Phil Plate, the owner of the blog Bad Astronomy, responds to the news in the Daily Mail and also adds that the writer of the article, David Rose, is a long-time climate denier who works in exactly the same way that creationists deny evolution and supporters of the flat earth claim deny its sphericity. "His claims are ridiculously wrong."
A respected Israeli newspaper, Israel Hayom, fell in the trash this week When he quoted an article from the British tabloid Daily Mail (in its weekly editionMail on Sunday') who 'buried' the warming in arguments stemming from ignorance and added sentences that show agreement with the article: "How will the supporters of the global warming theory explain it? Six years after the BBC network quoted American scientists who claimed that in the summer of 2013 there would be no ice left in the North Pole, it is announced that the amount of ice in the region has increased this summer by 60 percent compared to last year. This is reported by the British weekly "Mail on Sunday."
And reporter Dan Lavie continues: In practice, this is almost 2.5 million square kilometers of ice more than in 2012. According to the weekly, these data led the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to hold a "crisis meeting" in October and discuss the meaning of these findings (at the end This month, a preliminary conference is expected to be held in Stockholm, before the publication of the panel's updated evaluation report)"
The late Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Let's assume that the factual claim is apparently true (it is also exaggerated, but more on that later), and we did have one summer where there was less ice during the thaw, is this what eliminates the warming trend that has been going on for decades, and drags us into an ice age? A little look at the graph Published in DISCOVER magazine To understand that even after the seemingly impressive increase, we are far below the ice cover levels of 1980.
Phil Plate, owner of the Bad Astronomy blog Commenting on the news in the Daily Mail and also adding that the author of the article, David Rose, is a long-time climate denier who works exactly the way creationists deny evolution and supporters of the flat earth claim deny its sphericity. "His claims are ridiculously wrong.
"Rose made jaw-dropping statements. Among other things, he claims that the Earth is cooling, that the ice cover has increased by 60% over the past year, and that the International Panel on Climate Change is under attack and is about to hold an "emergency" meeting.
These claims are misleading at best. The first claim and the third claim are simply false, and the second is essentially 'cherry picking'."
Rose's first claim is that the Earth is cooling. This is a continuation of the claim thatThe warming stopped a long time ago. Both things are not true. The surface temperature did not rise, but not at the same rate as a decade ago or so, but as we understand that the excess heat is stored in the oceans and will leave there at some point. Surface temperature is only one piece of the puzzle. It should also be remembered that Nine of the ten warmest years since 1880 were registered in the last decade.
The second claim is that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean is now 60% higher than in August 2012, technically correct, but extremely misleading. In the summer of 2012, the ice in the Arctic Ocean reached an all-time negative record. Given that extreme point, it's no surprise that he won't be as extreme this year. As we can see in the attached graph, the ice cover, as it is measured in the areas of sea on Earth covered with ice, was very low last year. Rose wants us to think that the ice is making a big comeback, but it's like getting a 60 on a test after you got a 40 on the previous test. Sure, it's better, but still not good enough.
The title of the article "Record record of the actic ice cap - increased by 60% per year" is also misleading. The sea ice grows and shrinks with the seasons each year and is in retreat from the spring, but the trend over time is definitely one of decline. Regardless, the area covered by the ice is not the most important figure but the volume of the ice. Ice can cover a wide area but if it is thin, it is of no use. Thin ice does melt quickly in the summer. Currently, The sea ice volume trend is in sharp decline.
As mentioned, the third claim regarding the emergency meeting is also incorrect. Ed Hawkins, a British climate scientist claims that he explained to Rose that there was no crisis meeting but this did not stop Rose from making these claims.
76 תגובות
There is something apparently wrong with your attitude. Are you ready to stop talking about slogans? This father keeps trying to come up with scary slogans like the climate has changed? Not the end of September as chilly as always right? So where is the global warming then it is that there is no global cooling so who doesn't understand that there was warming there is no extinction but there is no more global cooling has begun
Eran
You represent very well what is wrong with global warming deniers. The 11-year cycle of the sun is known, and the difference in energy during the cycle is less than a millimeter. There really are natural cycles in the climate, called Milankovitch cycles. According to these cycles, of which there is much evidence, we should be in a cooling period today. That is not the case.
And as for the last year - it was an especially cold winter and there was also an especially summer. But like an average denier, you're spreading the lie that it was a particularly cold year.
And to say that the CO2 level does not affect the climate? Would it be better to know where you got this information from? You just don't get it, so you better shut up so they don't think you're an idiot…..
Eran, if they didn't know the reason for the increase in the amount of CO2, you would be right and you would have had to look for some correlation with a factor such as the sun. In the current case - which cannot be compared to any period in history, man is the one who emits this gas into the air. It is a greenhouse gas and also amounts of promils are dangerous, so to say 0.0X is simply misleading.
The fact that the source published 60% of it and this is only compared to a previous year, the taking of 1880 by all the SO CALLED climatists as a measure of something is simply a sad joke.
Proper research is done by other scientists who go to the poles and drill deep.
Those people who did this and also observed the sunspot cycles did indeed discover a correlation between the increase in carbon and the increase in temperatures, but wonder and wonder... the correlation is the opposite in general. That is, carbon dioxide levels only increased a few hundred years after a continuous increase in solar activity. and not the other way around.
On this they said if the facts do not match her description -> change the facts
By the way, like someone said before... the CO2 level of all the ozone that has risen is 0.00X
It is simply ridiculous to claim that this is what raised the temperatures.
The only conspiracy here is climatists looking for money in science that less than 20 years ago had nothing in it.
We are polluting this planet..there is no doubt about that, but there is no connection between this and the warming/cooling..in this we are at the mercy of nature.
A final word about graphs, the last year was one of the coldest since they started measuring, it's amazing how climatists kill the graphs he made according to statistics but at the same time consider theirs to be correct.
Avi Blizovsky - No, a plurality of opinions on one side does not mean that there is more of a duty of confirmation on the other side. The obligation to confirm seems to be the same, was it necessary in the beginning when they talked about warming and there was apparently a majority against it, in some unusual way? No.
In any case, the word 'proof' is not appropriate, proof is only in mathematics. In reality there are only findings, evidence and confirmations.
Again, these are few and in order for a few to go against the consensus, hand waving is not enough, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof and no one has seen this so far among the global warming deniers.
Scientists come to a conclusion that is contrary to what you believe - that's why they "deny" as far as you are concerned
They are deniers of the excuse kind. The main thing is not to act against the disaster that is already happening and will increase in the coming years.
Avi Blizovsky
This is a straw man - most of the "deniers" you meet agree that there has indeed been warming and claim that its cause is (mostly) non-human. They question anthropogenic warming. Are they no longer "in denial" as far as you are concerned?
For the sake of science, the differences of opinion on the topic of warming are mainly between deniers and scientists. The few scientists who think otherwise, do not claim that there is no warming but that other factors are to blame for it.
Maybe a little less trendy? Because the disagreements are between scientists and scientists, not between deniers and scientists.
Father, this is not a *conspiracy theory*.
First because it is not a theory. There is documentation of actual emails he (Michael Mann, I think) sent to magazine editors, this is not speculation. And the emails are threatening regardless of the scientific value of the articles.
Second, this is not a conspiracy. If some of the magazine editors succumbed to his threats, there is no conspiracy here. It is not a collaboration between many people and not a big secret, but just one person or a very small group that formulated an agenda.
Third, McIntyre published his articles in journals that were brave enough and perhaps a little less reputable. But scientific journals and with a peer review process as usual, which was not done in the case of the publications of Michael Mann, Barifa and their friends.
By the way, your blind faith in rabbis amazes me. You know worse than the ultra-Orthodox, for whom if the rabbi is accused of rape then the police planted evidence against him, and it is impossible that he really did what is attributed to him...
You prefer to believe this weak explanation rather than the more obvious explanation - that simply his statistics and his research methods were screwed up in the first place and he did not want to be criticized on the subject and rejected scientifically.
And it is a fact that his concerns did suit him - McIntyre and his friends managed to completely contradict the research base on the subject and now in the draft of the latest report of the IPCC there is a significant recognition of a large part of the points he raised in his criticism: the tree rings, MWP that did exist (they admit that only in part of the globe - but this is a walk serious about him! They claimed there was nothing) and on and on and on.
If everything he wrote was nonsense and he 'distorted' the data, how could his criticism have been accepted?!
Moreover, McIntyre did not propose a competing graph of his own at all, but only showed that the method used by Mann and his friends was neither acceptable nor reliable.
Abby, bottom line, I have a feeling you don't know what I'm talking about. It is clear to me that you will not accept my recommendation to read a book written about the affair, but without knowing the arguments, which are supported by the emails, and without even knowing what Steve McIntyre's criticism of the hockey stick graph, the heart of the dangerous man-made global warming theory, is, it is difficult to relate to the faith Your innocence in the rest of the warm-up.
I just want to conclude and say that Steve McIntyre did not prove that global warming is not man-made and in fact did not prove anything but only contradicted the Hammists' proof. And that I would be happy to continue reading articles on the Hidan website, but with a little less dogmatism and apologetics. Your competitor, the 'green blog', writes from a *more* balanced angle (it is also biased, but less so). The mysterious Jacob writes in a relatively moderate and matter-of-fact language, reporting more on data and less preoccupied with accusations. I haven't formed my general opinion (not on the subject of MWP) yet.
Yossi, you claim that this is not a conspiracy, but your description - that he is not allowed to publish in magazines because of his opinions is a conspiracy. Nonsense of any kind is not allowed to be published. And from what I was impressed by, Climate Gate did not prove that the scientists were faking, but only that they were tired of giving data to people who were already known to distort it.
Miracles - now I noticed that you answered me at the end.
I read a whole book about the 'hockey stick graph' which makes scientifically difficult claims about the conduct of the study, the reliability of the algorithm and so on, all claims that were published in journals.
What's worse is that the emails revealed in the 'Climategate' affair confirm these suspicions, as Barifa and his friends admit among themselves some of the failures that have been alleged against them, and which they publicly denied existed.
Moreover, these scientists from the University of East Anglia did stop using tree rings as a proxy, just as the criticism claimed in the book (I read it about two years ago).
In the bottom line, I did not read the articles directly and I say this honestly so as not to pretend and not to make demagogic arguments. I only read the book. But if the quotes from the emails written in it are indeed true, then the hockey graph rests on very shaky foundations and even the scientists themselves who created it admit it.
You have to understand that this is not a 'conspiracy' claim like some of the American right. This is an allegation of religious fanaticism and the bending of the data - more or less - for the purpose of adapting it to the green religion. There is not really a conspiracy here, that is, a worldwide connection, but a small group of scientists who study the subject (of the hockey graph only, everything else is less relevant) who managed to dominate their agenda. That's fine and it happens from time to time, but science needs to correct itself.
There is no secret society here that tries to harm people. Although, again, there are unpleasant correspondences in the revealed letters - any kind of statistical criticism that Steve McIntyre wanted to publish about their studies was rejected by important magazines in light of their threats to the editors of the magazines, something that in my opinion absolutely will not be done, and indicates that the editor of the study is not at all sure of his conclusion.
Lansim - I noticed that you did not address my response, I would like to clarify another point.
The claim that a minimum warming of 2 degrees per hundred (don't take me for a figure - I don't remember it exactly) is abnormal warming out of control is a critical claim for proving dangerous man-made global warming.
After all, if throughout history there have been similar and even larger fluctuations, there is no real fear of re-feeding and catastrophe.
To support this claim, we made the famous 'hockey stick' graph (or the famous graphs, it is more correct to say).
This claim is a very unusual claim. An extraordinary claim. To claim that during 2000 or 3000 years the temperature was completely stable except for the last 200 years, this is a strange claim even from a logical point of view - why would the weather freeze and be stable? After all, nothing in nature is really stable - and also historically, since there is ample evidence that in various areas the 12th and 13th centuries were indeed particularly hot. True, there are excuses for this, but it is a particularly serious problem.
After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as any budding skeptic knows.
To date, I have not come across convincing evidence that the 'hockey stick graph' is scientifically accurate. If anything, the opposite. Everything I read on the subject made me doubt it.
And without a hockey stick graph, my friend, your whole beautiful idea falls flat, and it doesn't matter what you think you know or what you don't think you don't know.
a question?
Does anyone know what role is attributed to the Higgs boson in the interaction where two photons "turn" into an electron and a positron. This interaction has always been of particular interest to me. Seems like the private relativity framework doesn't really give the full picture?
Miracles
That's exactly what I'm here to tell you. The difference of 0.07% (according to you) will be immediately felt by a small temporary warming. Noticed how all the temperature reports look, for example: this year was the hottest year in the last hundred years, the ice at the poles reached a 300-year low. From these reports it can be concluded that we were already in a similar situation in the past.
Call me a denier if it makes you feel good, but I don't see a small increase (relative to the total gas) in carbon molecules in the atmosphere as a factor that can noticeably raise the average temperature of the planet.
On the other hand, allow me to refer you to a recent period in history (Wikipedia source):
"Apparently the Chinese astronomers discovered sunspots already in the first millennium AD. However, it was only after the invention of the telescope in 1609 that sunspots were observed and studied in more depth. In these observations, Heinrich Schwebe found that the total number and average strength of sunspots change in cycles of about 11 years, the so-called solar cycle. The reason for the existence of this cycle is still unclear. However, this cycle did not always take place - between the years 1645-1715 no sunspots were observed at all, a period known as the Little Ice Age."
This paragraph shows that a lack of sunspots led to a prolonged ice age, is it so hard to believe that increased activity in the sun will lead to a noticeable increase in temperature. Indeed, in recent years we are at the peak of such a cycle and in recent decades we have witnessed vigorous activity of the sun even in the more "calm" years of the cycle. I won't show you all the sources I checked, but for the sake of picaresque I will take you back (by you I also mean the respected editor) to 2003.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/seasons-in-the-sun-171103/
Regarding the disasters associated with sea level rise - this is not an aerial forecast. It has already started!
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/07/monbiot-climate-change-evacuation
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/sep/29/sea-levels-ghost-states
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/04/27/global-warming-forces-an-alaska-town-of-340-souls-to-relocate/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/disappearing-world-global-warming-claims-tropical-island-429764.html
http://www.climateimc.org/en/breaking-news/2006/09/29/carterets-be-evacuated-due-rising-sea-level
http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/P2M8MtMFnMtu8fNH7c6lIL/The-tragedy-of-the-Maldives.html
Here is a brief explanation
According to desert geologist Stefan Kröpelin, who has studied geological data for the eastern Sahara going back 6,000 years, the desert spread as temperatures dropped. Global cooling meant that the air had less capacity to hold moisture from the oceans, leading to fewer rains and more arid climates.
Now, that same process is happening in reverse. As temperatures rise, the Sahara and other dry areas are greening on the edges.
Joseph
The facts show exactly what I say. The "facts" of all kinds of charlatans show otherwise. If you think otherwise then bring appropriate research. And no, a tabloid article is not exactly convincing.
Jesus
Your claims against me prove my claims 🙂
There is an abysmal difference between day and night, it's true. And the atmosphere does mitigate this difference. There is also a big difference between summer and winter. The higher the sun is in the sky, the more radiation there is (that's obvious), and the difference between noon during the year reaches 47 degrees, a huge difference.
And yet the atmosphere mitigates it. And now - you come to tell me that the difference in the intensity of the sun's radiation of 0.07% is the one that causes the climate changes????
But - if we change even slightly the effect of that mitigating factor, the atmosphere, we will reach significant differences over time. This is what the theory predicts and this is what the measurements show.
After all, if you don't know what to atone for - how will you atone for your sins?
So here.
Don't say "I didn't know".
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm
Whoever thinks that he will push his agenda by force contrary to the scientific position, just because he has an economic or other interest - what other definition does he have than a terrorist?
Besides, I not only translate, but also bring positions of Israeli scientists in the field. Because science is international, the results do not change.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/professor-yoav-yair-at-hayadan-event-0711115/
My father, in light of your comment about the terrorists." You have lost all respect and credibility in my eyes. You are not a scientist. You are just a website owner who translates scientific articles and one who fell for me in the global warming fad.
For some reason I thought you were more than that.
Who:
So it turns out that you don't even know what the big bang theory is.
No one claims to know what happened before Planck time.
You are welcome to read for example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
You will find the following sentence there:
Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[18] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[19] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[20][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe.
Not that I know what you're even arguing about (I haven't read) but I paid attention to your words and saw that you don't know what you're talking about.
I commented on this because, in my opinion, an important prerequisite for raising any reasoning in a debate is knowing what that reasoning is.
To Michael Rothschild and miracles
Of course I have limited knowledge of both theories, that's not surprising.
If so, there is a difference between the first theory (called baby universe) and the big bang theory, in addition to the difference in name. According to the big bang the universe is a singular point that exploded and in the process released a lot of energy which in turn turned into matter. The baby-universe theory (my translation) does not talk about energy that is stopped in a point, but about the property of dark energy to expand the space in which it is found by acceleration. Of course, this theory came to deal with the problems of the big bang theory that was there before it. By the way, there are several other theories that try to deal with the big bang singularity problem, which may sound sexy but is a very serious problem that pretty much throws the rug under the whole theory (at least mathematically).
Regarding the second theory, it does not mention the big bang theory at all, it is true that the person who gave the lecture I mentioned teaches the accepted theories himself, but he is educated enough to understand the problems in them and try other lines of thought as well.
for miracles
The reason the earth is hot in the first place is because the sun radiates on it (I hope you agree with that). Therefore, to say that changes in the amount of radiation emitted by the sun do not affect the climate does indicate that you do not understand it that much. The "job" of the atmosphere is to dampen the extreme changes between: lack of radiation and between radiation (day and night). I hope you also agree that the differences in temperature between the seasons originate from "small" changes in exposure to the sun.
I will expand a bit: take the moon for example, the part that faces the sun reaches a very high temperature immediately, unlike the dark part whose temperature is close to (absolute) zero. In the Earth, the differences between day and night are not that extreme "thanks" to the atmosphere (mainly the water inside it that tries to spread the heat (or cold) over the surface of the globe). It is clear then that the sun, and the sun alone, is responsible for the temperature in the sun and the atmosphere only causes us to feel the full intensity of the radiation in the sun.
After realizing that the sun's radiation is directly responsible for the temperature, it is clear that when there is more of it, it will be hotter, it is known that solar storms and eruptions on the surface of the sun significantly increase the emitted radiation, therefore one should not escape the conclusion that these will have a non-negligible effect on the temperature in the DWA.
Jesus
The 2 theories you described support the big bang!!! Lawrence Krauss talks about the Falctuation in "A Universe from Nothing". And the hologram theory was supported by Leonard Susskind.
Who:
I have a feeling that you talk freely about things you have no clue about.
For example - the first link you provided simply talks about a proposal for the formation of the big bang.
It is difficult to see a model that tries to explain the Big Bang as a model that denies it.
Today there are new and serious theories that present alternatives to the Big Bang. For example, the idea that the universe was created by a quantum fluctuation in space.
According to this theory, if a large enough fluctuation occurs in the void itself, a situation can arise where a part of the universe is disconnected, and because the universe has the property of expansion, the disconnected piece grows rapidly. According to this theory there is no problem of singularity since the universe is not a point that exploded but a fluctuation out of control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFMfW1jY1xE
(If it interests you, start watching from minute 50 or so)
There is another theory according to which the universe is a hologram and it is based on theoretical studies of the faces of black holes and the boundaries of space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY
(exciting…)
I would be very careful to call these people "deniers", these are very smart people, first-class physicists who try to explain the universe and do not bind themselves to "mainstream" ideas whose only advantage is their originality.
To remind you, Boltzmann more or less rediscovered physics when he went against the whole academy when he claimed that a gas can be treated as something made up of particles.
Jesus
I, and most of the climate experts, and anyone who is curious and researching, call it "denial" for a very simple reason. This is a denial of facts and a denial of science. What I wrote are facts. Those who say they don't deny the facts.
As has already been said - everyone is entitled to their own theories, but not to their own facts.
Now about the promil and the experiment you propose. They have already done the experiment. We know how much energy CO2 absorbs.
Are you ready for it? http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf
Now - we need to differentiate between weather forecasting and climate forecasting. Climate forecasting is much easier. The atmosphere heats up -> there is more energy -> the situation becomes drake.
And regarding the sun... the changes in the sun's intensity following the sunspot cycles are less than a millisecond. I don't really understand it, but from what I've read the impact on the climate is clear, and quite small. I suggest you do a little research - and see your mistake.
The Big Bang has stopped being denied since the death of Fred Hoyle, who ironically is the one who coined the term Big Bang, for the sake of mockery but it caught on.
Sorry for the suspicion, I found the response.
for miracles
I agree with you in all the sections you presented before me except for the last two sections. I do not agree with the notation of the response and the use of the term "denial" in everything related to such a discussion (after all, even the most accepted physicist would not dare to use the phrase "big bang deniers" even though many more books have been written on the subject).
As for the assertion that a change in atmospheric promil can tip the balance in favor of cooling or warming, in my opinion it has no basis - fortunately, a simple experiment can be planned that can give an indication of the correctness of the idea. From my knowledge of thermodynamics, it does not attach much importance to the molecular weight of the particles or their composition, therefore the heat flow will not change almost at all from a small change in the gas component. This does not refer to water vapor since it is in a metastable state and therefore can absorb heat more strongly (by the way, water vapor is the main gas-liquid in the atmosphere and is therefore the main cause of its warming, although the rest also act as a cooling factor since they remove A significant part of the heat to the oceans and the earth by the fact that they approach space, cool and descend as a liquid or solid).
Regarding the statement that there are few "climate scientists" who do not agree or do agree. I do not know many (not even one) climate scientists, moreover I have never heard of an institution that trains such scientists. I know "climate forecasters" better and know that they can give a good forecast about the coming days (over a week) and that trying to predict longer periods of time is not serious. Moreover, whoever claims to me that he knows how to predict the climate on a planetary scale, will sound like a non-serious and illogical person. Here I connect to my main argument - the sun is the main factor that affects the climate. Since we are inside the Sun's "atmosphere", it is likely that storms on its surface will be immediately felt here. And because we cannot predict the amount of energy that will come out of the sun at any future time, we cannot predict how much of it will be absorbed by the earth and there will be serious discussions (or not) about man's part in determining the temperature of the planet.
There was no comment that was deleted, except spam comments, or do you want me to leave everyone links to buy fake pills?
(Now I will also be accused of cooking numbers because I deleted a number that entered the text by mistake....)
Avner
Are you seriously mentioning Watts? A bloated charlatan who never graduated from university? Which is funded by the Heartland Institute (which also funded research by Philip Morris, which claims that there is no connection between smoking and cancer)?
Now I understand why you don't try to contradict me with facts…… I wonder who is funding you 🙂
I really hope this is a scientific site and not a fascist group.
I wrote that I don't think man has a decisive influence on the climate. And the emission of petroleum products constitutes a fraction of the composition of the atmosphere, so the immediate suspect in drastic climate change is not man but the sun. Man should not be blamed for natural climatic cycles that occur in cycles of tens of thousands of years (many findings support this such as ice dating and ancient rock layers).
Who exactly does such a reaction outrage? Is skepticism about "so-cold" scientific assertions in a field saturated with skepticism not worth consideration?
Terrorists focus on people who are a key point, this is how it is for those who oppose the global warming deniers, or the vaccine deniers. For example, on Facebook there is now a massive attack against the Landsman Foundation, they accuse her as if she accepts a bribe or expects to receive a bribe, no one believes her as a professional she really knows what she is talking about. In the same way, Chabad fought against me to neutralize my struggle for its takeover of Ramat Aviv by putting pressure on my workplace at that time. Neutralize the key people and control the narrative.
It is interesting that the pressure on her is always from the right - from people who do not tolerate pluralism but shelter under its wings.
And a little joke in honor of Kippur:
John Cook-ed the numbers
The main thing is optimism, my father.
There were exactly seven articles that predicted cooling even then the majority predicted warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Avner, Skeptical Science is one of the most important projects, I would give him a Nobel Prize. There are others who have the patience to deal with fools, and what is explained to them doesn't help, they twist everything so that they come out right.
Watts and White Death is a site that looks up the scientists for small mistakes and lands on a site that cites the scientists and corrects mistakes. Only the deniers can leave mistakes because everything they write is wrong anyway, if the website that supports science corrects an error that was made by mistake, it's the end of the world. Both scientists and science reporters are human. I refuse to be moved by your ad humanism nonsense.
Miracles, why me? Are you good with your faith? Are you comfortable with your sophisticated way of thinking? Cheers!
A true scientist is always a skeptic. And in today's world, there is a problem with so-called "facts".
You can only do the journey to discover scientific thinking yourself. I can't teach you that myself, boys of the ket.
Father, you are a scientist. Try to rise above clear beliefs and assumptions that "everyone knows"
See how reliable the site is http://www.skepticalscience.com And how does he act when he is presented with research that does not match his beliefs (superstitions, I would even say)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/11/on-skepticalscience-%E2%80%93-rewriting-history/
Avner
Show me where I'm wrong. I mentioned 3 points. Point out one that's wrong, show me why it's wrong, and then we'll move on.
To my father, the link you provided is excellent because it clarifies how religious people (in this case members of the "global warming" religion) will change reality, ignore and focus on data that matches their teachings and beliefs.
This paragraph from your link summarizes this fact:
"The broadest counter argument depends on a simple premise: we know so little about Mars that it's impossible to say what trends in climate the planet is experiencing, or why changes occur."
Yes, we see climate change on Mars, the ice caps are melting. And what is the answer? "We know so little about Mars…."
Exactly, my father, exactly. We know so little.
The innocence! Oh the innocence miracles!
Innocence screams from your keyboard. What determination. What common sense. Fact follows fact, cause and effect...
Phish... Listen, according to your understanding of reality, it was possible to simulate the Earth's climate on a Commodore 64.
Maybe when you grow up you will discover that reality is much (much) more complex than it seems to you.
By the way, in the 50s climate scientists explained how we are facing the beginning of global cooling and maybe even an ice age.
The arguments, by the way, were much, much less innocent and childish than yours.
Another thing, Nissim - we have heard your arguments about carbon dioxide to the point of exhaustion.
However, the facts show otherwise.
Maybe we know what the human effect is on the amount of PAD in the atmosphere.
But everything else - we don't know that much. I was a child when the first predictions about warming appeared and when I was first exposed to them. The models are known, the predictions are known, and yet the models missed the mark.
I come from the medical field. If a doctor gave a similar prediction, and in practice the results were completely different from what was expected, I would be willing to accept that he gave the best possible prediction, but I would certainly think that there are still too many things that he does not know, and that his predictions are not worth much...
Of course, in medicine it is easy. In medicine there are many patients and one can always say that one of them is an exception. In environmental science, there is only one ball (roughly) and you can only give one prediction, and you can't say that most of the predictions we would give had to be correct...
But for the same reason, in environmental sciences it is much more difficult. What to do, when you can't do a real double-blind experiment on your object and have to use models, the results are terrible.
Diabetes is a disease we understand much more than global warming (probably).
There is a murine model for diabetes, as for any disease. They have already managed to cure diabetes maybe 20 times in mice. Just what's the small problem? that models are not the same as reality. And in a real trial on humans, the drugs that worked on the mice fail again and again (or succeed on a much smaller scale).
The only way to know things with significant certainty in complex systems is in double-blind experiments. 'Simple' physics and chemistry are systems where the laboratory experiment is no different in complexity from the real world. Biology - not really. Environmental sciences - also, not really. The real world is much more complex.
I don't expect global warming advocates to abandon their work and say we don't know anything. I do expect some modesty and some scientific skepticism - and I don't find it.
Father, I repeat my question again and again and you didn't even answer it directly - is the total ice in Antarctica really increasing or decreasing, and is the total ice in the entire world (North + South) decreasing or increasing. Facts first, interpretation later!
Miracles, I think 60 percent of scientists firmly claim that 99 percent think like them. The 99% itself is a questionable matter in my eyes. I have seen many scientists who argue against and in addition quite a few who have an unclear position.
Take the tree rings for example. The criticism of the Hammists on the subject has nothing to do with anything you describe, but is a completely pure statistical criticism. Barifa and his friends came and chose for them the series of the rings according to their wishes. When there were updates to the series that they liked, they added. When there were updates they didn't like, they didn't add them.
How is such a case, which cannot be denied because in the end they succumbed to the criticism - at first we updated the series and then (in terms of the big picture) they generally admitted that there is no real possibility of relying on tree rings as a proxy,
How can you say about something like this that it is some kind of shouting for the sake of it?
The opposite is true, such cases raise in me (a neutral person who is not from the field and is interested in researching the truth) the suspicion that not only a large part of the deniers is biased in advance, but also a large part of those who claim warming. When there are serious claims against the hockey graph, and all its supporters have to claim are idle claims, ad hominem claims, and not statistical claims, when every skepticism entails a response with an element of holy rage - I am definitely more inclined to the side of denial than to the side of support.
When I try to get an informative answer here regarding the facts, first of all, is the ice growing or not growing in total on the entire planet, and I get evasions time and time again instead of a factual answer and then explanations - I definitely tend to think that this is religion.
And as mentioned, when the matter of the "99 percent" is repeated every time, something which in itself is probably completely untrue, and this instead of treating it with respect and addressing the matter, I am very convinced that it is religion.
I am personally skeptical. I tell you honestly that I haven't completely made up my mind. But this behavior definitely inclines me to a certain side.
To Avi Belzovsky: You defined "Israel Hayom" as a "respectable newspaper",
She's a joke.
"Israel Today" is the mouthpiece of Netanyahu and his Republican patrons,
Therefore, it was clear in advance what their position would be regarding warming.
Avner
All that is clear from your words is that you do not know what you are talking about. It is a fact that there is global warming. There is no debate about this - even among those who deny that humans are responsible for global warming.
Within science, there is (almost) no debate about man's fault (ie: the effect of C02 that man emits). There are very few scientists, especially those who are not climate scientists, who deny human influence.
You What is the reason that science is so sure of itself? It's really simple. This is based on 3 facts.
The first is that we know how much CO2 humans emit.
The second is that we know the effect of CO2 on the absorption of energy in the atmosphere
The third is that measurements of different types show the previous 2 points.
It really is that simple…….
Avner, Mars has a more elliptical orbit than Earth and does not have a large moon that prevents it from changing its angle to the sun, which causes global warming and cooling on the order of a few years.
There was already someone who checked this claim and found it to be incorrect http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
In any case, even if the claim were true, there are eight planets in the solar system, it is clear that some of them will heat up and some will cool down at any given moment for all kinds of reasons, on Earth it is because of man.
Joseph
If you think that 99% of climate scientists are right and you see something unclear, like the apparent increase in the southern ice, then you can check serious websites and find an explanation for it. My father gave you part of this explanation. Another explanation is the decrease in the amount of salt in the southern waters and therefore the increase in the freezing temperature of these waters.
And if you think that a small minority of loudmouths are right, you can also find evidence that Elvis is alive, that Bigfoot is roaming the American Northwest, and that we are in a period of global cooling.
Fashion. Man loves fashion.
It is a scientific fact that "global warming" is very fashionable now among scientists and pseudo-scientists.
It is even more fashionable to blame man for this warming.
Something that never goes out of fashion is a "doomsday vision" only the reasons change according to fashion.
What will pseudo-scientists say about the fact that the ice caps on Mars have also been shrinking in recent years?
After all, this single fact is enough to collapse the fashionable house of cards of the believers of the religion of "global warming"
In the case of Antarctica, the marine part is smaller than the land part, but it's like comparing apples to tomatoes. The maritime part is affected much faster by the warming than the land due to topographical reasons (although in the northern continents - Europe, Asia, America and even Kilimanjaro in Africa) a problem is felt in the mountain peaks which caused the shutdown of ski slopes. Antarctica is lucky because it is a continent located on the pole itself. Therefore, what I meant to say is that the sea ice is spoken about and it is clearly melting, both in the north and in the south, so your question is simply irrelevant. Putting the data together is just as misleading as all the climate 'skeptics' stuff
You are using very vague concepts. When you say that 'part' behaves this way and 'part' behaves differently, maybe it is 95% that grows and 5% that grows smaller? What's going on altogether? Is the area increasing or decreasing?
Arctic ice grows only in the part of the Antarctic continent that consists of high mountains. The sea ice in Antarctica (near the peninsula protruding from Antarctica towards South America) behaves exactly like the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean
Father, I return to my question again, I have seen in different places that the Antarctic ice actually increased over the years, along with a decrease in the Arctic ice. Why is arctic ice a better measure than antarctic ice?
The capitalists' global takeover of resources and assets is a much bigger problem. And no one talks about that.
Eric L
That doesn't belong in what I said. And it is not correct to say as a fact that the sunspots caused cooling. The two phenomena happened together and maybe there really is a connection.
In any case - the effect of CO2 on the climate is probably greater. Almost all climate scientists agree on this.
Miracles,
So it is that the sun's activity is probably not constant in terms of human life - and we still do not fully understand the effect of sunspots on the weather on Earth.
An example of this is the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century, which also resulted in a huge cooling - the average number of sunspots during the solar cycle then was 50 (according to Wikipedia) compared to tens of thousands today.
Doron Faldemus
Let's get a little more specific... okay?
1. The main cycle of the sun is 11 years. Therefore the power in 1997 is very close to that of 2008. So that you understand: 1997+11=2008.
2. The biggest change in the intensity of the sun is about 0.07%. And again, when you understand 0.07 <<<<<<<<<< 50.0
Shema Doron - everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not to their facts...
The explanation for what happened this year lies in the activity of the sun, this activity was at a low last summer. In recent years it will probably go down and down, so the cooling trend will continue. To understand what happened in the last decades, you should take a look at the following link: http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
which describes the last four solar cycles. In the 1997s and 2008s, the sun's activity intensified and the result was warming. Between the years 50 and 7, the sun's activity decreased, the result was the cessation of the increase in temperatures. The last cycle is a cycle in which the activity intensity is equal to XNUMX% of the normal activity intensity, and the result is a cooling that will last until a new cycle begins in XNUMX years
ארי
My wording was not precise enough. What I should have written is that adding CO2 does not create a negative feedback like adding water vapor does.
And regarding the other things you said... Your wording is really weird. The sun produces a huge amount of energy but there are negligible changes in the sun's supply. But - the earth is very close to balance, that is, the sphere emits an amount of energy that is very close to the amount of energy provided by the sun. so whats the problem? Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere damages this balance.
Note that there is added energy here - the meaning is double - greater fluctuations in the weather at the same time as the increase in the average temperature.
Listen Eric - those who get their information from a daily newspaper are in a bit of a problem....(I wasn't talking about you 🙂 ).
Even a broken clock sometimes shows the correct time, in the case of this clock twice a day, in the case of the Daily Mail it is once every two years.
In any case, I did not know in 2010 what I know today. I also learn over time what is good and what is not good, where to refer and where not to.
By the way, I am not claiming that the earth is not warming or that humans are unable to influence processes on the earth (by our very being we are changing the environment - already 10,000 years ago).
I think that there is a much more important player than humans, without of course underestimating us and our abilities. And that is the huge melting pot that is one astronomical unit away from us. This reactor emits enormous energy, only a minor part of which reaches the earth, and even this minor part is several orders of magnitude greater than what humanity is able to consume or produce in a year or a hundred years.
Therefore if anything can devour the cards completely it is the sun. It will "determine" whether the earth will heat up or cool down, and according to our energy capabilities today, humans have nothing to say about it.
I think that the only reason that the influence of humans is able to be measured in a meaningful way at all, in recent years, is a very unusual stability in the amount of energy that comes from the sun to the earth. Most suspiciously, this stability parallels the period of abundance, population growth, and the fastest and greatest development in human history.
How did the Daily Mail become a tabloid?
In the past he was your trusted source and you quoted from him an article by Stephen Hawking, and even provided a link to the article.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/hawking-on-time-travel-0905104
It's interesting how someone who mocks a 33-year history (and I'm not getting into the question of whether this is true) shamelessly bases himself on a one-year history.
What was the average temperature in Norway during the Viking Age (800-1200)
What are the temperatures today?
The "non-negotiable" claim only shows how stuck we are in fanatical religious "dogma" when it comes to global warming
The emotional attacks of anyone who tries to suggest the opposite only sharpens my personal doubts about the global warming propaganda
The scientific church - it is forbidden to argue or ask
Mother Earth (God of the Scientific Church) is angry, because man sins and corrupts and pollutes the earth
The punishment is - the warming of the climate (hell) and finally the death of humanity (Gog and demagogue)
The only way to the village is to change our actions and pour a lot of money (the slogan 'at any price') into the church for the environment
Warming or not, we are in a cold period... about a thousand years ago in Norway the climate was like the south of France today
Today the climate in Norway is on average minus twelve degrees in winter and eighteen degrees in summer
Some scientists claim that warming should be measured in Kelvin, which is why the temperature in Israel has been unusually stable in the last hundred years
I'm not saying that you should pollute and get dirty from now on. What I claim is that we don't need a policeman (Mother Earth or God) to continue being responsible and moral
Happy holiday to everyone
Miracles, section 3 that you wrote down is simply incorrect - there are very clear processes for how carbon dioxide is removed from the air, and it is carried out in 2 main forms on Earth:
A. Photosynthesis - the process may indeed be sensitive to human activity - for example, cutting down a lot of trees and suffocating the upper layers of the oceans in combination with increased CO2 emissions may well destroy the delicate balance of CO2 removal by photosynthesis.
B. A layer of limestone, which is not released and is formed in the oceans as a result of the building of skeletons by organisms from calcite and aragonite.
The second stage is much less sensitive to humans and is much more affected by chemical processes.
Yosh
What history are you talking about? 33 years is not history but only a negligible piece of time.
No one has verified information about the state of the arctic sea before 1980. In the mentioned article of the Daily Mail it is said that there is apparent evidence that in the 20s and 30s of the twentieth century the arctic ocean was reduced as it is today, then the glacial part expanded until 1975 as I suppose, it is also said where since 1980 the glacial part has been shrinking again. All in all, it was claimed there that the extent of the Arctic Ocean fluctuates on a time scale of decades, probably due to fluctuations in ocean currents.
I don't know how accurate the claims mentioned in the Daily Mail regarding the reduction and expansion of the sea ice are; What is certain is that 33 years since 1980 is not a long *history* on which to base anything. Well, sorry, you can base something on it: you can base this pseudo-history on warming propaganda.
Anyone who bases arguments on a fake history, of only 33 years, is a charlatan.
Read the original Daily Mail article by David (?) Rose. Not the cherry picking from this article by those who review the article. Trending compilations for review purposes. According to my recollection, David (?) Rose did not mean seriously that we are certainly on the threshold of cooling, it was only a teasing wording (the wording was to tease the climate scaremongers whose predictions are easily bent in any direction because they are unfounded).
entertaining.
It is interesting to know where 'Micho' learned about the solar cycles, the effects of gas emissions from petroleum products, the composition of the atmosphere, and statistics but not history..
Yuval, this is exactly what the bottom graph shows.
I am guessing that the big change in the amount of ice is due to the lack of ice - that is, it is statistical noise.
It's like a stock of a bankrupt company that has collapsed that suddenly goes up 50%, 50% of nothing is still nothing.
Jesus
They already said "everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not to his facts", so here are some facts:
1) The heating is an indisputable fact in science. Even the "opponents of warming" admit that there is warming but deny its causes.
2) According to the natural cycles, including circulation, including Milankovitch cycles, we should have been in a cooling state in our era
And that is not the case.
3) The emission of carbon dioxide by man is far from being negligible, relative to the impact of this gas on the climate. Unlike water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, there is no natural mechanism that regulates the concentration of CO2
4) Energy absorption by the CO2 is known both from theory and from experiments. You are right that the CO2 emission is not a permil, but it is 0.4 permil, which is considered a very dangerous concentration.
5) The number of climate scientists who do not agree with man's influence on the climate is in the promile area…..but the global warming deniers are a very vocal group, and if you check who is behind them you will not be surprised…..
Misho - the warming is real and man has a decisive influence on this warming. There is no debate about this in science.
I am also convinced that man has a very loose connection with climate trends on Earth. The sun and its cycles are mainly responsible for the temperature on the surface of the globe. The gas emissions of petroleum products do not constitute a fraction of the composition of the atmosphere and I do not see how man can be blamed for phenomena that occur frequently and on a scale of tens of thousands of years.