The deniers cling to the data that is convenient for them but miss the overall picture * As early as 1979, scientists predicted that the oceans would absorb some of the heat and slow down the effects in the first decades, but not forever
For the previous spin - the ice in the Arctic Ocean has recovered
"Why didn't you write about the NASA/Met Office/New York Times study that already admitted that warming has stopped, and that there is no need to worry anymore. On the topic of stopping the warming - you prove how biased you are. All the institutions and magazines have already admitted this and published it. Nature, the Met-Office, Tenbart... Your gut belief is so strong that you don't notice what's happening, because it doesn't fit with your beliefs. But, it would have been appropriate for you to report at least on an article that was published in Nature - you pride yourself on reporting on "serious" magazines. This is the response of 'Yaakov', one of the operators of the website 'The Green Blog' Despite its name, this is a website of global warming deniers from the madrasah of Ian Rand enthusiasts.
Apparently we have discovered the method by which the global warming deniers operate. First of all, they take legitimate research (like this one, for example, which suggests another mechanism that affects the increase in temperature - Some small pool called the Pacific Ocean Or approxMo this ), distort it and then make sure, through sympathetic journalists who fill the financial websites, to publish it while demanding to put pressure on the IPCC because of these 'facts' (example).
And that brings us to another spin from the creator of the global warming deniers - a claim according to which the rate of warming has slowed down significantly in the last 15 years? This may be true for the temperature of the ground, but as Josh Willis from NASA says this figure does not tell the whole story because over 90% of the heat generated by global warming goes to the oceans.
When talking about global warming, one usually refers to the data from the measuring stations on the continents and ignores the oceans, so when the deniers of the warming recently came out with the announcement that the warming has stopped and has not been recorded in the temperatures, contrary to the previous predictions, again it seems that they are not doing so innocently. In the estimation of Jim Cook, the operator of the Skeptical Science website that arose to combat denial, says that this is again a spin designed to cool the spirits ahead of a very difficult report by the IPCC. As we know, the report is being delayed due to political pressure on the scientists to change their conclusions so that they are more favorable to conservative politicians around the world.
Skeptical Science website Citing a study from 1979 in which global warming was predicted as a result of the increase in the rate of greenhouse gases, he predicted that given the increase in the rate of greenhouse gases and the achievement of a new equilibrium, the warming will indeed occur in full force, although in the first decades, physics requires that the oceans absorb some of the excess heat, and that at this stage the warming will be felt but not in full force. This is a whole decade before the establishment of the IPCC - and even then there were those who warned about what was going to happen and even assessed the role of the oceans in slowing down the warming, so it is difficult to claim that this bias was not predicted.
Indeed, one of the claims of global warming deniers today (2013) is that global warming has stopped. However, there is a good scientific reason why in recent years the oceans have been more successful in their task of absorbing heat (while causing damage to marine life, but of course fish are of no interest to the deniers, they have no animal except humans).
The argument that temperatures did not rise as predicted misses the point. Drawing general conclusions about 'alarmists' if the sensitivity is smaller is a pyrrhic victory. The question the scientists are asking is not only by how many degrees the earth will heat up given a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but how much damage the warming causes to the ecosystems we depend on, and how expensive the price will be not only in money but also in life.
"Since each person lives in one place and sees local effects of the warming, he is not always convinced if they explain to him what is happening in another place. Each individual phenomenon can be said to be 'natural variation', but focusing on one issue at a time is a form of tunnel vision. So many things are happening at the same time, and a comprehensive look at them provides a complete, real and dangerous picture. And all this when so far we have only experienced warming at a rate of 0.8 degrees Celsius. Who would dare to claim that warming of 1.5 degrees is safe?"
Ultimately, we don't know how much of the heat content of the oceans has changed, but we know that it has. We don't know exactly how much of the land temperature rise is suppressed, but we know for sure that the warming cannot be stopped. We don't know what causes the ice to melt so quickly, although we have a good idea that rising temperatures have something to do with it.
What we do know is that the same energy that was captured and re-radiated by greenhouse gases in the last century must be captured and re-radiated in this century as well, and we are still emitting greenhouse gases like there is no tomorrow. The warming has not stopped, even if we do not feel it in full force.
Jeff Goodell lists some of the earlier myths of global warming deniers in Rolling Stone
There is more ice in Antarctica than ever before:
In recent years, the ice cover near the shores of Antarctica has indeed expanded, but ironically this is a side effect of climate change, which has resulted in an increase in the amount of snow and rain falling on the areas near the shores of the continent, and yet the ice inside the continent is melting at an alarming rate - 1,350 billion tons of ice melted into the ocean between the years 1992 -2011, and the rate is increasing as it fuels sea level rise.
It is possible that the climate is changing, but human activity has nothing to do with it:
Many climate deniers claim that ice ages have come and gone over the last few thousand years and that global warming is no different. However, the previous climate changes were caused by phenomena such as changes in the Earth's orbit. The current increase in global temperatures is combined with a 40% increase in carbon dioxide levels over the past 150 years.
Whatever happens, can we adapt?
True, perhaps for the rich countries, but the worst consequences of climate change - drought, famine, disease - disproportionately hit the poor countries. And even the rich countries are affected. In the years 2011-2, the US government spent over 100 billion dollars in emergency expenses that arose due to climate hazards.
Assaf Rosenthal - to ask nature for forgiveness
On this day when everyone asks for forgiveness and forgiveness, I ask to be here for millions of sane people and ask for the forgiveness of:
- forests until their trees are cut down to provide areas for pasture and oil palm plantations
- Millions of sharks whose fins are cut off and they are thrown into the water, because of unfounded beliefs
- Thousands of dolphins being slaughtered in bays in Japan and Scandinavia because of a stupid tradition
- Thousands of sea turtles and seabirds are caught in fishing nets due to negligence
- Hundreds of apes who are hunted because of their ... imagination for hunters?
- Thousands of elephants are killed to fulfill ancient traditions that have passed away
From all these and many others who suffer at the hands of hunters, fishermen, loggers and destroyers of all kinds, we will ask for forgiveness and promise that we will do everything to stop the destruction of the natural environment, the same environment thanks to which we exist.
88 תגובות
Can you link to the data regarding the warming of the oceans?
another one
Spring. Living in a world of conspiracies (regarding green fuels).
The proof that solar fuel is not profitable is the fact that China does not promote such production for its own needs (beyond subsidizing or providing generous credit to Chinese solar panel manufacturers).
China is not biased by fossil fuel suppliers, it does not have the status of a fossil fuel producer, by and large all its fossil fuel is imported. China has a huge economic interest in getting rid of its dependence on fossil fuel: it will only benefit financially from switching to a cheaper alternative fuel than fossil fuel, also independence from fuel suppliers outside of China is worth a lot economically. China is not switching from fossil fuels to green fuels because it is not economically viable for them. If I'm not mistaken, today China is the largest energy consumer in the world (and if not - China is at least among the top 5 in the world).
According to my memory, solar fuel is at least twice as expensive as fossil fuel even in these days when the price of raw fossil fuel is very expensive. There is no actual proof of the damage caused by classical fossil fuel (regarding fossil fuel from oil shale - the damage, if any, is still under debate). The only argument that can be against classic fossil fuel is CO2 emissions.
Fuel from wind farms is commercial loft, in Europe they refuse to use it due to lack of viability. Fuel from high-carbohydrate plants is not worthwhile because it is at the expense of growing food.
Maybe in another 50 years or 100 years they will develop a truly efficient technology to produce solar electricity, until then the only profitable fuel is fossil fuel and nuclear fuel.
How do they make sure it's not worth it?
In short, you avoid. You want to do everything to make it never worthwhile, it's not just because it's apparently not worthwhile now (and my argument is that it is, because the oil tycoons make sure it won't be worthwhile, and not the free market).
Use of technology =/= its development - what you are offering is not a free market. Solar power plants cannot be replaced every two years. And anyway, the poor shouldn't bet on the fact that scientists will someday find a way to make cheap solar electricity, do you have amor in solar electricity? Invest your money in it. Not everyone's money.
For some reason it seems to me that you think that if we don't use a certain technology until its price drops to some imaginary amount, then it will get there, it won't happen but that's probably what you want and all the rest are excuses.
Because it is more expensive, it is more expensive because it costs more shekels per gigawatt hour than using fuel.
We make a combination of several types of alternative energy - water, wind, solar, and then take down the backup, what's more, in any case, you can use the alternative energy to give up large and expensive stations that are used only for peak hours (gas turbines that burn despite diesel oil). It is not clear why it is more expensive except that you shout it over every balcony. The health of those poor is worth zero?
Need a certain amount, don't you? In any case, you avoid the question, how is it social justice to make everyone's electricity - including the poorest - more expensive?
All over the world, 20% backup is enough, but you are made of the fact that wind power needs oil itself, I read this nonsense more than once on the green blog,
So you want all of us - the fuel (already getting more expensive all the time) to be more expensive, this means that the poor will be less able to afford travel by public transport or otherwise - and it will be more difficult for them to pay electricity bills. - How exactly is this social justice? How is it that fossil fuel is too cheap for you - regardless of the cost of solar or solar electricity (especially when solar electricity also needs oil itself).?
The methods are artificially more expensive, because fuel is too cheap.
You know the electricity company has a big debt, they don't exactly make money if you force them to more expensive methods of producing electricity - that means prices will go up - that means the poor will have a harder time paying for their electricity. What exactly is "social justice"?
It's really not worth the price. But it probably won't be at a price until there is an environmental protest in the style of the social protest. The social protest made it so that they finally started listening to the social economists, the same should be done with the environmental economists.
But it is at a price, in the prices of apartments located in polluted areas. Their price is lower because they are under contamination. How much tax do you want to add to pollution? There are many polluting factories that cannot be replaced with solar panels. How much pollution do you think you will save? And at what cost will it cost us all?
How much are the power plant/refinery developers willing to pay for the direct damage they cause (mortality, disease)? For some reason the laws do not require this from them, and they hardly require receptors from them (and there was a heated debate about this as well, as if the lungs of our children and our elders are the waste). If we wait for them or the rest of the public who are not nearby and do not suffer directly from the contamination, that would be an unfair wait. Someone has to represent these people and they must enter these data and not externalize them so that some puppet will come and pay for them. Not everything is in the price and it must be included in the price even if the libertarians shout until tomorrow.
Avi Blizovsky, you didn't answer my question - if there are 100 environmental economists and each one has a different opinion - who are we supposed to listen to?
Secondly, wind-based energy is still oxidizing - it still uses oil, needs a backup system, kills birds in large numbers - and is not suitable for every area, do you have any data that it is effective? Solar energy also pollutes when mining the materials needed to make the panels, not to mention the batteries, and it doesn't produce much electricity either. Otherwise she would not need a subsidy. Are you claiming that there is an externalized cost of fossil fuels? How do you calculate this cost? According to what exactly, in the market the cost of something is determined by people's willingness to pay for it, - how do you quantify pollution? After all, most of the decommissioned power plants are built in old industrial areas - which in the past were more polluted, where the pollution came was a cheaper place as a result, people bought houses knowing that the place was polluted and therefore it was cheaper. So on a certain level it was their choice, who is the "environmental economist" who will decide for everyone that a higher electricity bill and a higher price for fuel is better than air pollution? By what will he calculate it?
Well, sorry, I didn't mean to jump into your conversation in the middle.
Just my last two cents. I failed to understand when this bickering started that you feel you have to defend yourself, but it is not too late to return to the conversation in a neutral scientific tone. Derogatory terms such as "deniers" or "religion" are not and should not be part of scientific discourse. They also do not help to convince the other side or bystanders, they only contribute to an unpleasant feeling. and forcing the participants to take sides. Taking sides is human but not scientific. In any case, I appreciate your contribution to the scientific blogosphere in Israel.
You are a new commenter but there are plenty of people here who see the need to oppose green energy. It's just that my defensiveness towards an attack is what appears to you as condescension. sorry about that In any case, the discussion began as my answer to an old commenter - "one other".
"That doesn't add up with your logic"
Once again, your arrogance, father.
Why ? did i insult you you don't even know me This is only my third or fourth time commenting here.
You really think this adds to the discussion.
I understand numbers, if you provide numbers that support your view I am ready to join "your" camp. I am currently out of date, the last studies I read were three years ago and may not be relevant. Anyway good night
Hybrid cars gained momentum after the economic crisis. And as for the sun - the peaks of electricity consumption in the era of air conditioners are in the afternoon hours, if you reduce the need during the peak hours for energy production, you will be able to reduce the number of unnecessary power plants. The story of the clouds is a bluff, the difference in the electricity output of the solar collectors between a cloudy day and a sunny day is 15%, but what to do that doesn't agree with your logic.
Full disclosure, I owned a Prius hybrid car back in 2005, and now (for 3 years now) I've switched to a bicycle. But not everyone has this option because of work or family.
Avi,
"June, when it helps to get rid of the yoke of the energy tycoons, suddenly you become green and you care about the landscape?"
What kind of answer is that? I have a certain aesthetic sense. You don't have to agree with me on this. But why this arrogant reaction? You don't know me, and if you ask I will answer that for me it is not the top priority, if the power is continuous or at least predictable and it will be cheap or even at the same price as the alternative I will give up my aesthetic sense. But because it's both and and I don't find it an interesting product.
I also don't agree with you that the oil companies killed the electric car, I may be wrong but it makes much more sense to me that there just wasn't a sufficient market to be profitable. And the fact is that hybrid cars have gained momentum.
Miracles.
Of course, it's not hard to find examples either.
Just as a simple example, the plum pudding model theory of the atom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model
The model was built after trial and evidence. The model had sufficient predictive ability for the knowledge of the time (even more than the warming theory). But later it turned out that it does not answer all the questions (Rydenberg equation) and the Bohr model was created. You have to admit that there is a similarity between this and the warming theory which cannot faithfully predict observed phenomena.
June, when it helps to get rid of the yoke of the energy tycoons, suddenly you become green and you care about the landscape?
After all, the fuel companies in cooperation with the car manufacturers (probably through investing in them and sitting on the boards) prevented the development of electric vehicles for decades, until there was no public opinion that forced them to invest in an electric vehicle. First they bought every patent and buried it, and when they saw in the XNUMXs that the high gas prices caused a search for alternatives, they took them down like a tatelach. Who guarantees that it won't happen again?
יוני
A scientific theory that was based on evidence has never been disproved. There is no reason to think that man-made warming is not such a theory.
"For the rays of the sun and the movement of the wind are free"
Definitely, when there is wind and when it is not cloudy or dark
"The machines for producing energy from them are a commodity"
I wish But unfortunately right now I'm probably in a parallel universe where this unsubsidized commodity is at a premium price, obscuring the landscape and with a non-continuous and difficult to predict supply.
Environmental economists? And if there are 100 environmental economists and each one gives a different number? What number do you set?
For this there are environmental economists, who usually compartmentalize them.
How should the true cost of this energy be determined?
Does this mean the whole world should get used to paying a lot more for energy? Those who will be hurt by this first are the poorest.
There is a matter of unfair competition. The energy tycoons are selling oil - which is a depleting resource - too cheap (relative to its true environmental cost) to kill the competition and will raise the price even more when all the alternative energy projects are eliminated as you enthusiastically announced on the green blog about the Czech Republic. That's why we need a subsidy
Avi Blizovsky
"The rays of the sun and the movement of the wind are free" - what?
Of course they don't, you need space to put these things, we don't have the end of the world to put them - (places where it would somehow be effective to put wind and solar stations (not to mention the cost of maintaining the stations themselves).
Space has a price. If wind and solar plants were really an effective solution, there would be no need for government subsidies to maintain them, they would be built without subsidies out of the economic interest of the developer.
The theory of warming is not a fact. It is a scientific hypothesis, and if it is disproved it will not be the first nor the last, many good ones have been disproved. Right now her poor predictability should definitely make us take a step back and check her correctness. And this is exactly what Mr. Belzowski did when he added another parameter to the equation (the absorption of heat in the oceans), maybe, maybe not. It is possible that more parameters are missing, it is possible that the whole hypothesis needs a refresh or a radical change of form. It happened before.
The wording of the discussion on this issue is lacking, I understand the concern. I do not understand and do not accept the inability to conduct a scientific discussion based on facts. How come every skeptic who is not convinced is labeled as a "denier" will the same terminology be used for particle mechanics as well. "Denying the Hines particle" for example? There is no opening for scientific discussion here. And there is an undisguised insult here that only those who are convinced by a certain hypothesis want the best of the world. The others are evil/self-interested or simply brainwashed by definition.
There is no place to compare quantum mechanics or evolution as they did in the comments above. The first two have proven predictive ability and we know exactly the limits of ala theories (theories and not hypotheses) beyond which their predictive ability is non-existent or unclear. Not so the warming theory or any other climatic theory which so far has poor predictive capabilities at best and as far as I know there is not even an honest attempt to understand the limits of this hypothesis.
By the way, there was no flat sphere theory as well as no flat earth theory. since the days of scientific history. It was clear that the earth is round, Aristotle already wrote about it, it cannot be assumed that he was the first to come up with it. Rather, he was the first to decide to write theories on the subject. Even in the Middle Ages it was known that the world was round to scholars, Columbus like his contemporaries knew that the world was round, what they didn't know was how long it would take to reach India, a serious risk at the time when sailing for over a month without being able to refresh supplies is a cause of disease, rebellion and death.
For those who wrote or wrote for miracles that the effects of measures to prevent the disaster will cause more severe disasters, this is brainwashing by the libertarians. They simply don't like non-mineral fuels because then there is no one to make money on the raw materials and the supply chain, since the sun's rays and the movement of the wind are free, and the machines to extract energy from them are a commodity. Under this umbrella of protecting the oil tycoons they built a whole world of false arguments, chief among them the denial of global warming.
I accept your apology and hope I don't sin too
- and if I sin in arrogance - may I have the strength and courage
Apologize like you did 🙂
You're right. I apologize to everyone I hurt, I will not use those names again.
(and not in others either 🙂 )
Apologies to surfers
An oversight fell from my keyboard and a mistake from my faithful mouse
And of course there is not and never was a "bullet theory".
The flat earth" and of course I should have written
The "flat earth theory" is therefore flat
My apologies for this to the readers and surfers of the site
they.
To her who is promoted
I am not a party and I am not trampling on anyone - and I will vigorously defend your full right to call me "son"
religion/tribe/people/herd (fill in and add as you wish) the warming" - but also understand
Because you have every right to call me (as well as those who think I am a partner) by all nicknames
These are not reasons why I should respect your opinions and similar opinions beyond my duty
To respect your right (which, as mentioned, I will fiercely defend) to speak.
If you expected to treat a person as an animal (one of a "herd") and his beliefs as a "religion" -
And in the end he will respect your opinions (beyond your sacred right to voice them) -
I am afraid that you made a mistake in the address and even exaggerated my qualities.
Leave you out of people's judgments... it's really not interesting. If you are in the matter of "bottom line" and a number are convinced... then the bottom line is that the world is not convinced and the world as usual is doing! According to the test you proposed "the test of persuasion"... all over the world nothing is done in the direction of stopping the emission of FDF.
In my opinion, the situation is such that the wise people and the decision-makers came to the conclusion that such weak arguments do not justify such extreme measures. Would you be prepared for a liter of fuel to cost NIS 80? Would you be willing to use electricity only for existential uses? To eat the minimum required for existence (because a food creature produces food)? Maybe you would prefer to make a drastic reduction in the number of the population?
She is from earlier
You are really, really wrong. In terms of science - there is no debate about man-made warming. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. And that's exactly what's happening here! I suggest you pay attention to the sources of the "articles" that deny global warming. You will not find any university, any government body or any research institute that says otherwise from the "consensus".
There are 2 studies that I know of - that you should also get to know. The first, by James Powell who talks about 99.83% of climate scientists' publications that support man-made warming. A second study, by John Cook, tested "stronger support for warming" and reached 97% of the studies. Just so you know...
Now, watch out for the naysayers. They speak 3 languages:
1) The world is not warming
2) The world is warming, but not through man's fault
3) The world is warming up - and that is good.
In other words - that zero minority that denies, is not exactly closed with itself. It probably depends on who he is arguing against.
I don't understand how you say that those who deal with warming are "hunting down the infidels". They are of no interest to any scientist. Scientific facts are not religion. And science has no purpose to "scare". Politicians are scary, rightly or wrongly. Scientists only do what is important to them as scientists - look at phenomena, postulate theories, and then test the theory.
If 180 countries agree and "the ship has left the port..."? Why should the herd trample those who have a different opinion? Descend to the levels of personal vulnerability instead of staying in the scientific debate?
I agree with Avner that this is a "religion" that seeks to hunt with the infidels. I don't think man-made warming is scientifically proven at this point!
Lavner
180 countries have recognized that human actions contribute to global warming
That is why they signed the Kyoto Protocol (Treaty). If you manage to convince at least 1/3
From these countries to remove their signature because man does not have an arm and a leg in warming
or there is no warm-up, the discussion will reopen, until then reading and reference
To the "global warming religion" and the rest of the merchandise of the "global warming deniers" they are
Waste of time for nothing. That ship left port long after me
"Geocentrism" and the theory of the flat earth carried on the backs of elephants.
There is an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. The asteroid has been being followed for several years and the probability of a catastrophic impact on the Earth is steadily increasing. The date calculated for the asteroid impact is 1/4/2072.
But Avner says "there is nothing to worry about". He says "there is no evidence for an asteroid". He says "there is evidence but the asteroid will not hurt". And he says "the asteroid will hurt but those who survive will only benefit from it".
Luckily, despite their loud voice, there aren't many Abners in the world. The sane world will solve the asteroid problem - don't worry...
Try throwing ice into a cup of hot coffee and see if the water is at a temperature of -0- degrees.
What you wrote is true in the 'steady state', which a system reaches in infinite time. During the 'transition phenomenon' what you wrote is not true or relevant - the weather is always in the 'transition phenomenon'.
I used to read more on this site, but the views and the manner of discourse of the site editor are exactly the opposite of the way of science.
The believers of the new religion "global warming" like any other religious person will renovate reality so that it is in line with the Torah that was given to them.
I'll explain.
About 20-30 years ago, "global warming" began to come into fashion. This fad swept many people until it became a form of belief.
Many of the believers are climatists, ecology enthusiasts and many of those people who are in charge of carrying out the measurements at meteorological measuring stations scattered around the world.
By the way, they are all good people, intelligent and full of good intentions. But it is not relevant.
From the moment the trend took hold, the temperature measurements jumped to the upper limit of the "standard deviation" for non-objective reasons. God forbid it is understood as if the mistakes were made maliciously, but when there is an expectation of a trend and when it is "obvious" that the temperatures are rising, then in moments of controversy the higher result is taken.
The upward shift of temperatures can only occur within a narrow margin of possible deviation. Thus the temperatures jumped quickly until they reached the roof of this deviation and stopped.
What will the members of the "global warming" religion do? They will renovate, repair, be "creative" and "discover" that actually the warming continues but this time the sea is absorbing the heat.
And what will they do to find this heat bath too? There will surely be another explanation.
epilogue.
A rock looks stable and does not change, but with the help of precise instruments it will be possible to notice how dynamic it is and changes its shape (wears away).
I would be very surprised if the climate on earth remained stable like "clockwork" year after year and did not show global changes here or there.
Global warmings and coolings have happened in the past.
But an unequivocal statement that man is the cause of these changes (which is a missionary zeal) is far from being an unequivocal scientific statement.
very far away
And when I meet such an eager missionary, I kind of lose respect for him
It's unpleasant to say, but this discussion (not to be called a debate) is unnecessary.
The Kyoto Convention, signed by representatives of 180 countries, is proof that science has
A solid opinion regarding man's influence on the warming process.
Thanks to the convention, we can treat the warming process as an absolute truth
Even more so than the theory of evolution, whose foundations are also tested by people
Backwards to tattooing.
Therefore, as long as someone of Kepler's stature does not come along and prove that the opposite is true
The truth is, every sane person should understand that his actions and the actions of his government will determine
Will our descendants swim with the fishes?
Jacob
There are 3 different claims:
1) The world is not warming
2) The world is indeed warming, but it has nothing to do with man
3) The world is indeed warming and it is good that it is so
Are you willing to say where you stand in relation to these claims?
Sea levels around the world are rising.[2] Current sea-level rise potentially affects human populations (eg, those living in coastal regions and on islands)[3] and the natural environment (eg, marine ecosystems).[4] Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in).[5] From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[6] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated.[7] It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.[8]
to the doubter -
The current rate of rise is 3.3 millimeters per year, but it is not the same as the previous one, but an increase compared to the previous one - for example, from 1950 to 2009 it was only 1.7 millimeters per year on average, meaning that in recent years there has been a doubling in the rate of sea water rise, so even if you write this nonsense a hundred times it will not make it true. Let's take an example that you know as a libertarian, tomorrow they will double the income tax but they will be brainwashed as if he hasn't changed and it just seems to us, does it make sense to you?
Write explicitly - old comments.
Here is a link to a report in "Haaretz" about a study by Dr. Noam Halfon, which shows that there have been no changes in the average precipitation in the Land of Israel in the last 60 years (until 2007, the date of the study).
http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1299816
There were also no changes in the desert line:
http://www.slideshare.net/Anochi/desert-line-israel
Say from now on, Mr. Blizovsky, that contrary to "the sight of your eyes", the data show that there is no talk in Israel, for now.
Asaf
Before you give explanations I suggest you learn to read. Since you were not able to read, I will write to you three times one after the other so that the facts get into your head:
* Sea level rise today as in the past is about 3 millimeters per year.
* Sea level rise today as in the past is about 3 millimeters per year.
* Sea level rise today as in the past is about 3 millimeters per year.
conclusion:
Those who build near the sea at a low altitude are not damaged by the rising sea level, nor by the glaciers, nor by shoes. Those who blame the melting glaciers for all the world's suffering are charlatans.
I do not refer to the rest of your claims, even though some of them are equally refutable.
Indeed, I was wrong. No comments were deleted, I apologize.
I did not see that there are hidden comments - on the previous page. You should put a clearer message. Even at the top of the comments it doesn't say that this is only the first page, and there are additional pages.
I will retire at this point from the comments here.
I will look for the link to the study on precipitation in Israel (which contradicts the desert claim) and post it again on the green blog. (He has already been published there before).
I didn't delete a single comment. Scroll backwards - each time the system only displays the last 15 comments and you have to click on the old comments link.
By the way, even if I wanted to, I couldn't intervene on the site because from nine in the evening until three thirty in the morning there was a power outage in the whole area and the battery on the laptop was also almost dead, so I couldn't do anything except go to sleep in the dark.
When your website will have thousands of hits per article and many comments, you too will have to find technological solutions to reduce the load.
Mr. Bilizovsky deleted many comments written yesterday. He is probably afraid of dialogue.
To explain the ears of the debaters:
- The melting of continental glaciers causes the sea level to rise, a rise that requires residents of low islands to evacuate,
Unlike the "skeptic", they do not have the means to "build at a reasonable distance"...
Melting of continental glaciers causes flood flow today and lack of water tomorrow,
The melting of (sea) glaciers in the north is harming polar bears and other animals
(But these don't count?),
- The desert in Israel is a fact that:
The average precipitation did not decrease
But the division is such that there are extreme rain events
which cause floods and floods and do not enrich the waters,
It is enough to see the acacia trees drying in the prairie to understand the beam,
- The Sahara that becomes green... At least at this stage...
There is an assumption that because of the warming there is a tendency for winds to "move" rain clouds
from the equatorial region to both sides (south and north),
A tendency that, if realized, will cause the drying of equatorial regions (in Africa),
and slightly more rain in the Sahel (not in the Sahara),
There are artificial attempts to green the Sahel (not the Sahara) by planting trees
and the development of "dryland" agriculture,
From here to the "greening of the Sahara"... The distance is long and huge.
And finally denying facts is the talent of noisy loners
argue with them…. unfounded,
Benjamin May.
In my response to you, I only referred to the matter of a change in the level of precipitation in the Land of Israel. Because this is the disturbing thing about your claims against Jacob.
I also have an opinion on other matters but I chose not to address them. According to a quick look at Yaakov's website, he usually brings a lot of documentation to the claims he makes.
Regarding the claim that the sun rises more today than before. This is a vain claim, it doesn't matter if it is repeated a thousand times. Sea level rise today as in the distant past is at a rate of approximately 3 millimeters per year, as far as this magnitude can be measured. The rise of the sea level at such a crawling rate does not affect any settlement if it is built at a sufficient height above sea level and at a reasonable distance from it.
A sufficient height above sea level is, for example, 10 meters above sea level, a reasonable distance from the beach is 100 meters. Those who do not build like this will sooner or later suffer from the dangers of the sea, regardless of the zero rise in sea level.
All the scaremongering about sea level rise is based on future predictions, predictions that have so far been disproved.
incidentally. The melting of all the glaciers today will not raise the sea level even by a millimeter, not even by a micron. Only the melting of continental glaciers, currently this melting is not proven.
Avi Blizovsky
There is no doubt that the way you worded your responses and the editing of the article indicate that the subject is very emotional in your eyes, if so I implore you not to narrow the discussion and remain objective as much as you can. Those who find it difficult to line up if the convention you represent (and I am among them) are not denying anything. Your attitude seems to be trying to get rid of them and for nothing.
Throughout history, scientific measurements have led to various explanations, some of which are still debated today. In all my years at the academy I have never heard anyone called a "denier" and this is jarring and particularly out of place in such a field of research, if all due respect climate research is not mathematics and the extent of man's influence on the temperature is not doom and gloom.
In my opinion, the idea that man affects the temperature in the Earth fits very well with the prevailing fashion in certain Puritan circles that hold that man is a source of selfish evil on earth and that he poisons and destroys his environment. These circles like to promote a certain type of misanthropy towards those who do not belong to their ecological church and call them derogatory names (for example, whoever eats meat is a murderer, whoever extracts oil from the earth is an evil evil who is responsible for the death of seabirds and small children in Africa), of course such fashions are guilty of being narrow minded horizons and distorted to reality (even though they present a lot of scientific studies). That's why I tend to treat certain contents with extreme suspicion. The theory of man-made warming meets this definition in my opinion, and indeed I think there is an attempt to mislead people and that the main factor responsible for the temperature is the sun, the fact that it is acceptable to call my shoulders deniers only strengthens my opinion on the matter (luckily they don't call me a glacier killer).
I will repeat what I said elsewhere a few years ago:
If you put a bucket of water and ice on the fire - the temperature will remain constant: 0 degrees.
until the ice melts. From this moment the temperature will rise until equilibrium is reached. For example: until the rate of cooling in favor of the surrounding air is equal to the rate of warming. (This may evaporate all the water in the bucket in the meantime!).
Borrowed: Earth is getting more heat. That is why the ice at the poles is melting. Woe to us if the ice at the poles melts - because we do not know (?) what the new equilibrium point will be. This is probably higher than our ability to survive in it.
Some of us claim that there is no warming. haha In any case it is not survivalist to claim this.
Some claim it is "natural" (so what? We won't die from it?)
and "temporary" (who said? Based on what?)
Therefore, humanity must take an emergency action to restore the ability to cool down to the KDA. It has to be now, before it's too late.
Chaim P
Jacob
You are really cheeky 🙂 I went to the site you suggested and chose a random link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7461707.stm
How exactly does this strengthen your claim???
Jacob
I know because I read studies. This is the difference between those who know there is man-made warming and those who don't. Read for example here:
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/claussenmartin/publications/claussen_al_africa-hotspot_igbp_02.pdf
But you're referring us to a site of utter bullshit? The green blog is not exactly a scientific site either.
I suggest you read this link. In the end you might understand something in science...
to safkan
The discussion of the reduction of the ice area, the rise of the sea water level and the disappearance of islands
He is the problem and enough evidence was brought to these issues on the site.
I am afraid that Jacob, whose position is known in advance and will not change anyway, is looking
Topics for debate and not topics for discussion.
Therefore, there is no point in bringing additional proofs that are clear in advance that in the best case scenario
He will not refer to them and in the worst case he will find in them unfounded proofs for his arguments.
Rather, let him make it clear to us that the Maldives rises above the water - and thus will contribute to the discussion,
Instead of disputing one sentence written based on a personal impression. This is hypocrisy
For its own sake and not a discussion.
I searched and did not find the comparison in several central cities between the average of the years 1981-2010 and the previous average 1971-2000
I was going to contact the meteorological service, but I am assuming they are closed today.
And again, I don't have the possibility to do an investigation in every response. This article I wrote because of you also robbed me of resources, I have other things on my mind.
Are you comparing real scientific studies to this nonsense? After all, your friend who is funded by the Hartman Foundation sought to clarify the issue, obviously the destruction of the statues in Afghanistan was not done because of the warming, but the spread of extreme fanaticism is also a result of the economic crisis which in turn was caused by the warming.
My father, since you asserted a claim about the desert of Israel, I would be based on what you say this.
I understood that based on your feelings. You confirmed it for me.
In the green blog we cited the study that showed that there is no decrease in precipitation. You probably didn't notice that such a study existed.
Miracles:
Regarding the "greening" of the Sahara desert - you claim that it is because of the warming. from where do you know? I do not know.
Regarding the results of the warming: here is a link to not one thing but to hundreds of things that the media claim happened because of the warming:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
All fabric stories.
Complaints are here until further notice. It's all stories.
Yaakov - Lansim had more patience than me to look for more accurate links. The fact that he found it easily provides the answer and saves the need for me to search as well.
Jacob
In the meantime, the only one who does not bring confirmations to your claims is you.
To my father:
"Something that everyone sees with their eyes"
Poets and prophets write on the basis of what "their eyes see" - that is, on the basis of their subjective feelings.
I'm glad you admit that this is your basis..
Of course there are those who do not provide confirmation for their claim (which may be true) because it is "obvious".
Benjamin May
Why don't you demand statistical proof from my father b. Is it only Jacob who is required to bring proof of the "absence of an event"?
You come to Jacob with demands according to the well-known joke "I claim that your sister is Z-V-N-H and now bring proof that you don't have a sister"
After all, my father b. Claims that Israel is in the process of desertification or something like that, but did not provide any data. His personal memories are not proof, nor do I think they are factually correct.
By the way, according to my memory, a study was conducted on the amount of precipitation in the Land of Israel over a long period of time when there were records of meteorological stations, something like the last 70 years. It turns out that according to this study there was no significant change in the amount of sediment in Israel. I don't keep any links for myself regarding this matter, since this is the likely situation (therefore I will not keep links for such a normal situation).
My intention was to illustrate that the warming is something that everyone sees with their eyes, and to deny it, as you do, is similar to looking at the settlement house standing on its end and claiming that it burned down.
To Jacob
And I mean, of course, the multi-year statistics.
To Jacob
Your position is known and it is clear that you will not change it even if we all do
We will have to swim. If you think that every time you and your ilk
Address or bring a fact someone will run to look for you
The Rabbi statistics - you are wrong.
Do you have any other stats? You are welcome to donate, preferably
with a link to a known website.
Annual.
Jacob
You wrote "so far no damage has been caused that can be said with certainty (or with high probability) caused by the warming. That is to say that "noticeable". "
Here are sources that Michael Rothschild found:
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
Just have a...
"I remember winters"...
This is not about memory. Memory is sometimes treacherous. It is about numbers.
Meteorologists measure how much rain falls and record it. There are records.
It is unscientific to rely on memory. This is a science blog, isn't it? Or is it a blog that brings your personal impressions? (Not that it's wrong).
Jacob
I also know that the Sahara is getting greener. And I also know that the reason is the warming. So decide - there is warming or there is no warming?
Jacob, I don't know how old you are, I remember winters where it rained all winter and in Sukkot sometime in the eighties there was even a flood and caused the Sukkah we built with great effort to flood to a depth of half a meter. And this year we are in Khamsin.
If it's so good in the Sahara, then why are all the refugees fleeing?
"And if we don't have Midvor, then why has the multi-year average - decreased over the years?"
This is a good example of your style.
Has the multi-year average gone down? reference?
The last study I read shows that the average has not gone down. There is no data indicating a decrease in the multi-year average.
The claim of Israeli Hammists is that the same amount of rain is now concentrated in shorter events, and is not evenly distributed over the season. But neither do they claim that there was a decrease in the total amount.
You speak based on feeling and not based on data.
As for Midbor - in recent years there has been a "greening" - in the Sahara - many isorums have become greener.
With a little effort I can find you links.
Start counting?
Change in local weather - increased rainfall in some places and desertification in other places (we suffer from this both directly and through the influx of refugees from Africa)
The sea level rise seems small, but it will definitely cause the evacuation of islands (this shows your obsessing over numbers that seem small on the surface)
melting glaciers in the mountains
Increasing the acidity of the sea water (a direct result of the rise in carbon dioxide even before the warming)
More warm days and fewer days of extreme cold.
And if you rule out all the natural disasters that have been increased due to the warming, you are already preparing the ground for the fact that nothing will move you from denying the connection to the warming.
And as for your claim 'it is possible to debate whether it is damage' on the melting of the glaciers - certainly it is damage because it will lead to an increase in sea level rise which in turn will cause additional damage.
And if we don't have Middor, then why has the multi-year average - decreased over the years?
"The damages of warming are already evident" - in the title.
Another spin.
So far no damage has been caused that can be said with certainty (or with high probability) caused by the warming. That is to say that "noticeable".
Many damages are predicted in the future.
So far (so far) no damage. Nothing.
There is, for example, the melting of some of the glaciers and the arctic ice. It is debatable whether it is damage or not...
Apart from that - all the natural disasters, droughts, floods, hurricanes - nothing is without precedent and does not deviate from similar disasters that existed in the past, before the great release of the PADH. Same as the sea level rise (17 cm in the Harona century).
Jacob
Skeptical Science does not quote selectively - you slander without any basis. Skeptical Science has no ideology, except for stating a scientific truth. The truth is that Skeptical Science cites scientists … period. The number of scientists who understand the climate and who claim that the climate is cooling, or that it is warming and not through the fault of man, is simply negligible. If you know otherwise - bring evidence.
You write - "As for the terrible warming of 0.8 degrees - we still have to find out what its cause is" - I haven't heard such a stupid sentence in a long time...
Skeptical Science quotes scientists selectively - only those who fit its ideology. There are many of them.
"Midbor with us" - this is spin. There is no desertification and no decrease in precipitation. The data do not show a real decrease in precipitation in the Land of Israel. You again speak according to your feeling and not according to the data.
As for the terrible warming of 0.8 degrees - it still remains to find out what its cause is, and whether it (or part of it) is not related to natural warming-cooling cycles.
The halt in warming is not spin but what all the institutions that follow the temperatures show in their data. These are the data.
To call it a spin is ... "spin". Ignoring it is spin.
Jacob, first of all we have already experienced an increase of 0.8 degrees on average (of course in some places it was much more - for example the ice in the Alps and in South America which is retreating, from our desert). You mention Efraim Kishon's skit about the Histadrut building where one of the participants tries to prove that the Histadrut building burned down, while in the window you can see that it exists. You see the warming, it is not clear how you can deny it.
The Skeptical Science website backs up every article with links to scientific articles, while you mainly refer to opinion sites that suit you, or distort explanations of scientific articles in which the scientists write that warming is a fact. I would suggest you not to make this claim - he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. Your site serves the interests of the Ian Rands who think that they are the ones who will scream that there is no warming to prevent the imposition of taxes to fight it and they are smart. But they don't look out the window and see the warming before they write their denials.
In the end, this is another spin designed to soften the harsh report of the IPCC, or what is left of it after the terror of the captive governments of the tycoons and oligarchs.
On the subject of the warming that has stopped: in all media channels (including those of Hammist activists) in the last 20 years they have emphasized the "rapid", "unprecedented" increase in global temperatures, as expressed in the various sets of measurements. They said: "An increase of 0.8 degrees in a century is terrible and terrible." You say so yourself here.
Now - when the same sets show a halt in warming - you move on to another topic - "but the depths of the ocean have warmed". When the information you have used so far is not convenient for your point of view - you look for other information that will make it better to promote intimidation.
Sharon, I stand on a relentless attack to give expression to their spins. I decided to give them an expression but to tell the truth that these are spins. What's wrong with that?
"But we know for sure that warming cannot be stopped"
You, Mr. Belizowski, know for sure based on your gut feeling based on reading alarmist media.
The scientists don't know, they speculate, and look for evidence for their hypotheses. Other scientists have other hypotheses. There are many signs here and there... only you are "safe".
"Only the continental temperatures have stopped" - not true. The stop includes the global temperatures - which means the temperatures on the surface of the land as well as on the surface of the sea - sea surface temperature. – Both things are included, for example in the temperature set of HADcrutemp4/
Regarding the accumulation of heat in the depths of the oceans - some claim so, but this is a weak claim. Our information on the temperature of the deep oceans is too small, and too short to reach a solid conclusion. It's mostly a guess. It may be true - but you - in your presentation to your readers - ignore the lack of data and present it as a fact.
"However, there is a good scientific reason why in recent years the oceans have been more successful in absorbing heat" What is the reason? I haven't heard of it. What is different in recent years from previous years?
And in general, it is appropriate for your readers to know that the website skeptical science is not a scientific website but a website of a Hammist activist who only spreads his ideology.
Also - if I may - it is appropriate that you present a more balanced and grounded picture to the readers.
In any case, I congratulate you for finally, finally, mentioning the hot topic of the last year in climate science: stopping the warming and the explanations for the phenomenon.
First, I really like your site, and I think you are doing a great job.
But regarding the particular article here, in my opinion, it is a shame that you take a position and write a "political" article with words such as "spin" and "global warming deniers" and so on. It is better in my opinion that you try to remain in the position of the neutral observer, who brings the scientific opinions here and there (it is certainly possible to point out that this or that claim does not meet the requirements of scientific proof and explain why). As soon as you move to the emotional side, it only clouds the reading and repels me as a reader, and I come out lost.