Research in Science led by Prof. Daniel Rosenfeld from the Hebrew University analyzes the effects of air pollution with smoke and particles on the global temperature and states that some of the products of air pollution cause warming while others cause cooling which moderates the warming caused by greenhouse gases. The researchers are calling for satellites to be launched that will study the particles in the atmosphere and determine which effect is increasing, if the pollution stops, we will surely warm up due to the accumulation of carbon dioxide, says Prof. Rosenfeld
The extent of man's influence on the greenhouse effect is one of the main issues in the world of science in recent decades and the focus of many measurements and studies and heated debates around the globe. However, despite the attempts to find out exactly how much humanity affects the climate, they are not successful because the measurements made to date measure only some of the parameters, chief among them is air pollution, which, in addition to greenhouse gases, also has an effect on the climate. This is what a new article published this week in the prestigious journal Science states and reviews a variety of studies done in recent years on the topic of the greenhouse effect.
The study was headed by Prof. Daniel Rosenfeld from the Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University and his partners are Prof. Steven Sherwood from the University of NSW in Australia, Prof. Robert Wood from the University of Washington and Dr. Leo Donner from Princeton.
Air pollution emissions have opposite effects on the climate. While increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases causes warming, the particulate air pollution, caused for example by smoke, results in cooling: the particulate pollution increases the amount and brightness of the clouds, which causes them to return more solar radiation to space. The degree of warming caused by greenhouse gases is known quite precisely, but Rosenfeld's research shows that the world of science does not yet know exactly how much particle pollution neutralizes the effect of warming. Therefore this uncertainty entails a similar uncertainty in the degree of overall warming as a result of human activity.
Until about five years ago, the main mechanism attributed by researchers to the way air pollution particles cool the climate was by increasing the brightness of the clouds. Air pollution particles can act as condensation centers for cloud droplets, so polluted clouds contain a greater concentration of smaller water droplets. Therefore, for a fixed amount of cloud water, the total droplet surface area increases. Since solar radiation is reflected from the droplets, increasing their total area increases the amount of solar radiation reflected into space.
However, in recent years, the importance of additional mechanisms has begun to be revealed, some of which enhance the degree of cooling and some of which neutralize it. For example, faster evaporation of the reduced water droplets as a result of the pollution causes the loss of cloud water and neutralizes part of the cooling effect of the reduction of the droplets. On the other hand, the intensification of the degree of cooling is obtained from contamination of shallow rain clouds. Reducing the drops below a certain size inhibits their coalescence into raindrops. When clouds lose less water to precipitation they can live longer and cover more areas, thereby increasing the degree of cooling two to four times more than the effect of reducing droplet size on cloud brightness alone.
The addition of air pollution to deep and high clouds can similarly cause an increase in the cover of the high and cold clouds, which radiate less heat into space and therefore leave more heat in the Earth and warm it.
According to Prof. Rosenfeld, from the analysis he performed together with his partners on everything known in the field, it appears that the way to accurately measure all the effects that intensify and neutralize the degree of cooling has not yet been found. "Whether researchers claim that man's influence on global warming is high or whether they claim the opposite, the measurements that have been carried out to date cannot really provide us with an accurate and well-founded answer, so we must take the various claims on the subject with a limited guarantee. We know that the temperature on Earth has increased in recent decades due to the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases, but we must admit that we still cannot know with sufficient precision to what extent the warming effect of the greenhouse gases has been neutralized by the cooling caused by air pollution. Therefore, with the tools we have today, we are unable to predict the degree of global warming with an accuracy that exceeds a difference of 2 to 3 times between the minimum and maximum estimate."
Prof. Rosenfeld adds that the only practical way to make measurements that will reduce the degree of uncertainty is through a new generation of satellites that will measure the properties of the particles floating in the atmosphere and the composition of the clouds using new methods, as proposed by Prof. Rosenfeld in his recent publications. "These methods can be based on existing technology, and the main obstacle to progress in this direction is financial," says Rosenfeld. "The amount of investment should be adjusted to the size of the problem we have to solve, so the realization of the next generation of satellites is only a matter of time."
In a conversation with the science website, after a joint appearance with the Ham on the TV7 television show (see video), about two weeks ago, in which Prof. Rosenfeld referred to the effect of warming on climatic phenomena in our regions, he explained: "The increase in the amount of carbon dioxide causes warming, there is no doubt about that. The problem is with air pollution that we don't know if it contributes to warming or compensates for it. This is why it is necessary to examine the effect of air pollution in order to make predictions accurate. However, in the long term, it is expected that air pollution will not increase while carbon dioxide will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, so warming should be expected."
Regardless, the meteorological service announced yesterday that in many measuring stations in Israel, the month of January was the hottest, in Jerusalem, for example, only 2 millimeters of rain fell, after the big storm in December. January is usually the rainiest month of the year, which shows that climate change as a result of the accumulation of greenhouse gases, is not a theoretical matter. If indeed the air pollution has a moderating effect, it only means that the situation could have been even worse, and also that the air pollution itself causes unpleasant effects.
A program that dealt with Israel's preparedness for natural disasters - mainly earthquakes and climate hazards as part of the weekly program 'Jerusalem Studio' on the European television station TV7 with the participation of Prof. Daniel Rosenfeld and the editor of the science site Avi Blizovsky. Thanks to Hanan Sabat who helped us convert the file so that I could upload it to YouTube with the approval of the show's producer
65 תגובות
It was clear to me that the two foolish followers of the IPCC scientists would not be able to face the fact that their rabbis were very wrong.
The big mistake of the IPCC scientists was their overconfidence, which made them present a forecast that could be proven wrong in a short time.
In their latest report, published in September 2013, they have already learned their lesson, and the forecast they presented for the short term refers to the average temperature in the years 2016-2035.
I wrote an article about this entitled "Those who want to lie distance their testimony", and here is a link to this article:
http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-86959-00.html
Snupkin
Ehud is smart, and all the institute researchers I mentioned are stupid.
Ehud completely dismisses the IPCC report, except of course for the tiny part, which in his understanding alone, completely dismisses the rest of the report.
Why does Ehud think like that? Wonderful of you do not investigate……..
sympathetic
Your style is not worthy of any site and especially not this site.
You are right about them not answering your question but wrong about the reason.
Such wording does not deserve a response. If you want a response to the matter, I suggest that you write a question about the matter.
and that you apologize.
For pretending to be a Snofkin adult, and for pretending to be a dumbass, Miracles:
At the beginning of section 3.2 of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published in 2007, it is written as follows (in free translation): "In the next two decades, a warming trend of about two tenths of an increase per decade is expected... After the publication of the first IPCC report in 1990, Forecasts according to which the temperature is expected to rise at a rate between 0.15 and 0.30 degrees per decade. Today, these forecasts can be compared to data indicating an increase at a rate of about two degrees per decade, and this comparison strengthens confidence in the reliability of short-term forecasts."
So maybe the data I presented are only at the tip of the chopchick as the impersonator writes, but the problem is that the IPCC people, who bring together all the institutions that the impersonator cites, gave a prediction about this peak of the chopchick, and they were wrong big time.
So it's interesting to see if the pretenders to be adults and idiots are able to deal with the logical conclusion that when a forecast is greatly mistaken, it turns out that the assumption that was the basis of the forecast was wrong, and the assumption that was the basis of the IPCC's forecast was that it was the greenhouse gases that caused the warming that was at another peak of the Tsopchik - that is, on 25 The last years of the twentieth century, which were preceded by about 35 years of stability.
My guess - none of the pretenders will answer the matter, because there is simply no logical way to deal with the clear and logical argument I presented.
Below is a link to the IPCC report, the beginning of section 3.2 of which I translated.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
Ehud Perlman
Here is a very partial list of bodies that support warming. You say you're smart and they're all dumb?
University of Victoria School of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Ohio State University School of Earth Sciences
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Scripps Institute of Oceanography
US Geological Survey
Water and Climate Impacts Research Center University of Victoria
Institute for the Study of Society and Environment National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado
Department of Environmental Studies University of Waterloo
Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory
World Data Center for Glaciology National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, CO
Climate and Global Dynamics Division – Paleoclimatology National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Department of Earth and Marine Sciences Australian National University
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research New Zealand
Department of Climatic Change and Climate Impacts University of Geneva
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Germany
Center for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo, Norway
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich
So what do you say - all these are lies and only you are right (sorry, and also the Heartland Institute)
This combination of high language, subtle profanity and amateur psychology continues to surprise...
Ehud, the trend analysis you did on the tip of the chopchick of the warming graph is meaningless. Such a short period of time cannot even be used as a basis for speculation, and certainly not for drawing conclusions.
You are really right, if you choose another year there is no respite.
.
If you start in 2001, you get a rate decrease of 0.04 degrees per century.
If you start in 2002, you get a rate decrease of 0.24 degrees per century.
If you start in 2003, you get a rate decrease of 0.22 degrees per century.
If you start in 2004, you get a rate decrease of 0.1 degrees per century.
If you start in 2005, you get a rate decrease of 0.26 degrees per century.
And only if you start in 2006 you get an increase(!) at a rate of 0.26 degrees per century.
So maybe I didn't learn derivatives in the XNUMXth grade, but as you can see, I do know how to calculate change trends using Excel.
So maybe stop trusting the NASA people, who are trying to throw sand in your eyes so that you don't realize that they made fun of themselves, and look with your own eyes(!), at reality, and activate your brain(!) to understand what is happening. I think I already wrote here that in Russia they said: "Stalin thinks for us", but this is not Russia, and I am convinced that you are not a Hasid of Rabbi Pinto or Rabbi Malovevich either.
Every time I am amazed anew to discover how reluctant people are to reach conclusions themselves, even if the facts are proven to them unequivocally, and prefer to trust experts or leaders. And I'm talking about secular people and not about religious people who trust their Rebbe. Without being a psychologist I guess it simply stems from a lack of self-confidence.
So since, unlike the people of NASA and the IPCC, I am not afraid to admit my mistakes, I admit that I was wrong when I wrote that you also understand that the greenhouse gas horse is a dead horse. Now I truly understand that as long as those who care for you won't admit it, you will continue to believe that this horse is still alive and kicking.
The respite only exists if you take 1997 as a starting point. If you choose another year there is no respite, and in general, the fact that each year enters the top ten immediately after it ends indicates warming, there is a problem of perception among the deniers of warming who expect each year to be warmer than the previous one. The long-term trend of warming continues. I trust NASA more than deniers who don't care about anything, and they didn't even learn first derivative in XNUMXth grade.
To Avi Blizovsky: Nissim showed defiant stupidity because in his reply to me he did not address what I wrote at all(!) As I already wrote in a previous comment, I don't think he's stupid at all, but rather he's one of those types who enjoy(!) annoying the writers when they present(!) themselves as idiots. Those who do not know these types try in vain time and time again to explain to them, and time and time again they do not relate to what he writes.
As for you, you don't need telepathy to assume that you understand that the greenhouse gas horse is already a dead horse, because you already wrote on this website after the publication of the latest IPCC report: about the "recession in warming in the last 15 years", but you also know that it was only a little while ago For seven years, in their previous report published in 2007, they predicted that warming in the first two decades of the twentieth century would continue (!) at a rate of two degrees per century. It can't be that you don't understand that the data that has accumulated since then, and proved that there is now a "recession in warming", put them, and their forecast, to ridicule and calumny
You also wrote in the title of the current article that the smoke screen and the clouds "hide" the degree of warming, but it is not possible that you do not understand that in the opinion of Professor Rosenfeld they do not "hide" the warming, but cancel(!) the effect of the greenhouse gas, and that this is the reason why the Earth stopped heating up. And there is a huge difference between these two meanings.
And you can't possibly not understand that if Professor Rosenfeld is right, and if we continue to create the "screen of smoke and clouds" that will cause the "warming lull" to last forever, this whole issue of global warming will simply drop off the agenda of the entire world and its wife, and will come to a savior .
And finally, I'm posting here a link to an article I published just yesterday, expressing my opinion on the subject.
http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-89948-00.html
Wishing you abundant health and happiness,
Ehud Perlsman
sympathetic
Once again you have reached the wrong conclusions based on incomplete data that you do not understand.
Nothing new here…
sympathetic
Now is the discussion here at your level? Or do you want to lower it?
Ehud Perlsman I understand from your response that you are a psychologist and diagnoses people (apparently anyone who is not ready to shoot an arrow first and mark a target around him like you is an idiot) and you also think you have telepathy and you know what I think in my secret heart.
To Snofkin not only is he not respectable, he is probably not a master either.
After my friend rolled with laughter when I told him that someone wrote to me that he has a "science degree" and that's why he understands better than me, I came to the sad conclusion that you are actually really a child and not just childish. Only a child could think that he would be able to make an impression with a "science degree" on people who write comments on the science website.
So you didn't insult me, you made me laugh, and my friend too, but the truth is that I was also a little sorry, because really when you started you didn't show the defiant stupidity of Nissim, nor the desperate insistence of Avi Blizovsky, who in the secret of his heart probably understands that this horse of the greenhouse gas He is already a dead horse.
נ
Snupkin
The one showing ignorance here is you. And according to the content of your comments I have great doubt about your claim that you studied science.
Snupkin
The chance of having a discussion with a global warming denier who really understands the field is quite negligible...
As I wrote, I'm sorry you were offended
But when someone conducts a discussion from a position of complete confidence in his rightness even though he has no basic understanding - it's annoying.
And you manage to annoy everyone here because the things you write show how much you don't understand and yet you insist on acting as if the truth is clear to you and that all the world's scientists do not know what they are talking about.
No one here is waving at anything, they are trying to make you understand that the smartest person is the one who realizes that he doesn't know everything.
I tried to explain to you "at eye level" but it doesn't seem to make any difference to you.
So it's time, even for a patient person like me, to admit defeat and end this discussion.
To Mr. Snofkin who was respectable and now really not anymore.
I was really amazed to read your answer where you flaunt the fact that you "have a science degree".
Up until now, you were the only one of the supporters of the greenhouse gas theory who conducted a factual discussion at eye level, but people who flaunt their titles, and look for respect to be given to them, are simply pathetic and ridiculous people.
I have a feeling that you are still a bit of a child, so there is still hope that when you grow up you will realize how pathetic and ridiculous you were when you wrote what you wrote.
Avner (and Ehud)
How did you reach that conclusion?
It is clear that in a system as large as the Earth, heat transfer processes take time. The "temperature of the oceans" should definitely not be 0 degrees.
What is expected is changes in water currents in the ocean, an increase in extreme events and "climatic chaos" that results from rapid changes (on a geological scale). That's pretty much what happens.
I'm not here to argue for one side or the other in the debate, I'm not a climate scientist.
But as a science degree holder, I can clearly see that your understanding of the situation is poor, your arguments are unscientific and illogical.
Maybe in the end it will turn out that the global warming deniers are right, who knows, but in my opinion neither of you have the necessary knowledge to have this kind of debate here.
All you do is cite data you have no training to interpret and claim it proves some claim you want to believe. It's not serious.
It's okay to ask questions and express doubts, but you'd do well to adopt a little modesty.
I know it's a bit insulting and I apologize, but that's the way it is.
Snowpicon. According to you, the temperature of the oceans should have been 0 degrees.
How do you explain that it is not so? Does the earth not obey the laws of thermodynamics?
I understand Ehud.
You are basically saying that the earth is not a thermodynamic system and it does not obey the laws of physics, and that it is absolutely impossible that after a certain increase in temperature a stop will occur because the heat energy is invested in changing the state of aggregation of the poles from solid (ice) to liquid, just as the graph shows.
In fact, you make the scientific claim that "the Earth does not go through any such process at all" and hope that now that you "explained better" I can finally understand your words...
Is this an accurate reflection?
To the honorable Mr. Snofkin.
I answered you, but briefly, and you probably didn't understand my answer. The diagram you showed demonstrates situations where you heat a substance and its temperature does not rise because it goes from one state of aggregation to another - for example from water to water vapor. But the earth does not go through any such process at all.
The difference between ice and water, and between water and steam is a fundamental difference, and there is no such difference between the state the earth was in twenty years ago, when it warmed, and its state now, when it is not warming.
I hope that now I explained better, and that you understood my words.
I would be happy if the discussion here was less emotional and more scientific...
For example, Ehud, you didn't pay attention to what I said at the beginning.
Look at the heating curve on Wikipedia (I'll try to put a link, don't know if it will work)
Tell me why you think this curve cannot explain the "cease in warming"?
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%A3%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94.jpg
Avner/Ehud
I'm sorry I react harshly when I hear nonsense.
Avner - exactly like that. I stand behind the fact that the increase in the concentration of the PADH is a main factor in the absorption of energy by the atmosphere. That's how cuckoo bodies (in your eyes) like NOAA, NASA and many other organizations think.
Ehud - The Heartland organization finances a large part of the denial of global warming, just as it also finances the denial of the damages from smoking.
I try very hard not to descend to the level of politeness you demonstrate.
I have a good memory and you can also search and find a comment you wrote several months ago in which you will see the simplicity
that is in global warming. Your nonsense: an increase in temperature = an increase in temperature and I'm quoting from memory "yes, it's that simple".
So it's not easy...
And this will be my reaction to the Ark of Miracles. Your ignorance outweighs your impoliteness.
Lavner: I stopped referring to miracles because it is clear as day that he is just trying to upset.
From my many experiences on the "first class" site where I write articles and also respond to others' articles, I know the types who simply ignore what I write, and respond with nonsense whose sole purpose is to present themselves as idiots, and make me try to explain to them over and over again what I wrote. So I present data to Nisim, and he responds by telling me about the Heartland Institute (the devil knows who it is). I strongly advise you to ignore it, because it really is a waste of time and effort. "Don't answer a fool as his folly, lest you also be compared to him"..
Avner
Pay attention honey...
NOAA has a Cray XT6 computer - about 500 teraflops
NCAR has a computer called Yellowstone producing 1.5 peta-flops
The Australian Center for Climate Research has a 1.2 petaflop computer
but a small part of the computers used for climate prediction. What is interesting is that weather forecasting has weaker computers...
Avner.... you don't even think
Miracles,
Ehud Perlsman's response is excellent. matter-of-fact and correct. The one who is crazy here is you. You who think it is possible to simulate the Earth's climate with the help of a Commodore 64 computer.
Ehud Perlsman
You are just amazing 🙂
What is the relationship between the research institutes and the alternative energy producers?
Are all scientists liars?
Why do so many of the global warming deniers have a connection to organizations like Heartland, and of course the oil producers themselves?
Dear Mr. Snupkin.
I have a feeling that of all the supporters of the greenhouse gas theory who have written here, you are the only honest person. So first of all, and for the avoidance of doubt, I do not (!) claim that there was no warming, but prove through the data that the warming stopped in 2001.
I have no argument with people like you, who believe that we should reduce the burning of fuels, and switch to clean alternative energies. I have no doubt that, as you wrote, eventually humanity will switch to alternative energy, because coal, oil and gas will run out.
The only thing I am against is the dishonesty involved in the whole argument. And if we start with alternative energy, it is clear that if the supporters of the greenhouse gas theory really believed in their prophecies of rage, they would support the construction of nuclear reactors, which are the only source of alternative energy that has economic viability. But they oppose nuclear reactors because of primal pagan fears of the word nuclear. And they are actually mobilizing the warming for their fight for green energy sources such as solar or wind energy, which are completely unprofitable from an economic point of view, and basically want us all to waste money on their craziness.
But my main argument is towards the climate scientists who happily agreed to be a servant in the hands of environmentalists. They are simply deceiving the public, and tricking them into believing that they fully understand why there was warming in the past, know why it stopped for over thirty years between 1940 and 1980, and can also predict what will happen in the future. This is not how scientists should behave who only have the scientific truth in front of their eyes, and for that I am furious.
Wishing you abundant health and happiness,
Ehud Perlsman
Listen Mr. Perlsman.
Forget about the warm-up thing for a moment. Some things are certain:
1) Carbon dioxide levels are the highest observed in the last millions of years.
2) Burning fossil fuels is not good for man in any way. Also due to the increase in carbon dioxide levels, both because of the pollution and because it is not sustainable.
* That is, what should be done under the worst assumption, that there is warming and that it is our fault, is to reduce polluting and emitting activity.
What should be done under the most positive assumption, that there is no warming and that nothing is our fault, is exactly the same!
So what does it actually matter?
Will be corrected
Research in Nature led by Prof. Daniel Rosenfeld - this is how a new article published this week in the prestigious journal Science states and reviews a variety of research conducted in recent years on the topic of the greenhouse effect.
mistake?
Ehud Perlsman
You really don't have to explain anything to me. But, in not many years, you will have to explain to your children what you based your opinions on, opinions that are contrary to science, opinions that are contrary to observations, opinions that are contrary to the experience of anyone who has lived for several years in our world.
good luck with that
As soon as there are enough fools in Israel to translate this brainwashing into Hebrew, no logic will help. Remember that this is the exact same organization that denied the harms of smoking. He will do anything to serve whoever pays him. Including outright lies while taking advantage of the public's ignorance
Lenisim: I don't have to explain anything to you because either you don't read what I write at all, or you read but enjoy presenting yourself as a fool who doesn't understand a word of what he reads.
For my part, you can also believe that if you want hard enough, you will live forever.
Let's see the methods of a well-known organization that finances a lot of the denial of the problem (like Watts for example):
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder
Ehud/Avner
You must explain how the emission of greenhouse gases by man will not cause changes in the climate.
A huge majority of the scientists (who understand the field) claim that there is warming, and that there may be a slowdown today due to the absorption of some of the energy by aerosols (which are a problem in themselves).
From the meager verification that claims there is no problem, there are at least 4 opinions:
1) There is no warming up at all
2) There is warming but it is not man's fault
3) There is warming and it is generally good that there is warming
4) God will not let something bad happen to man.
Not exactly a cohesive group with itself....
When the same scientists are responsible for extending my life expectancy three times, I have a tendency to believe them…
I don't know... maybe it's just me...
Ehud Perlsman, you are also surely aware of the "coincidence" that coincides with the shrinking of the ice caps in Israel. have also shrunk
The ice caps on Mars. What can be concluded from this?
After all, this fact is enough to shatter into pieces that whole conspiracy theory (I liked the expression).
Avi Belzovsky, the one who behaves as a "denier" or a bunch of derogatory expressions is you and your ilk. You are impervious to other thinking, fixated on the greenhouse gas theory. You forgot somewhere along the way what is an established scientific theory and what is not.
It's clear as day that something happened, and what happened is that the Earth warmed up between 1980-200, and since then it has not cooled down but stayed at the hot temperature it reached, and therefore all the warm years are in the last 15 years. Unlike the deniers, who I don't believe a word of, and it seems to me that just like the supporters of the greenhouse gas theory they are also throwing sand in their eyes, I am not at all claiming that the data is inaccurate, but on the contrary, all I do is analyze the data that I trust one hundred percent.
But now the real root of the dispute between us finally becomes clear, because I look exclusively (!) at the data, and draw conclusions exclusively (!) from them, while you speak of "a physical fact that does not depend on measurements but on the physical properties of the material". The dog is buried right here. Because the fact is that those who think like you, that it is about "physical properties of the material", have presented a forecast that has been falsified. The test of a scientific theory is its predictive ability, and this theory was simply disproved by the data.
But actually Professor Rosenfeld and I came to a similar conclusion.. He believes that greenhouse gases are warming, but that there is an unknown factor that cools and cancels their effect, whereas I believe there is no proof that they are warming at all. But as soon as he admits that there is an unknown factor that cancels the effect of greenhouse gases, that's enough for me. Because my claim is that the climate scientists have created an illusion according to which they understand everything, and therefore can also predict what will happen, and now they are beginning to admit that they do not know everything. And that's the end of the story.
Obviously, not every year will be warmer than the previous one, it is not a linear function, there are El Niño and La Niña years, there is a matter of sunspot activity. There may be jumps up and down, but the baseline is constantly rising because the amount of greenhouse gases is accumulating. This is really not the nail in the coffin of the greenhouse gas fact. This is a physical fact that does not depend on measurements but on the physical properties of the material and as mentioned Prof. Rosenfeld also agrees with it. By the way all the ten warmest years in history were since 1997, you have to agree that something happened.
To Avi Blizovsky: I'm really glad that you're finally starting to look at the data. The truth is that 2013 was the fifth year. They rank both 2013 and 2003 as fourth, but as I already wrote, 2013 was a bit colder than 2003.
Since the topic of global warming is one of the topics that interests me the most, I look every month at the previous month's data (they publish monthly data every month), and I am really knowledgeable about them. What this data says is that the trend between 2001 and 2013 is -0.04 degrees per century, which is the closest trend to zero for a 13-year period since 1880 when NOAA data begins. That is, the period of 2001-2013 is the most stable 13-year period since the data began.
I am not one of the deniers, and I am not interested in anything except the scientific truth. And as mentioned, in my opinion the scientific truth is that we have no idea why the Earth has warmed. The fact that between the years 1940-1980 there were more than thirty years of stability while the concentration of greenhouse gases rose, contradicts the theory of the greenhouse gas, and the story of the sulfate aerosols is just a weak run to me. How is it that the effect of the increase in the concentration of sulfate aerosols exactly (!) balanced the effect of the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases? And of course the current stability is also contrary to their prediction, and now they are starting to look for explanations for the stability, and as mentioned, Professor Rosenfeld is dealing with exactly that.
So what really upsets me is that the climate scientists took the greenhouse gas theory, which is actually not a theory but a gut theory based on chicken legs, and created in the public the impression that it is a scientific truth. There are several alternative explanations for the greenhouse gas explanation, and you must be familiar with the explanation of Sevensmark-Shabib, but I am short of deciding on the issue. All I am claiming is that the issue of global warming should remain on the pages of the scientific press, and not become a political issue involving billions (!) of dollars. In my opinion, the greenhouse gas people have turned themselves into servants of politicians, and that's not how scientists should behave.
And for miracles: the IPCC report published a few months ago admits that there is a slowdown in the warming trend, which is exactly the opposite(!) of what the NASA people wrote in the article you quote from four years ago. I am convinced that NASA people would not write today what they wrote four years ago. Every year that goes by without any warming being recorded puts another nail in the coffin of the greenhouse gas theory. You will find an answer to your question about the relationship between scientists and politicians in my answer to Avi Blizovsky.
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4482601,00.html
Ehud Perlsman
NASA says ""We conclude there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15 (to) 0.20ºC (per) decade that began in the late 1970s.""
Article in Scientific American from 2010
Do you really think that all important scientific journalism is held captive by politicians?
And one more thing - the year 2013 was the year in which the fourth highest temperature was measured since 1880 (according to NOAA.gov data) and wonder and wonder, the warming continues despite the Wishful Sinking
Ehud, do you agree that greenhouse gases are warming? The whole problem with the deniers is that they use their denial as an excuse to prevent reducing carbon emissions. What happens with the rest of the stuff? - Pollution also needs to be reduced for many reasons.
Benjamin May: I don't understand at all what you want from me. I proposed to cool the earth with acid rain?! I claimed that the earth is cooling because of pollutants?! It is Professor Rosenfeld who claims, not me.
All I claim, and Avi Blizovsky stubbornly refuses to agree with me, is that in the years 2001-2013, the trend of temperature change is very, very close to zero - that is, absolute stability. Avi Blizovsky refuses to acknowledge this fact, and continues to claim that the Earth is warming.
And the claim arising from the fact that warming stopped in 2001 is that the cessation of warming is contrary to the forecast presented in the IPCC report for 2007. According to this forecast, which was prepared based on the greenhouse gas theory, in the first decades of the 21st century warming will continue at a rate of two degrees per century. Since the data disproved the forecast, the greenhouse gas theory according to which the forecast was prepared was also disproved.
The conclusion that follows from these claims is that we have no idea why the Earth warmed during the twentieth century, and if you disagree with this conclusion, you are welcome to present your arguments.
Lahud Perlsman: You are not reinventing anything.
It has long been known that SO2, which is for example among the burning materials of coal,
Reduces global warming resulting from the increase in the percentage of carbon dioxide
Oxygen in the atmosphere. In fact, one of the suggestions for cooling the ball is
using SO2. The question is whether we want to live in the world
Cooled by acid rain.
Your words are pleasing to my ears Mr. Ehud, but I am afraid that the debate has long since become a debate between a secularist who is trying to prove to the religious person that there is no logic in his belief.
To Avi Blizovsky: I think you're just trying to hold the stick at both ends, which is impossible.
You publish an article about a study by Professor Rosenfeld, and it is clear as day that the purpose of the study is to explain why while the concentration of greenhouse gases continues to rise, the temperature of the Earth does not rise. Professor Rosenfeld's claim is that the pollutants cause cooling, thereby canceling the effect of the greenhouse gases.
But you present yourself as one who simply does not understand what Rosenfeld is talking about at all, and insists that the Earth continues to warm. But if it continues to warm, there is nothing to talk about at all about pollutants that eliminate the effect of greenhouse gases, and there is no point in Rosenfeld's research. Your insistence on continuing to claim that the Earth is warming presents you as a person who does not at all understand the logic behind the Rosenfeld study that you write about.
You also claim that the fact that 2011 was colder than 2001 is a cherry, and that 2012 was colder than 2002 is a cherry, and that 2013 was colder than 2003 is also a cherry, and basically claims that even though the Earth is warming, its temperature is not rising. This claim is so ridiculous that any child will look at you strangely and wonder if you are serious, or laughing at him.
So instead of burying your head in the sand, you should look at reality with your eyes, and understand that the main goal of climate scientists today is to find the reason for the cessation of warming, while maintaining the greenhouse gas theory. That is, to find factors for cooling that eliminate the effect of the greenhouse gas. This is what Rosenfeld is doing, and I am convinced that soon more and more theories will appear that point to other cooling factors. If you don't acknowledge that warming has stopped, you won't be able to faithfully present these theories to your readers, and that's a shame. It's just a shame.
Email him yourself.
Lavner: Indeed, November this year was the hottest November since they started collecting data, and if the temperature in the whole of 2013 (calculated based on the average of the 12 months) had been the same as the temperature of November, I would have been shocked, and the people of the greenhouse gas theory would have gone out dancing in the streets. Since I follow the data published every month, I was still quite shocked by the heat of November, but fortunately December was much colder, and as mentioned, in the end, 2013 was colder than 2003.
To Snofkin and miracles: global warming is the increase in the temperature of the earth's surface, and each year is represented by only one figure - the average temperature in that year. My feeling is that Nissim knows but is trying to throw sand in his eyes, while Snofkin is much more honest and simply has a hard time believing that the whole story is so simple, and/or doesn't understand why most scientists don't say exactly what I say, and doesn't understand that they are also trying to throw sand in their eyes Given the collapse of their theory.
And to my father Blizovsky: I suggested that you ask Professor Rosenfeld whether there was warming in the years 2001-2013, and instead you tell me that he believes in the greenhouse gas theory. But I'm talking about facts and not beliefs, and the fact is that in 2001 the warming stopped. clear and smooth.
The hat is on fire on the thief's head - you are the world champions in picking cherries
The religious person sometimes brings passages from the Tanach that seem to confirm its truth. By choosing paragraphs that seem to have been derived from events or disasters that occurred.
similarly The Khammist will look in the statistics books for numbers that correspond to his desire. Paragraphs such as "The warmest November in the last 100 years"
A real scientist knew how to stand up to this probabilistic poor grasp.
From now on, don't say "north in the Torah" say "north in the randomness of statistics"
sympathetic
As I said, it is a complex and large system. It takes time for the heat to move from place to place and there are other factors that affect it.
What is important to understand is that the temperature measurement is paradoxically the least significant figure when it comes to examining warming.
Change in the amount of ice, sea level rise, changes in central currents in the ocean, all these are much more significant data.
The truth is that I don't know the above data either, but what I do know is that your view of the subject is one-dimensional and unscientific.
The question is, are you looking for the truth? Or are you simply defending a position because you want to believe it?
Ehud Perlsman
I didn't know that number one sums up the issue! If I knew it was so simple...
Oh wait ….. let’s see what NOAA really says about 2013:
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F)
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the September–November period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F), the second warmest such period on record, behind only 2005
According to Roshydromet, Russia observed its warmest November since national records began in 1891. Some areas of the Urals, Siberia, south of the Far East region, and on the Arctic islands in the Kara Sea had temperatures that were more than 8°C ( 14°F) higher than the monthly average
The average November temperature across Norway was 1.5°C (2.7°F) higher than the 1981–2010 average, with some regions 2°–3°C (4°–5°F) above average
The average temperature was higher than the 1971–2000 average across all of Hungary for November, with departures up to +3°C (+5°F) in the western half and more than +4°C (+7°F) in the far east
November temperatures were 3.9°–5.2°C (7.0°–9.4°F) above average across the Republic of Moldova
According to the Fiji Meteorological Service, most regions of the country were considerably warmer than the 1971-2000 average, with maximum and minimum temperature anomalies exceeding 1°C (1.8°F) at more than half of the 21 official monitoring stations. New November monthly warm minimum temperature records were set at four stations, with periods of records ranging from 35 to 71 years
I am of course presenting only a few sentences - from your source.
Sorry, I referred to monthly data. Below is a link to annual data.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
Ehud, apparently the explanation from the researcher himself that he supports that the DTP is warming, is not enough for you. Go invent your own physics
To Mr. Snofkin: Thank you for the lesson in thermodynamics. So now go ahead and explain to us how your ice cubes warmed between the years 1980-2000, and haven't warmed for 13 years.
For a miracle: there is not a single climate researcher who claims that there was warming between the years 2001-2013, simply because the data of the measurements indicate that such warming does not exist. You obviously don't know the data, so you don't know that the year 2011 was colder than the year 2001, that the year 2012 was colder than the year 2002, and that the year 2013 was also colder than the year 2003. I'm sure you think you're very very smart and sophisticated, but I'm writing it down for you here Link, and maybe you'll be even smarter and even more sophisticated (if that's even possible), when you see the data. The data is from NCDC, the US National Climatic Data Center, and at this time only goes back to 2012. As for 2013 you have to believe me I know. (Perhaps by the time you look, they will also update the data for 2013).
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
Avner
Why do almost all climate scientists, with the exception of a very few, claim there is warming?
Let me answer you:
1) Theory says there should be warming
2) The measurements confirm the theory
3) There is no 3….
Did I miss something?
The religious person. What does he say about the dinosaurs? which are not mentioned in the Torah.
What does the religious person say about the fact that the world has existed for much more than five thousand years?
The religious person will renovate his religion so that it fits the new scientific discoveries.
Similarly, the members of the new religion are called "climate scientists" and I have even heard "warmists". These clerics are renovating their religion
in order to match reality. What does the priest of the new religion actually say? He says:
"The fact that there is no warming does not mean that there is no warming".
And now we will wait for the followers of the new religion to start shouting how much I am an infidel, promiscuous and lacking in understanding of the real truth of our world!
Dear Ehud
In order to understand warming, one must understand thermodynamics.
For example, when you heat a glass of water with several ice cubes, what will happen?
The water temperature will not rise until all the ice cubes have melted!
That is, the heat energy is used to change the aggregation state of the ice and therefore the temperature remains stable.
In a complex system like the Earth, of course there are many other influencing factors. This is just a small example of the lack of knowledge used by climate change deniers.
You are certainly welcome to ask Professor Rosenfeld whether the warming trend continued in the years 2001-2013, or whether the trend is one of absolute stability - neither warming nor cooling. I have no doubt that he will confirm the fact that the trend is one of stability, simply because it is a question of fact and not a question of interpretation. Therefore, there is no reason to write to me: "And no one has authorized you to give interpretations as to whether the warming has stopped or not." No one needs to authorize me to write that it is now day and not night.
The required interpretation is in connection with the reasons for stability, and it is clear that the goal of Professor Rosenfeld's research is to find the reason for this stability, which is contrary to the prediction that was accepted by the believers in the greenhouse gas theory until a few years ago.
Fortunately, I am indeed not one of the climate scientists who see their theory collapsing before their waking eyes, but I can point out that when I began to take an interest in the subject about six years ago, I was really amazed to find out that in the years 1940-1980 there was stability in the temperature even though there was an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Therefore, in my opinion, the greenhouse gas theory does not even deserve the name "theory", but the name "conjecture" (in English).
But as mentioned, my argument is not against the climate scientists' inability to explain what is happening, because it is really a very, very difficult issue, but against their cooperation with the politicians, which was manifested in the fact that they created the impression that they understood everything, even though they knew it was a false impression. In this they were complicit in the fraud, and this is their greatest sin.
The title of the article really bothers me. To open a headline with "Is something something..." when the same something is well explained in the article and it is implied that the answer is positive is bad writing of headlines (Vints do it all the time).
Especially in an article like this, there is no question whether it exists - there is research that indicates that it exists. Of course the research does not say this with complete certainty and questions always exist, but the title is not the place for that.
Ehud, Prof. Rosenfeld is an unequivocal supporter, he both wrote it and told me, that the accumulation of carbon dioxide ends in warming. If he had denied warming, Nature would not have published the article, and the fact that there are other factors in the system (the effect of air pollution on health is bad even if it moderates warming) does not mean that those who claim that warming is man-made are wrong, and that does not change everything The scientists to the politicians.
And again, I tell you, and if you listen to the broadcast you will see that Prof. Rosenfeld also agrees with this, that the transformation of Israel into a desert where the rain patterns are those of floods, is a result of global climate change. You are not a climate scientist and no one has authorized you to comment on whether the warming has stopped or not.
Exactly two years ago, I wrote an article about the hiatus in warming, and I ended it with the words: "It is to be hoped that the updated data will open more and more eyes, and the changes in the temperature of the earth, and the reasons for them, will once again be a subject of scientific research, and not of political propaganda." You responded to the article and wrote: "The greatest experts in the field of climate are unequivocal, the earth is warming and the reason is man". So in the meantime, the new IPCC report was published, and the experts also admitted that there was a "slowdown" in warming (and they deliberately calculated a trend starting from the El Nino year 1998, when in the years 1998-2013 there is still an upward trend, and not from the La Nina year 2001, when the trend in the years 2001- 2013 is absolute stability and unprecedented in its stability). And here we see that the scientists begin to look for reasons for stability, and unsurprisingly return to the polluters. It should be mentioned that the almost forty-year period of stability between the years 1940-1980, which coincided with the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases, they explained in sulfate aerosols, and now they are starting to search in the immediate environment. The truth is, of course, that we don't know why there was stability in the years 1940-1980, we don't know why there was warming in the years 1980-2000, and we don't know why there was stability again in the years 2001-2013. This is not the only scientific field where we don't have answers, but it is the most obvious scientific field where scientists have happily become servants of politicians and environmentalists. So the time is really approaching when the climate question will once again be a subject of scientific research and not a political subject, and a savior will come