Researchers who examined the Earth's energy balance over geological periods found that natural fluctuations can only explain part of the warming, and most of it is caused by human activity
While the discussions on the climate in Durban are taking place with stuttering mainly because of differences of opinion between the developed industrial countries and the new "developing" ones such as India, China and Brazil and against the countries of Africa, Southeast Asia and islands that are already suffering from climate change, two researchers publish conclusions that close the door on the claims of the " skeptics" of any kind.
The Swiss researchers Knutti & Markus Huber, publish their long-finished research inNature Geoscience. Their main conclusion is that human activity has a "contribution" of 74% to global warming.
Climatic studies that test humanity's effect on warming are based on (statistical) comparisons between (geological) periods and the current period in what is called "optimal fingerprinting". With the help of temp sampling for different periods and comparison to the levels of greenhouse gases (and sprays).
Kenuti and Huber simplified the method by modeling the energy "budget" of the sphere and running thousands of simulations in different combinations of factors that contribute to the energy budget: solar energy that is absorbed and emitted, short wave radiation (from the sun), heat absorption by the oceans, loss of snow cover and ice These simulations allowed researchers to estimate the contribution of greenhouse gases to temperature changes.
The energy balance of the sphere is a key to understanding the climate changes caused by natural or human factors, despite many observations in recent decades, most studies examining climate change are based on the difference between the natural climate changes over time (geological) and the (rapid) changes following the industrial revolution - in the last hundred and fifty years. Kenuti and Habar's method neutralizes the time factor and relies on the principle of conservation of energy, an analysis of the heat absorbed by the ball versus the heat leaving the earth allows one to determine who the donor is. Using uncomplicated computer simulations, the researchers model the known changes in the global energy balance and by combining human activity - emission of greenhouse gases, the researchers show that the increase in temperature would have reached 0.6-1.1 degrees, but that half of the increase was prevented due to the emission of cooling sprays. According to the researchers the data is 95% reliable because of the accurate identification of human causes of global warming.
According to the researchers, natural factors contributed to a warming of less than 1/4 of what was measured in the last 60 years, that is, 3/4 of the global warming was contributed by human activity. In fact, the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases would have caused more warming if there had not been a corresponding emission of sprays and dust (coal) that moderate the penetration of solar energy,
One of the assumptions preferred by skeptics is that "warming is caused by accidental fluctuations in the global climate", the researchers ran a series of controlled experiments without including the energy budget factor and it turns out that "even if there were changes ("accidental fluctuations") the climate is three times greater , the chance of warming as measured in recent years... is not possible".
We will add that this is the first time that the subject of the explosion of the human population comes up at the climate conference while trying (carefully) to establish that one of the important factors that will moderate the warming is birth control.
And for that it is 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.
16 תגובות
The full article for those who do not subscribe to Nature Geoscience
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/huber11natgeo.pdf
According to my recollection, the IPCC gives some mite to the sun regarding warming.
In order to solve the problem, it is necessary to both reduce energy consumption and use renewable sources in every report on reducing emissions starting with reducing and streamlining the use of energy
My father does some of what Rossi claims every air conditioner does. Did he build an air conditioner if COP of 60? I am satisfied!
Only the law of conservation of energy and the corresponding laws of thermodynamics prevent the conversion of the heat flux into the original electrical energy and of course into greater electrical power. If that guy can create cold fusion, a Nobel Prize in physics is already guaranteed, no, so what is he waiting for? Conclusion ….
The problem with devices that give more energy than they put out is not a problem of silencing by tycoons, I will not simplify because this is scientifically impossible. But the public for some reason prefers conspiracy theories to the plain truth.
Beyond the problems of environmental pollution there are also economic considerations of tycoons and governments
That's why few have heard of the Italian Andrea Rossi because his invention may crumble some big tycoons in the world.
An Italian inventor named Andrea Rossi caused astonishment at the University of Bologna in Italy in January of this year. Rossi presented a device he had invented that he claimed produced more energy than it took in - in other words, almost free energy. In the presence of a number of journalists and an impressive number of professors and scientists, Rossi and Professor Picardi showed in front of the amazed faces of those present, a tiny device that produces 12 kilowatts of thermal energy (heat energy) from 200 watts of electrical energy.
The thermal energy is produced by heating water to steam in a small box with a volume of 100 cc. Rossi still does not reveal the full details, but scientists and physicists who have tested the device estimate that it is the "holy grail" of the world of physics - cold nuclear fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Fusion in English.
Yotam, it is not true that even with the chnage of the type of energy harvested we will still have it absorbed by the earth..
it has always been about quantity of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere that is caused by over usage on our part, greener energy will decrease CO2 levels
To Avi
the problem is that even if the cars became all electric, we will still need to charge them, more electricity without solving the powerplant problem is useless, because charging them with stations who get their electricity from coal powerplants will not solve almost anything-.. i think we need a whole new way to produce energy from the source so it would be functional and realistic no?
It can be done gradually, to stop producing fuel-guzzling cars so that whoever buys a new car will have no choice. And slowly, within ten years the gluttonous cars will naturally disappear from the market. But if you don't start with it, you'll never get there. It's strange, people take care of their children to save money, look after them, take care of them for a good education, but exactly those same people don't leave them a world to live in.
Father, can you please explain what "green behavior" is? For example, throwing away the old car (which is still in good condition) in favor of a new car that was built less, is it ecological or not?
Yael, this is not a theoretical question. We are already feeling the results of warming - in droughts and deserts, extreme weather conditions, the increasing acidity of the sea and endangering many animals, the rise of sea water endangering island countries (mainly coral islands whose highest point is only a few meters above sea level).
I agree with you, I wish we all behaved green. Unfortunately, there are political parties who continue to encourage waste as an ideology.
ok father…
I think the "cost of error" question is also important. It has been said that the supporters of global warming are wrong, so what's the problem? May we have a little cleaner air, a little cleaner sea, a little cleaner drinking water... There are claims that being "green" is expensive, I don't understand why? There is a complete economic approach that proves exactly the opposite, that being "green" is actually economically profitable for businesses.
And what if those who think the earth is warming are right? What is our alternative? Kepler 22B is 600 light years away... and it is not sure that it will suit us either. How do you clean an atmosphere from PDF? How do you filter oceans? What harm would it be if each of us was content with an electronic copy and not printing on paper... less forests would be cut down.
And apart from that, Yael, you didn't understand, if man hadn't emitted, there would have been a much smaller warming than the one actually measured. Man also contributes only in one direction - warming, while in nature there are warming factors and there are factors such as the particles, the cooling ones, but their net is also warming. The fact that man makes trouble, it does not mean that nature has disappeared, it still exists in the background.
Not true The 7 billionth person was born a year ahead of the forecast and that means the birth is not slowed down.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/human-population-reaches-7-billion-011111/
I asked for the comment to be deleted, because someone sent a comment on my behalf that is the opposite of the position of science in the field, as if I am suddenly supporting the deniers and calling the supporters of science Hammists. By the way, here is the place to thank Avital for drawing my attention to the illogical comment and YNET for agreeing to remove it.
Anyone who wants to write nonsense has no problem, but not in my name. This is a deception. And besides, according to the content, this one from your company is really different. One of your trolls really likes to copy quotes in English that he doesn't understand and pretend that X or Y is a scientist who denies perfectionism. It is not enough for him to lie on behalf of the scientists, he also enlists me in his fight. So if what he is saying on my behalf is not true, then what he is quoting on behalf of the Nobel winning scientists is probably not true.
The title is a bit funny...
Anthropogenic means "man-made". So how is humanity "only" responsible for 74%? It should have been at least 100%. Or alternatively, a maximum of 100%. It may even be equal to 100%.
By the way, I happened to see that YNET deleted my father b. Comment on Dr. Gabi Avital's article. Like, this is "poetic justice" about the 'thought police' here???
The global increase in population has almost stopped in the last decade, although in some countries the birth rate is increasing, the mortality is also high and in other countries the birth rate is moderating, as a general rule except in Africa and the Arab world - the population is decreasing in most places.
One of the assumptions preferred by skeptics is that "warming is caused by random fluctuations in the global climate". One of the favorite assumptions of "greens" is that "renewable energy sources" will solve the problem. A renewable energy source will still produce the same energy (solar cells, for example, will increase the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the solar cell). Why are people still not addressing the real problem which is the ridiculous scale of energy consumption today.
"And for that it was said that the time has come for instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the population"