The ground has been dropped from under the main argument of the deniers of global warming or rather, those who claim that human behavior should not be changed regarding greenhouse gases
A new study has dealt a blow to the skeptics who claim that global warming is due to changes in the level of cosmic radiation and not man-made greenhouse gases. The new evidence shows that there is no reliable connection between the intensity of cosmic rays and the cloud cover in the Earth's atmosphere.
The British Channel 4 was loudly criticized when it suggested possible ways to escape the danger of man-made global changes. These critics have argued that global warming is due to a reduction in cosmic radiation in recent centuries. This decrease causes a reduction in the formation of low clouds that allow more heat from the sun to penetrate the earth and thus cause global warming. In this way they are actually saying that there is no need to change human behavior and reduce greenhouse gases because it will not help.
The study, published on April 3, in the journal Environmental Studies of the Institute of Physics, showed how a team from Manchester and Durham Universities in the UK failed to find any correlation between ionizing cosmic rays and low cloud production. Previous studies have shown a possible hint of such a relationship, using satellite findings from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. This hint was enough for man-made warming deniers to blame cosmic rays for the phenomenon.
The new studies have shown that the changes in the cloud cover above the Earth do not correspond to the changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation. They also do not show ups and downs during random bursts, nor more regular changes in cosmic ray densities. Such a large eruption caused a magnetic storm that blacked out electricity in Quebec in 1989.
The researchers write in their article: "We found no evidence that the changes in the low cloud cover are affected by the changes in the rate of ionizing radiation from space."
17 תגובות
Even if the claim that, the greenhouse effect resulting from the exhaust gases of burning organic fuels, its effect on global warming is only marginal, another danger, no less serious, lies before humanity according to global warming, and that is that the supply of organic fuel (mainly oil, but Coal is also finite. We can already see the day when there will not be enough oil to meet humanity's needs, therefore if humanity wants to continue it must develop energy alternatives to the organic fuel. Today it seems that the alternatives will be many and varied.
The scientific discussion on the matter is fascinating, and many things are unknown. I think it is clear to everyone that the systems they are talking about are more complex than everyone thinks, and also that no one, but none of the people who carry out the various studies are innocent and have an agenda. But in terms of what we need to do, this debate is irrelevant - what, we lack good enough excuses to recycle, save fuel, find alternative energy sources and save water? And we will say that the warming is not because of us. Isn't it worth it after all that our streets be less polluted and that we don't dry up our water sources? We need to separate the pure scientific discussion of the causes of warming and its characteristics from the fact that we must change the way we live...
Even in the eyes of the skeptics, there is no doubt that greenhouse gases are warming.
There is also no doubt that the climate is warming.
The only thing the skeptics say is that there may be other factors.
What do I say and what will I say? You should really go to sleep and ignore what we already know.
This is true, even in higher education faculties for climate research and in conferences on the subject, both opinions are presented. There are unsolved things and there are far too many parameters for it to be possible to put everything in a simple equation and say "here - this is the answer".
And what's more, a lot of politics is involved, so that many studies (financed by one or another influential body) are not always free of bias.
It should be mentioned that until a few decades ago the entire scientific community was sure that the Earth was going to cool down and not warm up and that we were facing an ice age. The few scientists who claimed that there was going to be warming were considered "crazy". And today it is exactly the opposite so that the consensus cannot always be trusted - because also He changes.
Humanity needs to prepare itself for both cooling and warming possibilities because both are equally destructive, and it is better to be prepared.
However, it is necessary to continue to investigate the issue from all fronts.
It reminds me of the saying - "The effect of the sun's rays on the rays of the sun".
The Academy of the Hebrew Language stated that one should write "Physics" and not "Physics".
Buy the article..
It is reminiscent
The most serious problem is that a mistake of our generation could fatally harm our grandchildren. Note that we may be racing to the point of no return in our ability to change anything about warming.
may we have a nice week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Michael
There is actually research backing, even in articles from Science and Nature
First, of course, no one disputes the greenhouse effect, only the extent of its contribution. Second, the albedo is not the only argument.
Thirdly, commenter 6 is right, the sea temperature is an extremely important factor, as mentioned by commenter 4, the sensitivity analysis of the model on which the IPCC was based gave an uncertainty factor of 3 in the warming of a degree up to 2100.
We will only agree that there is a lobby of green people with hidden silver hammers who ride the green wave and reap personal profit, and in front of them are corporate prey animals, in this struggle that is hidden over the visible.
To all the skeptics: And if the doubts are a mistake? How will we know? It's always nice to have doubts. This is the way of a true scientist. But not you I praise. Why? Because you are casting doubt on something that is greater than all of us. You need to understand the risk you are taking and the possible consequences of taking actions or not taking them.
Just try to look at the big picture even if you lack data. Similar to a game of chess: the opponent has not yet made the next move and certainly has not yet made several moves forward. But you are smart, aren't you? Try in your head to make a few moves forward, because in the end you don't want to hear from him either chess or checkmate.
Watch the following video so that you are closed to yourself. In advance I say that he is not trending. And in my opinion it is more than a point for thought. So in general, anyone with the opinions that they don't have will do themselves a favor and wait. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
This is amazing:
The absolute majority of climate scientists come to the (most logical) conclusion that greenhouse gases cause warming (in a mechanism that is almost the same as that which operates in normal greenhouses and about whose effect I assume that most of the appellants will not dispute) and yet allow themselves many of those who have not studied the issue at all to disagree on their conclusions.
This is not a debate between two established positions but between an established position and a position that is only supported by raising a voice.
So we talk about the albedo that changes due to desertification and increases the emission of heat from the earth and try to use this argument to show... it is not clear what! After all, as the changing albedo causes more cooling and yet the climate warms, this means that other factors (yes, like the greenhouse effect!) are influencing even more than we thought!
Then someone comes and talks about the fact that most of the Earth is covered by oceans and tries to make us forget the fact that before we talked about the atmosphere that covers the entire Earth (including the oceans!).
To be on the safe side - everyone says that "yes... they are still in favor of reducing greenhouse gas emissions" (all except one who suggests we go to sleep instead).
I'm sorry to ruin it here for everyone.
The truth is, we don't know too much about the "mechanism" that most affects heat absorption in the UAE - the oceans.
Our ball is called the blue ball because... it is indeed like that. The vast majority of the Earth's surface is covered not by land but by seas.
To this day it is not clear what the nutrition of heat emission/absorption in the oceans is, so everyone can go to sleep until we know it..
Uncle
Abi Abi Abi - don't confuse a belt with a developing one...
The unsolved puzzle of the climate includes mechanisms that affect differently at different scales (temporal and spatial), positive and negative feedbacks as well as external influences...
It is enough to mention the albedo that rises due to desertification and decreases due to the melting of glaciers, oceanic currents that affect the asymmetry of the rate of change of synoptic systems, an increase in the primary production in the oceans thanks to air pollution which increases the absorption of carbon dioxide but also the rain which increases growth but decreases the albedo … and what about dust storms…
The only thing that can be determined with certainty is that our knowledge is only the tip of the iceberg...
Of course I am in favor of reducing pollution and dependence on fossil fuels, but the facts must be carefully examined
It's amazing how strongly rooted the belief is that we are responsible for global warming.
Guys, no one - not even Nitzan Horowitz - can guarantee that by totally reducing carbon dioxide the world will stop warming. Furthermore, while the climate forecasting models are fine and dandy for 5-7 days, the reliance on almost a single parameter (greenhouse gases) in the temperature forecasting model in the range of years seems,
As said, not very convincing.
The study ruled out the connection to cloud cover, however there are other mechanisms, some known and some not, that affect the temperature.
When you look at the last 1000 years, the temperature of the Earth changed and was characterized by rises and falls of a few degrees without any relation to fuel consumption. On a scale of hundreds of years, the activity of the sun is an important factor in temperature changes, for example, about 1000 years ago the sun was more active and rising The temperature even allowed the Vikings to map the northern coast of Greenland.In earlier times, the temperature even reached more than 10 degrees than today's temperature.
More in
http://www.nfc.co.il/Archive/003-D-20388-00.html?tag=11-22-44
There is a huge lobby of the big energy companies whose goal is to prevent the reduction of the use of oil, coal and gas fuels. So there is great importance in the determination of the universities of Manchester and Durham as expressed on the British Channel 4.
Man in his actions is the cause of global warming, and he can prevent it in his actions.
May our grandchildren have a pleasant future with normal weather.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
We are not talking about deniers of global warming nor those who claim that the behavior of the human race should not be changed.
In total, a group that is convinced that it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the emission of greenhouse gases is the cause of global warming.
To mention, until recently the version of humanity that it is in the midst of global cooling. And a duration of years and even decades is zero in terms of weather.
On the other hand, they enthusiastically support the lowering of polluting, polluting and carcinogenic gas emissions.