The United Nations Environment and Development Agency after the fire in 2010: fires in the eastern Mediterranean correspond to the climate change forecast * The current wave of fires all over Israel and in particular in Haifa, which was preceded by a long drought, proves that the forecast then is absolutely correct even today
The current wave of fires all over Israel, and in particular in Haifa, which was preceded by a long drought, proves that the predictions published by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and even international bodies are absolutely true even today.
About a year after the Carmel disaster, which was also in the middle of what was supposed to be winter, just like now, when the humidity percentages are in the single digits, the United Nations Environment and Development Agency UNEP published an article in which it was explicitly stated that the largest fire in the history of Israel up to that time corresponds to the forecasts of the Ministry of Environmental Protection in Israel in the early 2010s and updated in November XNUMX, about a month before that fire. In the report, a model was presented predicting that climate change will cause an increase in drought conditions and an extension of the dry season in which the risks of forest fires increase.
Fire is a common event in the Middle Eastern environment and the regeneration of the forest is supposed to occur naturally so that the fire itself is not an ecological disaster. Changes in the frequency of fires or the worsening of their result due to climate change will cause a change in the environment, the nature and the species mix of the forest. That fire in itself does not indicate climate change, but in the summer of that year there were also much larger fires in Russia. All of this adds to a growing body of evidence that climate change is already happening. In both cases the fires were preceded by drought and higher than normal temperatures, and are consistent with the forecast for this type of event in climate change scenarios.
to the article and a link to the sources cited in it, some of them from Israel.
Israel is drying up
Detailed information is available on the website of the Ministry of Environmental Protection The expected effects of climate change on Israel:
During the coming years, the climate changes that are part of the contemporary reality will have considerable effects on resources and economic sectors. Significant damage to human well-being and natural systems is expected. Forest fires are also included in this forecast.
The main consequences of climate change:
- Water - reduction in precipitation and increase in demand for water, including water for nature;
- Health - morbidity and mortality following heat waves, increase in disease transmission, damage from extreme weather events such as floods;
- Agriculture - changes in the yield of crops, changes in the output of the veterinary sector, decrease in fishing, increase in the populations of agricultural pests and extermination;
- Food - climate change will affect the yield of crops in the world, the agricultural trade and therefore have a decisive effect on the food supply;
- Infrastructures - damage to infrastructures following extreme weather events (floods, flooding, storms), risk of damage to coastal infrastructures following sea level rise;
- Energy - increase in demand for energy especially during extreme weather events, increase in consumption following the establishment of desalination facilities;
- Biodiversity - changes in biodiversity (extinction of certain species, changes in the distribution of species, invasive species), drying of humid habitats, acceleration of desertification processes, changes in biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea;
- Forests - an increase in the risk of forest fires in Israel
- Economy - changes in the economy of the various sectors, including the insurance market;
Geostrategy - the impact of climate change on neighboring countries could lead to strategic threats and migration pressure towards Israel, aside from possible benefits. - Editor's note - "Climate change" is a washed-up name for global warming, according to the best tradition of American political correctness, the name change has no evidence of a change in the direction of climate change.
30 תגובות
Nice, but where is the third dimension?…
WD
Yes...reminiscent of religious arguments a bit. sad….
Israel
Smeagol is your friend
Don't wait
That's Google
https://youtu.be/UgxWkOXcdZU
Hi Ofer, what's up?
If you are already here, I read your great article about Cassini, but where is the animation you promised us by Stephen van Vuuren?
Miracles
I will translate Ofer's answer for you:
Don't confuse me with facts, don't stop me from believing what I want and don't demand that I delve deeper into the subject or substantiate my position in any way.
Ofer
I didn't understand - did you check the data yourself? With your permission, may I ask 3 short questions?
1) Are you an expert in the field and do you know what the data you checked means?
2) Have you checked that the source of your data is reliable?
3) Are you claiming that the research institutes I mentioned are liars, or just plain stupid?
Miracles,
I base my opinions on published data. The hope is that these data are accurate and I currently find no reason to doubt it. You might get lost.
walking death,
I'm too lazy to answer you.
And in general: there are climate changes all the time and without any doubt the human impact on nature is negative. Is there a "model" of global warming? As far as I can judge, there is no such animal. There is a hypothesis of global warming and there are also such and other data. As far as I know, these data do not clearly support the hypothesis.
Ofer
When you are less lazy, you will try to do your homework and get to know the information in depth and not rely on one lecture by one scientist (however respectable).
If you want an easy place to start to understand how wrong what you've seen and heard in this lecture is, then try this. It does require a bit more effort than sitting and hearing what you want to hear for half an hour, but it is the entrance threshold to the discussion (an entrance threshold that the scientist in question here did not pass because he clearly does not master the material at all (the lecture is full of straw men) and did not do any research related to the field himself) .
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
It's embarrassing to see a Nobel Prize-winning scientist talking about a subject like a high school student who has been lecturing on a topic for two hours and giving a lecture about it in class, but this is probably the most accurate description of what's going on here (if we're nice and ignore and set aside the bitter truth that the person probably decided it's better to get money In order to present this opinion (and yes there is supporting evidence for this)).
Ofer
When you are less lazy, you will try to do your homework and get to know the information in depth and not rely on one lecture by one scientist (however respectable).
If you want an easy place to start to understand how wrong what you've seen and heard in this lecture is, then try this. It does require a bit more effort than sitting and hearing what you want to hear for half an hour, but it is the entrance threshold to the discussion (an entrance threshold that the scientist in question here did not pass because he clearly does not master the material at all (the lecture is full of straw men) and did not do any research related to the field himself) .
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
It's embarrassing to see a Nobel Prize-winning scientist talking about a subject like a high school student who has been lecturing on a topic for two hours and giving a lecture about it in class, but this is probably the most accurate description of what's going on here (if we're nice and ignore and set aside the bitter truth that the person probably decided it's better to get money In order to present this opinion (and yes there is supporting evidence for this)).
Ofer
The man works for a "research institute" that claims that no connection between smoking and lung cancer has been proven, and his data are the lies of that research institute. He doesn't understand anything about it.
It is interesting that you choose to believe in him, and not in NASA, the World Health Organization, the Israeli Academy of Sciences, Stanford, CSIRO, the United Nations, and hundreds of other research institutes, which is exactly their area of expertise.
It is a bit worrying that a person bases his views on a strange lecture that exactly matches his views....
Avi,
Note that:
1. The smileys in the messages 🙂 , 😉 , 😀 , can only be seen through a smartphone, but they appear as an empty square when viewed through a home computer 🙁
2. The "Recent Comments" sector does not reflect the real situation in practice, many times messages written on the site appear there only after many hours, and this is disturbing, because it is a very useful function that allows you to know who responded and where, and if they responded to you.
Can you please sort this out?
It's not me, it's a report from the Ministry of Environmental Protection
Miracles, I didn't watch the lectures of "ten thousand scientists" but the lecture of this one, in which he brings numerical data and calculations that support his claims. Since, in my opinion, the accepted scientific standards among physicists are much higher compared to those accepted in the more amorphous fields (where it is very difficult to model reality), I tend to accept his conclusions. By the way, the fact that there is probably no "global warming", but constant changes in climate patterns, does not give any person or body the right to slander the world.
Not only in Israel. The map of the fires that were in the last week in the whole area
http://fires.globalforestwatch.org/map/#activeLayers=activeFires&activeBasemap=topo&x=34&y=34&z=6
It seems that Blizovsky has become a censor.. You really turned the scientist into a vint.
The attempt to link global warming with Arab arson terrorism is not appropriate. And no, rain would not put out fires with such intensity, therefore the argument and the link to global warming is gibberish.
And again, deleting your comments won't change the truth. I'm glad you're reading this again
Avi. With all due respect, the attempt of "I meant for the rain to put out the fires" does not hold.. you are a little smarter than that. So let's sort it out:
1. The fires are caused by Arab arsonists/criminals (yes, they caught dozens of them already).
2. In Israel it doesn't rain enough even in a super rainy year to put out fires that started. Certainly not in the scope, location, and intensity that the Arabs set fire to.
So come on, do yourself a favor, don't insert science and "global warming" models into a history of nationalistic and religious terrorism
Ofer
I did not understand. Ten thousand scientists say there is warming and one says there is not. What's more, this one is a member of an organization that claims there is no connection between smoking and visual cancer.
Are you serious?
I heard part of his speech until the sentence "sometimes the US does stupid things" he had a prophetic spirit in this. Beyond that, even if in the physics of semiconductors it's not much (not sure), on Earth it throws it out of balance.
I don't know global warming models. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to bring the link to the following excellent lecture (by the 1973 Nobel laureate in physics):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
Abu, if there were no Arabs in Israel, then even 100 years of drought would not have resulted in fires. Except for lightning and rare cases of negligence, there are no natural fires. The only culprits are Arabs and you will publish an article about it sometime. Stones are thrown.. Neighbors stab... Rockets fell.... No one is to blame, everything is from heaven, yes Abu?
Avi,
Can you please arrange for the "recent comments" function to do what it should do and display the latest comments on the site? Because what she presents most of the time does not reflect the real situation at all and it takes many, many hours for a response that was recorded somewhere to appear there on the list.
This is a very useful function and it is the only way to know if someone has responded to one of the hundreds of articles that appear on the site, can you please sort it out once?
To all commenters, I did not determine that the fire was a natural fire. It is the warming that brought about the prolonged drought that made it possible for fires to be started in late November and spread. If it rained all winter like in the seventies, then they could light as many as they wanted, the rain would put it out immediately. I thought it was obvious.
Who determined that these were natural fires and not caused by human injury?
For those who don't know our neighborhood, you can understand from the article that a natural disaster unrelated to humans caused the fires. The geographic model did not take into account a 'model' of a population that hates Israel and remembers its name.
The fires also correspond to psychological models used in the Middle East.
50% of the fires, according to the police, originate from nationalistic arson.
The question is what ignites the fires
The question is what lights the fires..
Hahaha…. The fires correspond to one thing and that is arson by terrorist Arabs
So what is this article that is an attempt to shift the blame from the Palestinians?