackists and block their access.
Good Day.
Thanks.
I do not deny global warming as man-made, but after what Vitali said... (controlling the human population) is there an attempt to "reduce" the human population due to its rapid growth?
The truth is it sounds like a conspiracy, but is there a hidden attempt to control the rate of reproduction?
Of course, it is obvious that there is, and the example is China...
Indeed a beautifully written article in the best tradition of brainwashing the masses (Al Gore's DVD style).
Especially the concluding sentence basically sums up the entire article: "I have already said that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment."
Indeed, this is the main idea behind the whole discussion of global warming, the discussion is - control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
This sentence indeed once again presents the main idea behind the whole circus that has been going on in recent decades and especially in the last decade with regards to global warming and how much man is the criminal in that he influences and changes the climate and this is another reason for "controlling the human population for the sake of the environment".
As the commenters presented to me in detail, there is no connection and even if man wanted to he could not affect warming, the most significant thing that has affected the climate throughout history is the core of the earth and the sun in particular.
But despite this, they try to present us with flowery, if not delusional, arguments that the person is the significant factor, whereas the sun or the like are negligible factors and are usually not even mentioned as such.
Thanks.
I started to help the guy translate the arguments into Hebrew, I'd love to get help.
my father
Link to a website invested in the field of global warming (hope it's not a repost):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Another thing for Ron, for twenty or thirty years we have been hearing about acid rain. And where does he get his water? True, to the lakes and the canal, which are also already acidic in industrial areas.
Here we caught you in another lie.
It is difficult to know what the final effects of global warming will be
There are even articles that claim that global warming will ultimately be a blessing and could cause another wet period in the Sahara desert
Ami, those who floated in the past have no rights. He is unable to give normal responses and his references are to cuckoo sites, not to reliable scientific journals. There are also websites that deny the link between smoking and lung cancer. Should we give them equal status to real scientific sites?
Cheating is something that should be condemned.
The problem is that if you don't stop Ron, he is able to provide 50 such comments that he copies in cut and paste from all kinds of denier sites and flood the cave so much that it is not possible to hold a talkback, and I speak from experience.
And one more thing, skepticism in science should be based on real data, when the data is contrary to what NASA publishes and their whole purpose is to dwarf the human effect on the atmosphere\ this is not skepticism. This is a scam.
Max Power: Failed
Avi,
With all due respect, this charmer or Ron or whoever, is not a troll. He makes scientific arguments. This should be treated with respect and not threatened with blockades and the like. It does not add to the culture of scientific discourse.
Precisely from your responses I see an overuse of slogans and blind beliefs rather than the presentation of solid facts that remove the ground from under Maxim's claims.
In your first comment you wrote "the data in the graph is nonsense". It looks like it's research data. Saying that they are "nonsense" is like saying that global warming is nonsense. Meaningless and tasteless.
You wrote that the global warming deniers ignore facts and you yourself ignore facts. At least from the one presented by Maxim. You also talk about "ideology" and I suggest that you actually fiddle with the tassels and see how much you yourself treat this important scientific issue as an unquestionable Chinese doctrine and without any attempt to attack it.
I suggest to everyone who deals with science both on the practical side and on the theoretical side - to be skeptical. This means that both what is very acceptable today and what is not acceptable at all - these should receive a dose of critical thinking.
We got a good example just last week with the famous arsenic bacteria, and two days later the whole blogosphere is buzzing about fundamental flaws in the original research methods. Skepticism in science - first of all.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Ron, now you think you're charming us with your nonsense. You managed to thread three comments and with that you ended up with 3 times your quota.
Any further comment will also be blocked retrospectively. An ice age as you describe exists only in science fiction books. (Based on the book The Fall of the Angels by Michael Palin)
P.S. The oil gods should be admired for their huge investment in endless production of global warming denier websites masquerading as scientific. It's a bit hard for me to trust a site that advertises a naked scanner for a cell phone.
Asaf
There is an increase in acidity in the sea, there is no debate about it - but not due to "global warming".
You only see what supports your ideology:
And what about the bleaching of the corals due to the cold?
And what about growing glaciers?
The giant Prito Moreno glacier in Argentina is growing
Hubbard Glacier in Alaska is growing
Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand is growing
Even in the USA the glacier on Mount Shasta is growing
(there are more from around the world)
Antarctic ice is increasing (three times snow)
The fish died in Bolivia due to the cold water
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100827/full/news.2010.437.html
What is the connection to deforestation and the destruction of the home and global warming.
You are turning it into a religious conflict
I care about the environment, but I also know my place in the right proportion
And the scientific data is important to me.
charming,
There is no increase in the acidity of the oceans and there is no "bleaching" of corals!
No deforestation and no damage to biological diversity!
There is no global warming!
There is no mass of glaciers in the Arctic Circle!
So why don't you gather a group of deniers and sit on a glacier?
Let's see how long it will take until your feet are in the water?
A small addition to section A.
To be fair - here is the source of scientific information on the sources of greenhouse gases (including a bibliography):
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Specifically, the figure of 95 percent water vapor comes from the study:
a. SM Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models," Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264,
Interesting article.
But that's exactly what the warming charlatans are doing, my father.
A. It's nonsense because you want it to be nonsense - no other argument.
B. Warming up and cooling down is a natural cycle - do you want to know what to do?
Prepare the population for wild weather in the coming years (stocking food, moving away from the coastline, etc.)
third. Take for example "the sea is becoming acidic due to global warming" and ideology:
From an ideological/religious point of view, it sounds good to add another layer to global warming,
But the scientific reality is that the sea is becoming acidic due to underwater volcanic activity, so we also don't see rivers and lakes becoming acidic as well.
http://www.suite101.com/content/acid-oceans-due-undersea-volcanoes-not-humans-a220085
A. The data in the graph is nonsense.
B. So what to do if you have a factor over which you have control and a factor over which you have no control, how will you act?
third. At all, I don't understand the global warming deniers - prefer to believe in conspiracy theories and ignore the scientific facts just because these conspiracy theories suit your ideology?
Change the title
M - Are there "positive" sides to warming up?
L - Are there positive sides to "warming up"?
In general, I suggest to sterilize the sea to prevent the "warming"
http://theglobalhoax.com/science/greenhousegassource.gif
Ami Bachar, stop giving grades!
Well, very beautiful. Good article