This is what Dr. Diane Evans, a scientist from NASA's JPL Laboratory in California, who leads climate research from space on behalf of JPL, says that other laboratories have reached clear results that indicate the warming of the Earth by other methods and there is no data that contradicts the warming itself
In response to another questioner, Evans said that there are all kinds of vested interests who are interested in obscuring the debate and showing it as a debate between scientists, but in the IPCC, a group of about 3,000 scientists from all over the world, there is no doubt at all.
Evans devoted her lecture to the subject of "climate change - a view from space" and reviewed the evidence for global warming, depletion of the ozone layer, melting glaciers, greenhouse gas emissions and more, as they are studied through an array of research and observation satellites orbiting the Earth.
"We observe the Earth in a variety of wavelengths and through a multitude of satellites that use different observation technologies. All this evidence shows that the earth is warming. There can be a difference between the various predictions regarding the continuation of warming, whether it will increase, remain at its current level or perhaps increase but more slowly, but in any case the direction is clear.
According to her, she does not relate to the issue in an emotional way, and her position derives solely from the facts revealed by the measuring devices.
"We built satellites that measure the amount of water in the air, the sea level, the dust particles, the clouds and any other data that can help us understand what is happening. In particular, it is important for us to know exactly what the concentrations of greenhouse gases are, such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and we also measure the condition of the good ozone layer, at an altitude of 10 kilometers and more, which we observe in the infrared range and in the submillimeter range, and we also measure the bad ozone - the one found in smog .
One of the most researched topics is the state of the ice glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland. Among other things, Evans showed a slide with maps of Antarctica and Greenland detailing the places where the ice layer has become less dense. According to her, the measurements made over the years show a clear trend of a decrease in the density of the ice in these two centers, when you can see the impact on the salinity of the sea water in the Greenland region, and an acceleration in the breakup of glaciers in Antarctica and their drift into the surrounding oceans.
Such massive melting of ice has powerful implications for the ocean current system. It turns out that cold water that sinks in North America and continues along the ocean currents until it warms up in the Pacific Ocean and returns to the Atlantic Ocean as the Gulf Stream, takes a century to complete the process. During periods when the salinity of the water decreased, such as following the flow of water from great lakes into the Atlantic Ocean, the ocean currents stopped because the cold water did not sink into the fresh sea water. If this happens, it will have a negative effect on Europe because the Gulf Stream is what keeps the wall of the continent, and absurdly if it disappears due to warming Europe will cool down and enter a sort of ice age, unlike the rest of the world which will continue to warm up.
Today, Evans will participate in the annual conference in memory of Ilan Ramon, which this year also became a conference in memory of his son Assaf at the Air Force Base. The most senior guest from NASA to come to the conference will be the head of NASA, Charles Bolden.
23 תגובות
I think there is a consensus that there is warming
and some disagreement about the causes of warming
Congratulations on the important article and the substantive discussion - most of the posts at least.
http://homocombustans.com
For BRHVC, I would appreciate it if you could give us a link to this podcast.
To my father...I completely agree with what you said..
The question is not what is happening with the temperatures more than why?
Because if it's us humans, then we have an influence and it's controllable..and if it's not, then this is basically the whole business of Climategate..because since "global warming" a whole sector has been created that before didn't get a spit and now gets billions upon billions..below Al Gore.."The first global warming billionaire" who invested money in such a company and voila..like any good salesman did well.
We are polluting the world, exterminating species, like a blight on the face of the earth..there is no doubt about all of this..
But we don't care about it
Or for its cooling if you want.. There is a sun above that whoever has read or understands or really wants to understand and check it will be clear to him that we are at her complete mercy in this matter... Please go look for the completely scientific documentary that checked this and found that the sun is the sole cause of climate change here..
For those who need a short explanation, here it is - more or less according to what is shown in the film
Sun heats up due to activity -> the sources of water wherever they are are warming up -> glaciers are melting -> but more importantly huge deposits of CO2 which are locked up every day in the sea are released -> the composition of the atmosphere changes significantly but only because of them (significant is also a percentage by the way don't be psychotic here ).
All this happens this way and not the other way around.. Find a correlation of about 200-800 years to the best of my memory from this movie between the increase in solar activity and the increase in CO2 but not the other way around!! CO2 is not the cause but the caused (for lack of a better word)
And for those who know and understand, it is also known that our world is always dependent on a very, very delicate balance of all the existing conditions .. change one degree here or there and there will be a new ice age .. new deserts in exchange etc.
So the heating of the water that is responsible for all of our weather in fact (and let's really forget how it happens... because it is something fascinating in itself but long) or cooling it almost immediately affects what is happening in the world.
Once again, to the best of my memory, right now we seem to be in a good time and in the future we are on the way to an ice age and not to extreme warming..in a funny way, usually a (long) ice age actually happens that the temps rose at a certain point and then precisely because of the water culture there was a cooling and then the ice age came....
In the end it is sad to say that we are still children on the subject and there are a lot of theories - what is certain is that history is something that we learned to be good at and also saw exactly what was here in previous times during such periods so it doesn't matter who causes what...be sure that when it will be here an ice age with Or without humanity and there are areas that will become a desert and some that are on Purim because that is the nature of the world.
Once upon a time the poles were a fertile savanna like today's equatorial regions.
The only consolation in all this digging is that we are more likely to survive a major earthquake in Israel than the consequences of global warming...
There is a great podcast about it by Ran Levy. worth hearing.
my father
Note that warming is not the question here.
The important questions are-
1. Is this a human act?
2. Isn't this just a temporary warming?
There is no answer to these two questions in the article, and to be honest, I haven't heard another convincing answer about them.
Udi
What you wrote is completely different from the wording of your last comment.
You noted that due to the suspension of flights in the USA, the albedo of KDA was affected - there is no extrapolation here.
I don't understand you, you haven't yet proven global warming, and you're immediately evading another phenomenon, Global dimming? Remember that we are dealing with global warming, so please stick to the topic.
I read a study that found that the amount of izhu created in the September 11th attacks, which included the explosion of 4 planes on all their fuel, the prolonged burning of thousands of offices, and the collapse of several buildings made of steel - was equal to the amount of pollution created by a typical volcanic eruption. That is: much more than the pollution that the entire US (and maybe even humanity) produces in a day.
National Geographic had a program in which we interviewed a number of experts in the field, and one of them is an expert on the history of the poles. He presented a graph showing the various ice ages, in which man was not present at all, and I will show what level of warming we would have had if we had not been technologically developed. The change is significant and unequivocal, it is our behavior that adds several degrees to global warming. In my opinion, it is not possible to have the wisdom and incentive to develop combustion engines that do not contribute to warming and air pollution without a parallel development of the science that examines the atmosphere, and human effects on it. The technologies to produce green combustion engines exist. The patents have been registered for over a decade and some of the engines have already been produced and worked successfully.
Now is the time for one government or another to ban the import or production on its territory of combustion engines based on gasoline or diesel, and only approve cars and airplanes powered by greener means.
It would be nice if Texas volunteered to be the first, wouldn't it :-)?
How long will it take from the moment Europe realizes the consequences of warming on it until it bans the use of polluting engines??
Because I attended her lecture in person, and heard all the explanations. You take the quote and use it as if she is saying that the ground instruments are faking, therefore there is no warming. However, what she meant is that the ground instruments are problematic and therefore measurements need to be made from space. The measurements from space showed that there was warming, and unfortunately I was not in her argument with Nir Shabib because I was waiting one floor up for the press conference of the head of NASA. I heard that she attacked him harshly on the panel.
So quoting a senior scientist who claims that global warming exists, in a distorted and partial form so that it turns out that she claims the opposite is unethical, and this is what the global warming deniers specialize in.
Dr. Diane Evans -
American Climategate will come and come
Joseph D'Aleo, of Icecap.us, said the analysis found NASA "systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations." The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.
http://www.iceagenow.com/NASA_accused_of_deliberately_manipulating_and_distorting_climate_data.htm
The scientists seem to feel they need to convey some social message.
In my eyes, they lose credibility.
But who said that today's warming will not lead to tomorrow's cooling?
For everyone's information. Global warming has been happening since the end of the last ice age.
Don't forget that two thousand years ago, North Africa was the center of food creation, including wheat for Rome, and look at the state it is in today.
We are between two ice ages, and until the next ice age begins, the world will continue to warm.
Idan,
I'm telling you about it.
Instead of complaining about others who don't do what you think, do it yourself.
Build us a "huge magnetic field generator that will make a kind of magnetic shield".
Maybe if you try it yourself you will find out "why not".
Beyond that, in the debate, apart from the large amount of money on his side, there is also the basic desire of the scientists to discover the truth.
The problem is that both sides are digging something in their position and prefer to throw mud and accusations instead of listening to each other.
Instead of debating the question of who polluted our atmosphere and why might they think of solutions to prevent the situation from deteriorating?
No one will stop traveling here by car or flying by plane because the continent of Europe will freeze to death...
If the earth's magnetic field is the one that protects us, then why not build a huge magnetic field generator that will make a sort of magnetic shield on the earth and keep away from here all the radical rays that reach us from the sun?
There are many other interesting solutions - it's just a shame that today's scientists deal with politics and not with the implementation of ideas
Mirom
It is a reading of satellites that were flying over North America at the same time and not of the whole planet. In science there is a concept called extrapolation. If you know the local effect of a certain factor and you know its frequency, you can soon calculate its general effect. All the factories and cars do not create white clouds in the atmosphere like the airplanes, but maybe local smog (which of course also has an effect on the albedo). It seems to me that you put all the greenhouse gases in one basket and one effect. I actually gave an example of the effect of global dimming and not of global warming. In any case, precisely because the industry and cars did not shut down following those events, it is possible to isolate the effect of the planes on that day. A final word: "Throw pollution into the atmosphere" is a clearly unscientific expression. When you build an argument, try to be precise in your words - which gases / particles exactly went into the air, to which layer in the atmosphere, and what was their effect in your opinion?
Udi
I'm sorry, but that sounds awful to me. Are you seriously arguing here that because there were no flights over North America, it not only affected the amount of radiation reflected back into the atmosphere significantly, but the entire planet?
Wait a minute, so what about all the factories? What about all the cars? The amount of artificial clouds that the flights create is dwarfed compared to any of these, and all the clouds created by human technology in the world are also dwarfed compared to one volcanic eruption.
Besides, the 11/XNUMX disaster itself must have thrown insane amounts of pollution into the atmosphere, which offset any drop that might have been caused by the grounding of flights that day. So how does that stack up with your claim?
Mirom: It is not possible to control all human activity, but special historical events provide us with insights and "kinds of controls" regarding various phenomena and effects. A well-known example is that following the events of September 11th, flights were stopped in all of North America for a day or two (I don't remember exactly), and the intensity of radiation reflected from the Earth (albedo) increased by tens of percent at the same time. This is an example of the effect of the artificial clouds created by the exhaust of the airplane engines on blocking the sun's rays in certain wavelengths. There are other examples of ways in which the impact of human activity can be measured and quantified. Even if the picture is never complete or accurate, significant insights emerge from it.
Dan and Yossi
There has been warming from about 1950 until today, the two big questions are - will the warming continue, and do we have a hand in it?
I am very skeptical if it is even theoretically possible to prove human involvement in warming. How can such an experiment be controlled? It is impossible to "turn off" human intervention for that matter for a short period of time, or isolate it.
She was asked and said specifically that the source is human activity.
For Mirum Golan, the current article does not deal with the causes of warming, but with the very fact that there is warming of the earth. It may be the position of that scientist that the cause is human but it is not mentioned directly
Say what you say, whoever will influence will influence, there is global warming.
Anyone with some knowledge of the subject knows that the field of weather forecasting is not a pure science and involves a lot of guesswork. There are always mistakes, and the next day the temperatures can start to drop. The problem is that scientists like Diane Evans aren't even open to that possibility.
Whatever she says, I have not yet seen proof that man has a critical effect on global warming.