This is a concentration not experienced by modern man, because it did not exist in the atmosphere for at least 3 million years until man came and began to burn all the energy that was a penny in the earth
As we saw in the news from May 2, it did happen, For the first time in history, scientists measured a concentration of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere at a measuring station of the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) in Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The measurement was made last Thursday.
"Most experts estimate that there have not been such levels for at least 3 million years," says Marshall Shepherd, climate change expert and professor at the University of Georgia. "In other words, modern man has never experienced such a concentration of carbon dioxide." Before the industrial revolution, a concentration of 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide gas prevailed on Earth and the concentration of the other greenhouse gases was negligible.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and together with methane and other greenhouse gases whose concentration in the atmosphere is smaller, but their impact is several tens of times greater compared to carbon dioxide, they block the infrared radiation and instead of the earth returning it to space, it encounters a barrier, returns to the ground and warms it .
Since the industrial revolution, humanity has been burning coal, oil and natural gas, which increases the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Another increase was recorded due to massive deforestation that destroys trees that would otherwise absorb the gas and break it down into its components - carbon and oxygen. The warming that is already evident in the last twenty years has made another contribution in the form of the release of huge amounts of methane that were previously under the shrinking permafrost cover.
In an interview with CNN, Jim Butler, a senior scientist at NOAA, says that once the gas is released into the atmosphere, it remains there for thousands of years, warming the Earth, and causing an increase in the acidity of ocean water."
Following the publication of the news in the media over the weekend, the spokesman for the Ministry of Environmental Protection gave the reaction of the Minister of Environmental Protection, MK Amir Peretz: "It is absurd that precisely when the level of carbon dioxide reaches a dangerous peak in the atmosphere, the Israeli Ministry of Finance decides to cancel a program that succeeded in reducing the emissions of this gas . Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are one of the main causes of global warming. Apparently, the Treasury prefers to invest huge sums in a few years, when Israel will become a crossroads for masses of refugees fleeing droughts in Africa, than to invest in projects that save on electricity consumption, reduce the monthly expenses of households and factories, and leverage private investments fivefold. Global warming is a ticking time bomb that will completely change our lives in Israel."
It should be noted that at the Copenhagen Conference, the Minister of Environmental Protection at the time, Gilad Erdan, announced that Israel would fulfill its part in reducing emissions, even though it was not required to do so in the Kyoto Protocol.
31 תגובות
another one
So this is a neighbor. The difference between us is which sources we look at. I choose the professional sources such as NASA, the IPCC, the British Met Office, the AAAS, the Royal Society and you can go on and on and on.
Your source is ….. The truth is that I have not found a reliable source for your position, except for a few exceptional scientists, most of whom are not climate scientists.
Stop mixing poor handling (in your opinion) of the problem with saying the problem doesn't exist.
Speaking of which, the poor countries are not the ones that have oil…..
Miracles.
1) "The observations are consistent with these predictions" - that is, they are not. They are not similar at all. - There are many, many models, most of which missed the point of reality - the fact that according to statistics there is one model that might have been close - does not mean that it is the right one.
2) "Western man" - won't change much - Western culture is not going to be the biggest producer of the FDF in the coming decades. And it doesn't matter which solutions can be investigated - the solutions that are implemented are mostly between useless and harmful.
The damage was caused because a political agenda and economic interests knew how to take advantage of the terror, fear and green guilt of the AGW movement and they don't really care about the issue or they just don't understand.
As a vegetarian, I probably have less of a "Fadh stamp" than the majority. Not that I think it matters.
KALEN
This is also a way to avoid responsibility. Incredible……
1 - But how can any scientist pretend and say that he already understands everything in such a complex system that we live in, and put the emphasis on only one thing - CO2?
We know how to measure CO2 emissions by humans and we know how to calculate the amount of additional energy that will be absorbed in the atmosphere. The impact on the climate is really complex and is calculated by several models. Models are accepted by the professionals and give similar predictions. The observations are consistent with these predictions.
2 - Regarding the solutions. There really is no magic solution. But there are solutions worth investigating. But - the biggest impact is through changes in our habits. I am sure that every western person can reduce their energy consumption by 10% without any effort. And if there is little effort - another 10%. Another very important solution - smaller families. Another very important solution - consuming less meat, especially beef. Next - garbage cycle.
continue? Or will you continue to waste our planet and ruin your children's lives?
The decision of each of us.
Just one request - stop lying that there is no problem, and if there is a problem then there is nothing to do.
Let's say the earth is warming, the facts do show the melting of glaciers for example. And we will also say that Adam has a contribution to this.
But how can any scientist pretend and say that he already understands everything in such a complex system that we live in, and put the emphasis on only one thing - CO2?
Even if the industrial revolution had not happened at all, who can determine that we were not already today in the midst of global warming?
Who can deny (or equally assert) that we have not been in the midst of slow global warming for 1000 years, most of whose effects we are only now seeing? When the warming has reached a critical level where bionics are already felt, and in the case only relatively recently science has reached its breakthrough and we can measure this warming? After all, science knows that there are cycles of ice ages and reverse cycles, in which the composition of the atmosphere changes significantly, but means of measurement exist only in the most recent history.
So yes, maybe the person contributes to this. In general, it is certain that he contributes to this in the fact that he lives by his breaths that create CO2. But what about other possible effects, which could be much more substantial?
Another one, I want to refine and expand on your point about whether it matters or not.
Not only does it not matter, I have never heard from the believing side a real and practical solution. After all, there will be no real cooperation between countries on this subject, before there is world peace and some kind of one world government. And it won't happen, at least not in the next hundred years.
And even if there was world peace, what do they think should be done? The goal is to prevent a massive extermination of humans, right? So how to do this without eliminating a huge population in the very act of implementing the solution? After all, any solution that does not cause such a result, will be only a partial and small solution whose effect will be only partial. I have never read about a workable solution.
By and large, the main contribution of the whole discussion on the subject is adding CO2 to the atmosphere by blowing steam out of the mouths of all the parties.
Meir owner of Hans Cafe
What nonsense 🙂 Those 66.4% of articles simply do not talk about the sources of warming. It is not true that they do not express a position "so as not to get into trouble". Not only is it not true - what you say is simply a malicious lie, so typical of those few but loud people who do not understand what they are talking about.
I admit I have not read all 12,000 articles but I have certainly read the work that summarizes the articles.
Maybe go look for Bigfoot and leave the science to the scientists?
another one:
Of course this is nonsense and no one claims that Faldor is not a scientist.
Basically - there is circular logic here - only the opinion of scientists counts and only those who support AGW deserve to be called scientists.
And since all the scientists who can be called scientists support AGW - there is AGW.
It's really very simple...
Now the number of articles doesn't really matter - because many articles are based on other articles -
It's not as if we have 12000 different researchers who each completely without prejudice and without any personal interest came to the same conclusion.
Meir, even evolution, which is the most solid science possible, is unacceptable to most Americans, so what. Since when is science a matter of public opinion?
My father - nothing new - and science is not a democracy.
For the attention of the believer (from your link)
"From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 percent endorsed AGW, 66.4 percent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 percent rejected AGW and in 0.3 percent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
32 percent state yes humans are guilty
66 percent do not choose any side to avoid getting into trouble. His honor will call them deniers
0.3 This gave various paladors who are ready to stand against the incitement
For the attention of the deniers - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515203048.htm
another one
I did not understand. Have you crossed over to the dark side? 🙂
You won't reject him either. - No action that I know of that the green movement has done has even succeeded in slowing down the growth of the FDF-
It is the human development in fossil fuel utilization and the transition to natural gas that does most of the work.
In addition to that - China, Russia and India are going to emit a great deal of PAD in the coming years (they already are). So you don't put off any end.
In any case, the world will not contain more people than it can support - at least not for a long time.
another one
I really believe he walked us. In 40 years there will be 15 billion people, who according to your method will produce more products per capita than us. Add the fact that the amount of fresh water in the world is rapidly decreasing, we will need more oil to dilute water.
Even if you're right, it's gone for us - I just want to postpone the end.
The one you scolded.
Science is not a democracy.
The majority of scientists do not determine the truth.
And it really doesn't really matter because no one is going to reduce the FDF in any case - so if you're right, then we've lost...
another one
There is no point in this conversation. Climate forecasting is not my profession. Maybe you're right. My problem is that the number of people who do understand the matter and who think like you - is negligible. Furthermore, those who shout the most that there is no man-made warming at all are not experts in the field.
A good example is precisely the so-called statement of the Met Office. They say something very specific - the deniers find several lines from their research, and without understanding the matter, claim that the Met Office says something. And you don't care that the Met Office itself is trying to correct your nonsense.
Don't argue with me - argue with those who understand.
Miracles-
The models are not really confirmed by the observations.
And also the amount of energy that the gas absorbs is not completely.
We don't really know to the end the interaction between the water vapor, the clouds and how everything is connected and affects - and it is a fact that there are many models from the last twenty years that have completely lost touch with reality.
And no - the burden of proof is on those who want humanity to spend a lot of money - harm a lot of weak populations - and the like - you have to convince - not us.
Kalen
We know how much CO2 man emits. We know how much energy this gas absorbs. Many models show that this has a considerable effect on the climate. The observations confirm the models.
This. That's the whole story.
Whoever claims otherwise - the burden of proof rests on him.
This is not a scarecrow argument, because there is a physical connection between the two things.
This is a scary argument, my father.
Even if Tel Aviv floods, it does not mean that it is man's fault. Throughout history there have been tremendous changes in the height of the sea level. There were times when the level was much higher than it is today. And you will be surprised, man did not exist then
What won't you do to prove miracles and wonders that the person is not guilty of anything. But what will you do when Tel Aviv floods?
Michael Rothschild
What I wrote is not wrong and is really an abstraction. But it answers the question.
My response regarding Dr. Gabi Avital's and Professor Natan Faldor's lectures is delayed at the moment. The purpose of the response is not to dismiss Gabi Avital's lecture too easily and to bring to your attention the opinion of Professor Natan Faldor (which is close to Avital's). The words of Natan Faldor cannot be dismissed too easily, since he is a great expert in environmental sciences.
Natan Faldor's popular lectures, which are about an hour long, are available on the YOUTUBE network.
It is highly recommended to listen to Gabi Avital's lecture. As a doctor of aeronautics who built rockets, he was very precise about physical models (even if in his sins he created them).
In a "miraculous" way, Gabi Avital's creation of Creation did not prevent him from designing missiles that fly and hit, because (according to Avi Bli***sky's words) we would expect Creation to not understand much in physics (therefore missiles that Creation Avital built were not supposed to fly and hit effectively).
Gabi Avital describes, among other things, failures (or even fakes) in physical models, or in data collection, some of the failures are human failures. You don't even need to be an expert in physics to identify human errors.
The claim that the water vapor absorbs most of the radiation returned to space (infrared IR radiation) is not a claim invented by Abital, but is a claim accepted by most physicists. It is *highly* recommended to listen to two hour-long lectures by Natan Paldor that were distributed on the Internet on YOUTUBE, regarding global warming (and Natan Paldor's doubts about this subject).
Professor Natan Faldor is a physicist of the breed of meticulous physicists, who underwent a conversion to environmental sciences. As such, Professor Natan Faldor was for several years the head of the Faculty of Environmental Sciences at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (It is not certain that the institution headed by Nathan Faldor is called a "faculty" or "school" or similar terminology, but it does not matter. Professor Faldor also serves as an environmental science consultant for government offices, so his skill cannot be underestimated.
Natan Faldor claimed in the same lectures that the absorption of IR by CO2 is a *residual* absorption (that is, the absorption of CO2 is the absorption of "residual heat" that was not previously swallowed by the water vapor) therefore the amount of absorption of heat by CO2 may be *very small *.
From the Palador Desert there is no exact model for the absorption dose of IF (dose of the absorption mixture between water vapor and CO2). In the absence of a clear and reliable model regarding the contribution of water vapor and CO2 to IR absorption, Faldor estimates the worst case scenario in which CO2 absorbs (as I recall) 25 percent of the IR while water vapor absorbs 75 percent of the IR. Note that this is the worst case scenario, that is, it is not inevitable (for example) that CO2 absorbs much less than 25 percent, it is said that it only absorbs 5 percent of the absorption of the IR emitted by the Earth.
The man is an expert in aeronautics, not air, and in addition to being a global warming denier, he is also a creationist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy7cZWKASYE
On global warming, with reference to the CO2 gas
Nissim and Yaakov:
The story with water vapor is more complex.
The thing is that we don't have direct control over water vapor and CO2 does.
This actually increases the need to curb CO2 emissions and this is because of the following phenomenon:
CO2 => greenhouse => warming => more water vapor in the atmosphere => even more greenhouse => even more warming….
Jacob
It is true that the effect of water vapor is greater than the effect of CO2. but:
1. The effect of CO2 is not marginal at all. Water vapor contributes 2-3 times more than CO2.
2. Adding water vapor to the atmosphere will cause more rain, so this has no probable effect. CO2 on the other hand, accumulates in the atmosphere, as we read in this article.
Let me put it another way: the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the atmosphere, while the concentration of CO2 depends on the balance between emission and absorption.
Hello father
Thanks for a great site. I saw on the site that you read the comments and also answer the surfers' questions and misunderstandings.
There is something I don't understand about global warming and maybe you can enlighten me. The main substance that according to simple physics absorbs IR radiation and thereby causes the greenhouse effect is water vapor. They absorb the radiation more efficiently than CO2 and are present in the atmosphere in much greater quantity than CO2.
Not that I think it's positive to add to it an increase in the level of CO2, but the contribution of this gas to the greenhouse effect seems marginal.
What did I not understand correctly?
Thanks.