However, the Daily Mail followed by media outlets around the world, including YNET, were misled into thinking that it was a report from the British Meteorological Service
After the strange news about a virus that will wipe out the world within five years (see a scientific explanation of why this is completely wrong), the main media outlets in Israel, including YNET and NRG, surprised with another "scientific" news "Report: global warming stopped 16 sleep."
YNET writes from the news agencies: "Global warming stopped 16 years ago - so states a report recently published by the British Weather Service (Met Office) and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. The report is based on data collected from more than 3,000 points around the world. The new data shows that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no significant increase in global temperatures. This length of time coincides with the length of time that temperatures climbed, from 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures were stable for about 40 years.”
"The report contradicts data published 6 months ago, from which a warming trend emerged. However, the previous publication only included temperatures up to 2010, while the new report also included 2011 and the first 8 months of 2012, which were much cooler and erased the warming trend."
The original news, like the one that dealt In the mysterious virus that will supposedly wipe out humanity within a few years, was published in the London Daily Mail (something that should now cause doubt in its proportions also in other scientific news AB). But a simple check of the facts in the article revealed the following figure: the Met Office did not publish any report.
But courtesy of the "green blog" I came to a page in the section "Meteorological service in the media" which contains a response to the accusations.
"An article by David Rose that appeared in the Daily Mail under the title: "Global warming stopped 16 years ago" claims that the data is from a report that the British Meteorological Service recently published, and even attached a graph that shows this.
"This is the second time this year that Rose has written an article that contains misinformation andWe already answered him about that article . Nevertheless, we decided to answer some of the points in the article published today:
"First, the meteorological service did not publish any report on the subject. We are guessing that the article refers to the completion of work on updating the HadCRUT4 global temperature database that we are preparing together with the Climate Research Division at the University of East Anglia. We announced it in March and the work was completed this week. You can see the site HadCRUT4 is here.
Second, Mr. Rose said the weather service has not commented on its XNUMX-year forecast. This is because he did not ask us for a response. In response to David Rose, the members of the meteorological service write.
"Below is our response to your questions. We tried to answer as briefly as possible, but the issues you raised require comprehensive explanations."
Question #1: "First, please confirm that you have indeed revealed that there has been no warming trend since 1997."
The answer of the British Meteorological Service: "The linear trend from August 1997 (in the midst of an extremely strong El Nino) to August 2012 (toward the end of an extremely strong La Niña) shows an increase of 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade, or 0.05 degrees for the entire period. However, we could equally calculate the linear trend from 1999 during the La Niña event that followed the El Niño, and we would have received a strong rate of increase in temperature."
“As we've explained before, choosing a starting or ending point on small scales can be misleading. Climate change can be observed on a scale of many decades due to the variability inherent in the climate system. If you use longer periods than the HadCRUT4 data the trends will look completely different. For example, the data from 1979 to 2011 showed a trend of 0.16 degrees per decade. An examination of other successive decades during the period shows that each decade was warmer than the previous one so that the XNUMXs were warmer than the XNUMXs, the XNUMXs were warmer than both of these decades. Eight of the hottest years in history occurred in the last decade."
Over the past 140 years, the average global temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius, but within that time span there have been several periods lasting a decade or more where temperatures have risen at a slower rate or even fallen. The current period of slower warming is not unexpected, and periods of 15 years are not uncommon."
The British Meteorological Service quotes Rose's second questions: Tell me what this says about the model, when the IPCC and others have predicted a 0.2°C per decade increase during the 21st century. I would expect that there will always be cases where the gradient suffers from disturbances, but this flat period continues already in the same period as between the warming years 1980-1996."
The service's answer: "The models show that there is a large variation in the rate of warming from year to year and over decades, due to variations such as ENSO, the multi-decadal oscillation in the currents of the Atlantic Ocean and a similar oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, so in this sense, such a period is not unexpected. But more than 15 years, it is no longer likely that such a phenomenon will continue."
Third question, to finish, do the data show that other factors, in addition to carbon dioxide - for example the long-term cycles in the ocean currents may have a greater impact on the climate than previously thought?
And the answer: "We have a limited pool of data about the decades-old ocean circulation, but we have known for some time that they may slow down or speed up the observed warming trends. In addition, we also know that the changes in the surface temperature of the water occur not only due to the internal variation but are also affected by external forces, such as changes in the activity of the sun, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined with all of them, they could have influenced the decrease in the warming (but not cooling) trend seen in the last decade, but this is an area of ongoing research."
So much for the Met Office's explanation. Despite Rose's words, the warming trend has not changed, at least not when measured in real decades (from 1990-2000 or from 2000 to 2010), but it seems that after a big step in the XNUMXs, we are left with warm years but not yet another step in warming . To call it a stop, as Rose claims, is certainly exaggerated, what with all the data showing the increase in the phenomena caused by the cumulative warming - and the results of the desertification of the Israelite states we see ourselves in the migration of Africans to Israel, Israel itself is also warming up As emerged from a recently published report, the ice at the poles and on the mountain tops is melting at an increased rate, and the frequency of extreme natural phenomena has also increased greatly in recent years. After all this to say that warming has stopped is at most wishful thinking on the part of the deniers.
To illustrate that warming is still here, the British Meteorological Service published a graph showing in descending order the hottest years in history. The data speak for themselves, because as mentioned the eight hottest years were recorded in the last decade.
199 תגובות
Good luck if it's 0 for means you need politicians and politicians prefer other kind of solutions.
Or is there a third option? that thanks to the efforts of people in my opinion they will find good solutions?
Miracles - let's put it this way - even if AWG is correct - no one is going to sufficiently reduce carbon dioxide right now - at least not with the methods that currently exist.
So there are two options: either you are wrong or we ate it.
keep denying. The train also hurts those who turn their backs and close their eyes and ears.
That's what you say.
The difference is that many people have been run over by motorized vehicles of various sizes including trains - there are - but the AWG scenario has never happened yet - so your analogy is not good.
OK fine. You know what I meant.
AGW, like evolution, is an explanatory theory. This is different from a theory like the theory of relativity - which is a mathematical model.
Nor have they proven that if you are run over by a train, you die... But there are many confirmations. And AGW is not far from a speeding train……
Miracles did not prove - if you say that they did, it will not change the reality that they did not prove.
There really is no such thing as a proof in science - there is in geometry and mathematics -
Proof is in logical thinking - and not in scientific thinking - in science they talk about confirmations - which is much less than 'proof'.
another one
AGW has already been proven to exist. You are not ready to accept it. It's like falling from a tall building and claiming that we don't know all the physics to calculate exactly how many pieces we will break into.
What I (and most of the world) suggest is to open a parachute and then do the calculations. You are still waiting for an experiment that will deny...
Good luck on the way down
It is clear that it is a division - there are scientists who question the paradigm - there is a dispute. It's a simple bullet - there is less than 100 percent agreement - there is disagreement - but that is not the point here.
You can state that most or all of the scientists who question the theory are not really scientists and therefore they do not count and that they are all in the pocket of the big oil companies, etc., etc. But this is not a serious discussion.
Opposing science is not anarchism - science has no government - it has no leadership - science is a concept - not a collective of people and therefore it is impossible to be an anarchist or a democrat or a monarchist - these are meaningless words here.
What your scientific method lacks is a forecast - you have to predict something - something that the other models do not predict -
And not just - you have to take a risk - that is, not something that is likely to happen - something that will make the theory stand out from the rest
That is, you need to put it under a real possibility of refutation. - That is, you need a theory that will handle and explain some kind of uncertainty and then correct it -
There is warming - or at least there is an indication of warming from all the indicators we have (or at least there has been warming in the last century with the exception of short periods of slowdown or cooling) - we are emitting FDF at a rate
Increased - this is a given - in order to prove that there is a connection between the two phenomena - you need to provide an observation that is good enough to and accurate enough - for there to be a real possibility that it will fail - there are several possible models - those that predict a warming of 4 degrees and those that predict a warming of a degree and a half (and according to Nir Shabiv there are also models that are less heard of that also predict a decrease of Ma'al) except for the fact that in such a range of possibilities it is certainly probable that some model will match reality simply because of statistics - and this also means that there is disagreement in the scientific community regarding the magnitude of the warming - and that there is really no consensus - some say that it will warm up a lot and there are some There are those who say it will warm up a lot and there are those who say it will only warm up a little - so there is really no consensus.
The anonymous user is me...
another one
More or less - exactly like that. This is not my definition. You are wrong and misled if you think the scientific community is divided on the existence of AGW. That is not the case.
You are an anarchist because you oppose science as a whole. You question everything. All just theories. That's not how science works. I'm not ruling you out, don't get me wrong. But the meaning of skepticism is that there is value to the scientific method, not the disqualification of the method itself.
The scientific method - there are several definitions. But the interview is that you make observations and build a theory that explains the observations. If the theory explains the observations, and there is a rational basis behind it, then the theory is considered a good model of reality.
Karl Popper claims that you need the ability to disprove a theory. This is not necessarily true, although it is very convenient and very strong.
So for you, a skeptic is only someone who doubts the "right" things?
It is allowed to doubt the nonsense that there is obviously a lot of doubt about their correctness (ie they have 0 confirmations and many refutations) and you compare it to our debate?
Why do you think I don't believe in the scientific method?
What do you even define as the "scientific method"?
Why do you think I'm an anarchist? how is that related?
another one
You don't exactly understand what a "skeptic" is!!
The world's skeptic community (and I am a member of several communities) cast doubt on topics such as homeopathy, alternative medicine, witchcraft, fortune tellers, global warming deniers, Big Foot, and God.
We believe in the scientific method, and believe that most scientists are honest people.
You're not like that, apparently. You are an anarchist.
Do not be confused.
If I was willing to accept any such research as truth - then I wouldn't be a skeptic, would I?
Economics is a "science" that makes climate research appear free of politics and ideology - it is also much more pretentious.
An economic study that talks about the economy and emission levels in the next 38 years is simply delusional, when no one has any idea what the state of the economy will be in another year, and what technology will take hold.
Someone is trying to sell you (or in this case to the governments and people of Europe) something - why do you think their research is not biased.
Research shows that it is economic.
Research shows it provides jobs.
And you are still against.
How expected 🙂
Nissim - It is not clear to me why a study commissioned by an environmental organization - defeats reality - when a green industry will be economic - the free market will run it without the need for government subsidies.
But you are right - in this article there are many reasons to cry. - especially if you live in Europe.
another one
Read this and cry….
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4296892,00.html
Science is not simple at all.
Even if you know to a certain degree the effect of the greenhouse effect, you don't know all the positive and negative feedbacks that exist in nature - you don't know too much about the effect of cosmic radiation, clouds like in the article given by Link Lot are a rather complicated subject. And there is always the possibility of unknown factors affecting the system.
It is a fact that the range given by the IPCC is between 1.5 degrees and 4 degrees per century - which is a huge range.
Definately not
As I keep saying.
The science is simple. Man is changing the climate.
Everything else is another topic and I'm not talking about that.
I mentioned Al Gore by the way - you continued the topic.
Besides - the behavior of those pushing the issue is relevant because it affects the ways that should be taken to "save" the world - if these people are less than good then even if AWG is the reality - they will not solve it because they are selfish politicians who come to the field for to gain political capital or just capital.
They also serve as purveyors of straw man arguments that dilute the arguments for warming and weaken your side's theory.
another one
Again... take care...
Nissim-El Gore did not raise awareness of the issue
Al Gore helped bring more politics into the field.
I heard about global warming (as a fact by the way not as a theory) long before you heard about Al Gore.
It's not related - Al Gore's lack of integrity is not an indication of the substantiation or lack of substantiation of the AWG theory.
He is a maximum example that the pro-AWG side is also not free of ideological or economic interests.
another one
What did you contribute to this whole conversation? Except for the slanders of course... That's what you're good at. Al Gore raised awareness of the issue. He has already invested 30 years of his life in this. So in the beginning it consumed more electricity. big deal.
I like how you distinguish between the main thing to take care of - and choose to deal with the care.
You just say no. They are all liars. Everyone is stupid. You repeatedly deny solid science. You are mixing up a lot of unrelated topics.
who will?
El Gor-the one who in the movie A Disturbing Truth brought celebrities on a private plane?
That until someone noticed lived in a big house that wasted a lot of electricity? (He has since switched to greener energy - but there is a certain level of audacity in a human being asking humanity to reduce their quality of life for the sake of the environment when he is not.
and so
Look for 'Al Gore' on the green blog - he was a popular carrier there before he became a joke in the eyes of the mainstream
for example:
http://www.green-logic.info/2008/06/blog-post_18.html
(Their link is dead but I'm sure you can find something if you search)
I know my father passes there sometimes so you can too.
So Al Gore was not being honest or he is just a hypocrite who also lies to himself.
He reminds me of a Chihuahua
Where exactly was Al Gore not yes???
What you are saying is very dangerous. I'm glad you're not in a position to decide. You remind me of Captain Edward Smith :).
I'm not denying the problem - I'm saying that when you take the problematic nature of the proposed solutions, the dishonesty of the politicians pushing the issue (like Al Gore), the fanaticism of a large part of the green movement, the natural tendency of scientists to tilt their research where they think it should go Especially in a situation of "consensus" and the understandable problematic nature of problematic science such as climate science - I say that more time is needed to investigate the problem and the solutions and not rush to waste a lot of resources on bad solutions to an unclear problem.
I already told you, there is a difference between doubt and denial.
I see problems in the field at all levels -
From the measurements of the warming, through the determination of globality, through the linking of the warming to the FDH, and also the efficiency and price of the proposed solutions.
another one
you are confused You deny the problem at all. What are you confusing the brain about the solution?
Am I so worried about them? I'm just saying that protests against the emission of PAD, as many green organizations want, have consequences for the economy of all of us and severely damage third world countries as well - and that it is a form of arrogance to expect the people of the developing world and the people of the rapidly developing world to emit less PAD and not develop industrially because the first world Already caught all the emissions we can afford.
In order for it to be moral to request and enforce such a thing - one must act in a much more drastic way than mainstream green organizations suggest - something that will seriously damage the Western economy (and indirectly the economy of the rest of the world which in many cases benefits from the Western economy). It doesn't seem practical to me from a political point of view - especially when no one gave a good measure in dollars of the damage expected from this warming - only that it would be a catastrophe. -Give me a number- how much damage will be caused by warming if we do nothing-
How much damage can we prevent from this if we do the proposed plans and how much will these plans cost us (cost and financial damage they will cause) - with the solution more painful than the damage it saves so it's pretty stupid to implement it right?
Food needs to be refrigerated in the spoiled west. In general, it might make sense to refrigerate certain products so that they can be marketed out of season. Did I say I'm against it?
Some medicines need to be refrigerated. Did I say I'm against it?
heat food Did I say I'm against it?
Have you considered that if the first world consumes less fossil fuel then its price will also decrease and there will be surplus quantities that can be sold cheaply to the third world (your terms)?
And did you think that the harm of global warming is precisely those you care so much about? Maybe you don't know - but this is exactly what is happening in the world.
It's amazing how faith can blind a person.
Miracles
What needs to be refrigerated is food - so that you can keep it for a long time and transport it for a long time.
Sometimes you also need to refrigerate medicines as well.
They also need a way to heat the food.
And how exactly will they get to their work without gas?
His brain, miracles. He works too much….
Cooling is an interesting point. But tell me, what exactly needs to be cooled?
Excellent hydroelectric power. where possible. Let's remember that the biggest problem in the world is fresh water???
I think the problem in the third world is not that they don't have a car. I personally prefer to give them water, medicine, food and jobs.
It is possible to live in a very high quality of life even without cars. Do not know. Maybe it's just me, but I see the car as a symbol of a lot of the bad things in our world.
Yes, you need transportation and you need the ability to transport.
I don't think a car is an existential necessity.
Hydroelectric power bad?
Are you saying that third worlders don't deserve the right to a car like first worlders?
By the way - you know that the price of transporting goods is reflected in the goods - if it is more expensive to move things and keep them refrigerated - then food prices will rise.
In my opinion, easier. "Green" also means economical, preventing waste. A car is not a necessity. It's really not what they lack.
The main problem is, of course, clean water. In desert countries near the sea - you can use wind, or sun, or energy of waves or tides. In rainy countries there are other solutions for cleaning the water.
This is not my area of expertise. But it's been done before. For example, by Michael Reynolds.
How will you introduce green issues into a third world country?
There is not enough money for electric energy, certainly not for the infrastructure of electric cars, - they need an economy - they need health and they need industry - how will they grow with the limitations of the Fed?
I am not familiar with the issues you are describing. Regarding the biodiesel, the logic is with you. It probably doesn't emit less CO2.
The fact that the third world will have cheaper oil is not necessarily a good thing. After all, as far as I'm concerned, I don't want them to be established in this direction. Precisely in these countries it will be easier to introduce green issues. Industry does not bring happiness. Big cities are bad.
What is needed is to reduce the birth rate in the first stage. This, between us, is the biggest problem in the world. Not like they do in China, of course, but in a different way, mainly through education.
They need to be provided with water, vaccines and medicine. schools. Jobs (preferably not in an energy-intensive industry).
But - we are still in danger of climate change. Factually - today there is damage in several places in agriculture.
Who do you think is hurt by this? Hi-tech workers? I'm sorry - but those who have already been affected by climate change are exactly the ones you want to protect.
The use of corn-based biodiesel - which I don't think you are against either - increased the prices of raw food - which mainly affects the third world - even though more and more people agree that this is not good - probably does not save too many PADF emissions (if at all) – It will take some time before they put this idea back in Pandora's box.= The carbon credits for each incarnation meant that a polluting factory in China produces more pollution because it receives more money if it treats this pollution than not producing this pollution at all.
Or factories that close in a country if it worsens in order to open in a country that does not have this standard.
Want a truly green country - impose a pollution tax on everything that would receive a tax in Israel - even if it comes from China.
Regarding oil prices - the cheaper oil is - this means that it is also cheaper for the residents of the third world - and this means that they have more availability of energy and electricity - in the third world, energy and mobility are significant for the quality of life there. An increase in the price of a raw product will always affect the residents of developing countries more.
Regarding solar collectors - when they find solar collectors that will be economical - then a lot of them will be ordered -
It's even destructive to spend a lot of money on an inferior product and further subsidize it, because then the researchers actually loosen their hands - if everyone who would buy a solar panel has already bought the primitive model - why in five years when you finish creating a better model will he buy it?
another one
It could be that what you say about the cloth bags is true. But, there are cloth bags that last for years.
And regarding the problems of hybrid cars - it is very possible that you are right here as well. I once read an article that showed that during the life cycle of a vehicle - a Jeep Supa pollutes less than a Toyota Prius!!! For example - the creation of the battery of the Prius is very problematic.
And also the solar collectors - if it is so good then why doesn't the electric company itself cover large areas with these collectors? At least the websites of the electric company!!!
But, the world learns and mistakes are made. We are sure that electric cars will be cleaner in the future, and solar collectors will be found that are economical.
My problem is that according to your approach, there is nothing to be bothered with. We don't affect the environment, you say, and we waste effort that does not contribute to poor countries.
Just maybe you can explain to me how an attitude of saving hurts poor countries .... I can't understand how lowering the price of oil will contribute to the well-being and health of the people of African countries.
my father
I don't have a problem with a green creature - I have a problem with an industry that has no economic or environmental justification that enjoys government subsidies because it looks environmental. (I even throw bottles for recycling - although I'm not sure how much it helps the environment)
I'm really sorry that I don't fit the stereotype of a "denier" that you think I am.
Are you suddenly worried about green production? But you will not allow production through solar collectors, so that no more energy is required.
And of course for the blacks everything green is dirty, they live in an upside down world.
I tried the cloth bags they sold in the store - precisely because of the idea of protecting the sabiya = both from dirt and from contamination of the production - but they tore in less than a month - I read somewhere that they are equivalent to making bags for 12 months or something like that - so I decided to give up.
We knew you would have an answer!!!!!
I have the same bags from Australia from 2007
Congratulations on the cloth bags - the problem is that their production process is as polluting as enough plastic bags for a year (roughly. I don't remember exactly how long) - if you use the same cloth bags all this time (and they haven't torn and you change them every few months) - then You earned for the environment - where I buy cloth bags they tear after a few weeks - which puts the whole idea of saving into question.
If there is a solution that does not effectively save GHG emissions but does waste money - then it diverts resources from other solutions that could save more. There are also solutions that are supposed to help, but they still have an offsetting effect - such as hybrid car owners driving more so that they feel they are taking advantage of the economy of the relatively expensive car they bought. If many will buy less good technology today than it will be in a few years in the solar field - then as a better technology Be available no one will buy it.
my father
Everything we say to him has an answer.
I personally have been using cloth bags for 6 years and since then there has not been a plastic bag from the supermarket in my house.
It is interesting that those who deny the problem claim that what we are doing exacerbates the problem. It is interesting that those whose approach is socialist think that capitalism is the solution...
Avi - the effectiveness of solar panels is nothing - if it was even close to being economical - there would be no need for a massive subsidy - it is not clear to me who is supposed to pay for covering all the roofs in the country with solar panels - but it sounds very expensive to me - and besides, what can be done if there is no sun? For Germany, whose security situation is less oppressive than Israel's and that it has a strong economy
Avi - the plastic recycling process is not necessarily less polluting than the plastic production process - it is also not necessarily cheaper - the same with paper.
Transportation is channeling with the price of fuel - it's just that the hybrid cars are not really economical in most cases and the electric cars are a laughing stock right now (from an economic point of view).
Efficient public transportation should be able to take employees from place to place in a short time - this means many more buses and trains - and this reduces the savings effect. C people will not give up the freedom of a car so quickly.
Being energy efficient is something we always do whenever possible because it saves money.
It is not clear to me what "unnecessary" things are. Do you want to create a spartan society here where everything that is absolutely necessary has no right to exist? - You know that Western economics does not work like that. A good percentage of the population receives its livelihood from things that are not "essential" what will they do instead?
It is strange to say that global warming will drastically change our lives - and as a response we need to drastically change our lives.
Many things can be done - cover all the roofs with solar collectors by order, it is also impossible for cold Germany to apply solar energy better than Israel.,, and immediately invest in R&D in alternative energy on the scale of a space program, not on the scale of a dunam here and a goat there .
Start recycling plastic that is a petroleum product
To optimize transportation - to transfer more load of freight traffic to trains that are driven by electricity, when electricity, as we know, can be obtained for free from the sun during the day and wind at night,
Transportation can be switched to electricity and aviation and some transportation to biodiesel (from plants that grow in desert areas and not from corn)
To encourage massive use of public transportation and also to switch it to electricity
Look for in each product how it is possible to optimize production and supply to save energy for production and transportation.
Not to produce unnecessary things - something that will require a reduction of advertisements that encourage the purchase of those unnecessary products
And there are many small things that everyone can do in their immediate surroundings.
Don't forget that the decrease in dependence on oil has other benefits besides the reduction of carbon emissions - the weakening of the oil producing countries in the Middle East.
And again, all because this is not a theory but a reality that is happening in the field and has been increasing in recent years even without waiting for further aggravation.
The father of the positive feedback issues are a big part of the question. The time it will take to warm up is also a large part of the question - and in general, what do you propose to do to reduce PADH emissions.
No need to bring an alternative theory - this is exactly the answer of the deniers of evolution, because their alternative theory is not scientific.
You don't even have a scientific theory, just like creationists try to find holes in evolution, so you also try to claim that there are holes in AGW. And this despite the fact that it is possible to precisely measure the effect of carbon dioxide, which makes up a significant percentage of the atmospheres of Mars and Venus. We know exactly from the laboratory the absorption capacity of the gas, we know more or less how much carbon is released into the air each year, we cannot know exactly what the effect of the poles will be, that apart from keeping the water in an ice state, they also return the sun's radiation into space because of the white color of the ice, and contribute to cooling . And more issues of positive feedback.
Therefore the question is not whether but how quickly things will happen.
Whether the process will happen quickly or slowly, the damage is already in progress, so the question is not a theoretical question. Carbon emissions must be reduced immediately. Can't is a cousin of don't want.
Father - there is no such thing as a skeptical movement - there is no one organization and no one ideology.
There are those who come with clear motives and use the rhetoric of connection theories and pleasure - on the other hand, many AGW supporters also use exaggerated rhetoric.
You don't need to bring an alternative theory (and some do that)
The issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms - but whether carbon dioxide warms significantly.
But the skeptical movement, as you call it, is not motivated by scientific motives, and therefore more research will not help, because you will not believe it either, as you have not believed the research so far.
It is a denialist movement whose entire purpose is to prevent harm to the rich who run the global economy and not to the poor, who are at most their hostages.
The rich have money to lobby and buy politicians and the support of media outlets that attack ignorance of science and it doesn't even bother them.
And if there is a scientific basis, then those who oppose should present another scientific basis, according to which carbon dioxide does not cause warming, and reason and offer ways to disprove it, just like any scientific theory, it is not enough to grumble about the competing theories and make simple physics complicated.
By the way, saying anthropogenic warming (AGW) is like saying the sun shines because the earth rotates on its axis.
Miracles I don't need to contradict - the fact that the theory has a scientific basis is a necessary condition but not sufficient for it to be based.
And even an established theory always has to withstand attacks and alternative theories.
Doubt is a very important part of scientific thinking.
Is enteropogenic global warming calling? Absolutely possible - the question is what humanity should do about it. First of all, you need to understand that a real and drastic prevention of PADF emissions at the moment is not something simple - it is a process that will do a lot of damage to the economy, will mainly harm the poor and third world residents.
It should also be understood that a large part of the world will only increase emissions of PAD in the coming years and a first world that emits much more PAD per capita will not be able to convince it to stop.
So that's why I prefer that more research come out - now in the shadow of a stronger and more vocal skeptical movement - that will see what needs to be done - how bad the warming is and what are the right solutions that need to be done.
A thermometer, my love
1. Do you know the difference between "area" and "volume"??
2. Do you know the difference between "climate" and "weather" ??
3. Do you know that the AGW models predict a temporary increase in the Antarctic ice area??
4. Do you know that the increase in the ice area in Antarctica is really negligible compared to the melting in the North Pole??
5. Would you agree that there is global warming if the ice area at the South Pole starts to decrease??
So that's it - you're wrong.
I'm not talking about the greens and their solutions. There are a lot of problems, a lot of interests and a lot of money in this.
I am interested in science. The science here is clear. You also failed to contradict the scientific basis for my opinions (and that of most of the rest of the scientific world).
While there is summer in the Arctic Ocean there is winter in Antarctica
Today the BBC announced that three Australian research stations in Antarctica are cut off from supplies due to the collapse of the ice surface used as a landing strip for the supply planes.
Miracles - your political agenda doesn't change the facts either.
another one
Your political agenda does not change the facts.
I'm sorry
Miracles
The three-body problem is a mathematical problem - the working forces are known, but there is no analytical solution even on paper.
It is not the same here that we do not know all the factors in the system, and even if there is an analytical solution on paper or a numerical solution on the computer, it will not necessarily be a good observation of reality - because some factors were neglected, were unknown or were calculated incorrectly.
Volcanoes cannot be predicted, but it is possible to give a mathematical script that will include a volcanic eruption at any given moment -
What should be expected is not exactly just a forecast but a fiscal model that will adapt itself to changes that cannot be expected such as volcanoes or the magnetic activity in the sun that can surprise.
my father
I don't have a problem if you want to continue believing in AWG, your belief in it won't change much.
My problem starts when you and most of the green movements in the world want to sacrifice a part of our economy - and starve people in the third world - all this to promote green industries that barely save a lot of money in many cases - so I have a problem.
The ice is shrinking = global warming
The ice is expanding... aah = global warming
Opposite Behaviors? Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks, Antarctic Grows
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html
another one
You explain something to me. Newton's 3 laws are simple, right? So why don't we know how to predict the motion of a simple system of a sun and two planets?
We know how to calculate, to my understanding, the effect of CO2 on the climate. There are other effects, such as volcanic eruptions. I'm really sorry they didn't know how to predict Pinatubo…….
The big problem with prediction is positive feedback. It's really hard. It is easy to predict a trend but difficult to predict the magnitude.
And again - you have to prove that man has no effect on the climate. I don't want evidence - it's not science. I want an explanation why emitting 25-30 billion tons of CO2 per year, every year, will not affect the climate.
good luck with that.
And precisely because I'm not a climate scientist, I stick to the scientific consensus.
Avi Blizovsky-
First of all, you're not really a climate scientist, are you? You're not a researcher in the field.
Secondly, bias is not necessarily only due to money - there are other reasons that can cause a scientist to reach a biased conclusion - most of which are not even really conscious: such as ideology, pressure from colleagues, pressure from bosses, prestige and the desire to avoid saying that everything you have investigated up to now is not true...
Miracles-
If the science is simple - why didn't they know how to anticipate the slowdown in advance (you gave me a possible explanation for the relief / slowdown - not a forecast for a decade).
Why do the models from the beginning of the century predict an increase of between 1.5 degrees and XNUMX degrees per century?
Science is really not simple.
Even (most) scientists who support AWG say that.
Carl Sagan once said that a revolutionary hypothesis needs revolutionary evidence.
The science here is simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that humans emit in huge quantities and therefore the climate is warming.
Just as evolution is true even without the fossils, AGW is true even without the measurements.
Whoever thinks otherwise, bring the revolutionary evidence for this.
I can assure you that so far, I have not personally benefited one dime as a result of my exposure to AGW. On the contrary, this prevents me from raising advertising with the tycoons, but I am loyal to the scientific truth.
Again you return to the idea that all the skeptics or most of them are in the pocket of oil tycoons and all the supporters of AWG are pure scientists from bias, they have no extraneous affairs of any kind.
I've already said it here - it will be very difficult for a scientist to go against AWG if he is ideologically invested in the idea, talked and lectured about it in communications for a long time, all his research is based on it, all his colleagues believe in it and treat skeptics as deniers, his boss believes in it - Many times there will be research bias, not even awareness-in science-if you don't try to disprove something- you won't disprove it in many cases.
my father
I have already stopped arguing with them. You cannot have a conversation with someone who has already decided the outcome of the debate. The essential difference, to me, is in intentions. This company has no good intentions. The science behind it. AGW is simple. The physics is simple and the evidence is solid.
Luckily for us the number of skunks is negligible, they just have a big mouth. They did not understand that there is not a single research body in the world that thinks like them.
You will see that if tomorrow is colder than today in Tel Aviv then they will provide that as evidence. But the melting of the North Pole is a momentary phenomenon……
Lower tempo, not a stop, and this is also my interpretation, probably wrong, because the sentence in English was not complete. Now in retrospect because you think every article is a legal document I regret this sentence.
Apart from that, this whole section in the Met Office's answer to your terrorism was a typical British understatement, they wanted to tell him - let's say you are right and there is a stop, there have already been stops and even cooling downs.
You can't take an article written by a terrorist and give it more weight than thousands of climate scientists whose profession it is. His profession is to be a mercenary terrorist of the oil gods. It is the scientists' profession to tell the truth even if it is inconvenient for capitalists.
Avi - the oil giants will remain the oil giants - they will only sell fuel at higher prices and employ fewer people because it will be harder to get drilling licenses and less oil to transfer/refine, they will also feel it in their bank account - but most of them will not really suffer. The little citizen, on the other hand, will feel it. - A reduction in GHG emissions without cold whether it is necessary or not - will affect all of us - and not just the oil and coal giants.
Avi-again-a quote from your article:
"Over the past 140 years, the average global temperature has increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius, but within that time span there have been several periods of a decade or more where temperatures have increased at a slower rate or even decreased. the period Current of warming blower rate It is not unexpected, and periods of 15 years are not uncommon"
You are arguing as if it is something theoretical. The hysteria is that the earth has already started to go crazy because of the carbon dioxide emissions by man, the corals are bleached, the snows in the mountain glaciers and the poles are melting, the seas are rising, the deserts are spreading. Do you want to continue the process or stop it? Don't you have an iota of responsibility, a little thought about the long term beyond the excessive and disordered profits of the oil giants?\
What's more, when you don't do cherry picking, you find out that there was a definite warming even in the last decade and a half, which contained the ten hottest years in history.
Father, what are you arguing about, it is not clear.
From the new article in the Daily Mail:
Another critic said that climate expert Professor Judith Curry had protested at the way she was represented in our report. However, Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers, responded: 'A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office's statement. . . effectively refutes Mr. Rose's argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.
'Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don't know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the "pause".
The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: 'We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.'
Two studies show that in Roman times it was the same/slightly warmer.
What is the hysteria about?
I'm tired of repeating my XNUMXst grade level explanation of comparing a warm year to a cold year. The moron who writes in the Daily Mail didn't get it, so he hit you with his bullshit.
I've seen enough strawmen on your side as well.
Straw men in many cases it is simply Poe's law - someone believes in the extreme or simplistic view and also promotes it.
You know you can see a trend after a sufficient number of years - 16 years ago the last 16 years showed a clear trend of warming according to the same measurements.
No sane climate scientist said that from now on every year is warmer than the previous one and that all processes in nature have disappeared. True, some of the processes went wrong and there is a fear that, absurdly, the disruption in the Gulf Stream as a result of the warming will cause a cooling in Europe (at the expense of other places in the world that will become deserts, but I can already see Fox reporting from frozen Paris and saying - we told you, there is no warming, but no one will go and review a normal day of 50 degrees in the western USA).
Over time there is a trend of warming which means that each year is warmer than its counterpart in previous decades in terms of natural phenomena. (mainly El Nino and La Niña).
But you prefer to claim against the scientists things that they did not say and then contradict the things that were not said as if they disprove the warming. This is called building a scarecrow or a straw man.
This kind of argument is very common among apostates by which they make poo and evolution collapses. Only this is the fake evolution they built and not the real evolution.
Father - cut the extreme years if you want - you will still get that the increase has slowed down.
You can argue that it happened because of reasons unrelated to AWG - which is a natural cycle of the climate - but it still happened.
There is a difference between data and interpretation.
Very nice, we learned from this episode that the Daily Mail doesn't understand science, and they don't know that if a hot year in the nineties is equal in heat to a cold year in the current decade, this is a sign that it indicates an increase and not a stabilization.
They are also zero in math and their level in statistics does not reach eighth grade.
The second article in the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html
Indeed another one, you don't try anything, you don't want to try anything either, you just don't want to do anything.
What I did not understand?
I said thank you didn't I?
I asked and received and said thank you.
And by the way, this is not an experiment - it is a prediction
We don't "try" anything.
Good night.
another one
No one in his faith will live.
You got a rebuttal experiment as you asked for.
You received an article on divination as you requested and you did not understand it, as I expected.
Keep denying as much as you want. It's already boring to me.
Bye
Nissim, thank you - for the first article, I can't read more than the summary, which I don't quite understand how it is related, because it talks about the cooling of the lower stratosphere in the 80s and 90s.
The second article speaks to a possible cooling effect that I assume can explain the slowdown (the one you deny half the time) (assuming the idea hasn't been disproved since then)
Considering the fact that it was said there that they don't know enough about clouds - (since then the situation can improve) so it doesn't really weaken my claim. (My claim is that there are many things that are not really known in climate science)
See, for example, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1999/1999GL010487.shtml
And for example http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/1399/title/Is_there_a_vent_in_the_global_greenhouse%3F
You love to complicate things so much ….. as long as it suits your views. Be healthy 🙂
Miracles - as you said - the model is part of the theory - so there is no point in making a new model without the effect of carbon dioxide - it can only be tested with the FDAH - the model has no meaning without the FDAH - because if the model itself is not good - then neither is the one that is not Taking into account the FADH will not necessarily get results.
Now please direct me to a forecast by a serious research body that predicted, based on factors other than the FAD, that the rise in heat would slow down/stop in the next decade - one that was made before the trend was clear.
I don't know all the predictions - not even a small amount - but you might.
Avi-
The fact that some people did research and found a way to somehow take into account the heat island effect and then arrive that there is still warming - does not mean that they were completely right in the mathematical treatment they gave it - from what I understand they did not completely neglect the bad stations - maybe I misunderstood.
I think it's strange that they say on the one hand that urbanization does affect warming and then they show that warming is not affected at all between urban and rural areas - what about areas that have undergone urbanization along the way? What are they considered? The illuminated warming is much more than the average global warming - I suppose it is possible but what is the explanation for it?.
And the truth is the graphs are too close to each other - how the average of villages and cities is almost the same - they should also be located in different types of areas. (Cities have rural areas, but the countryside and nowhere have urban areas)
Maybe I don't understand the article - I would appreciate it if you could explain to me how they offset the heat island effect.
another one
3. You are confusing weather with climate. MZA is chaotic, but not completely - a small change in the starting conditions can lead to a big change in MZA. But, nevertheless - today we know how to give a forecast for several days ahead. The "chaotic" section is for a small place, and a short time - we don't know what will happen at 16:00 PM in Allenby Street in Netanya.
For climate it is different. The climate is a stochastic phenomenon - averaging over a large area over a long period of time. It is, relatively speaking, much simpler.
Think that we know how to research the climate back many, many years. We have no way of knowing when it last rained on Allenby St....
It is indeed possible that the climate is chaotic, but it is only on the scale of very, very long periods. We know how to give the climate on a daily, annual, and even for periods of tens and hundreds of years.
The climate for the periods we are interested in is not chaotic. No wingspan of any butterfly does anything for the climate (the truth is not for the weather either).
Look - the movement of the planets is also chaotic. But we know how to predict the position of the planets with enormous accuracy, for periods up to a certain length.
4. You just ignore the evidence.
5. You are also wrong here. The models are horribly detailed. Therefore, their results are so close to what really happens. A good example is the modeling of the Pinatubo effect on the climate.
I didn't follow the last sentence.
3. The climate prediction models are a theory (a collection of theories). I offered you an experiment to disprove them and you, the devil knows why, refuse to accept my claim.
4. A body of evidence is not a theory.
5. See 3……
There is a very small group of people who try to come up with theories that go against what we, as science, believe. That's how it works. There is a consensus and whoever proposes a new theory should attack it. It should provide a better explanation, or better predict.
By the way. If we're being honest - the requirement for the 'ability to refute' is a bit over-rated. Not every field of science has a concept of experiments. Think pala-ontology or astronomy, or cosmology.
Just so you know, in the philosophy of science, there is very little agreement with Popper's approach. It's a long topic, but the idea is that in practice science does not work according to Popper's method. A theory is used as long as it has successes, and not because other theories have been disproved.
I'll tell you a secret - when evidence contradicts a theory, it's much more acceptable to throw the evidence away.... That's what McIntyre tried to do regarding the famous "hockey stick" graph. Another method is the "rape" of the theory in order to adapt it to the evidence - the classic example is, of course, Ptolemy's universe.
In all honesty, I'm trying to understand why people object to this whole story. Do you really think the scientific community is a collection of idiots who don't know basic research?
The phenomenon (AGW) exists and the explanation for the phenomenon is simple: CO2 absorbs radiation in the IR range. We know how much CO2 man produces. We see the swallow. We see the warming. Everything works out.
And moreover - we are already seeing the damage that the phenomenon is doing.
And it's more convenient for you to ignore it. You have to be a serious genius to go against scientific consensus. I have not yet heard of the Dane Shechtman who supports your approach…….
A. The issue of the heat islands was examined and ruled out. http://skepticalscience.net/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
B. There is no doubt, as Nissim explained to you - the connection between the carbon dioxide in your furnace and the warming is clear. Unless you only accept this fact when the Earth becomes conjunct Venus. But what to do, then it will be too late.
First of all - every device has a random measurement error and this should decrease with multiple measurements.
The problem is with a systematic measurement error that arises due to changing external factors such as the construction of a city around the position and the like - of course you also have to take into account that more recent measurements are much less accurate and suffer from a larger random error.
Therefore, the argument is that even though there is probably warming - you still have to take into account that the measurements are not necessarily accurate and therefore it is impossible to know how much warming there is.
Those of you with measurements are now the ones who refuse to acknowledge that warming has clearly slowed down in the last decade+.
And besides, I already said that the stage of the debate is not about the warming, but about the connection between the warming and the Fed.
Another one, those who rely on thermometers do not have to prove anything, those who claim that the thermometers are broken have to prove that there are thousands of devices involved. But the deniers have a crooked floor, it's not that they don't know how to dance.
Miracles:
1: Yes
2: Yes
3: No.
4: No.
5: no.
I don't have a theory - it's strange to me that the basic situation is that there is warming and whoever wants to cast doubt is the one who has to bring a theory that can be disproved.
You have to do it - not us.
another one
a few questions:
1. Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something we have known for close to 200 years?
2. Do you agree that we know how much CO2 man adds to the atmosphere each year?
3. Are you aware that the climate is a statistical phenomenon that can be calculated very well?
4. Do you know that all the evidence supports human warming?
5. Do you know that they know how to take into account cosmic radiation, Milankovitch cycles, changes in the intensity of solar radiation and the other excuses?
I can't figure out what's wrong with the rebuttal experiment I offered you. I also did not see where the refutation experiment for your theory is...
The science behind global warming is excellently done, precisely because of its effect on our daily lives.
I just want to understand how you know that none of this is true.
It turns out that even small minds think alike
Nissim = In the 90s and XNUMXs, warming accelerated - about me and SAFKAN - we talked.
In the XNUMXs - the rate of warming decreased - this is also what I wrote before SAFKAN.
Miracles:
A computer model is not really an experiment - it is simply a substitute for analytical formulas that simpler physics has.
Because there are many, many factors in a climate paragraph - many, many variables, and a lot of chaos - it cannot be described using simple formulas, so simulations are used - they are not a substitute for experimentation. Because a large part of the assumptions of the theory they are supposed to prove are already built into them.
Please provide me with a prediction that was made before the slowdown in the obvious accelerating trend that anticipated this.
Or at least for starters, provide me with a quote from an AWG supporter who said that such a slowdown was expected before it started. There are so many climate scientists - I'm sure some said that.
my father
I am not locked into any theory - for me, AWG is indeed a possible explanation of the measurements -
I just don't think that the scientific discussion in the field is done in a good way and I don't believe that the solutions that green organizations come up with are good.
Creationists are not scientists - their theory is not scientific. The problem with them is not the doubt they cast on evolution but their use of that doubt to promote an unscientific theory that is more or less creationism in new clothing.
Because serious skeptics don't do that - they don't necessarily promote a new theory and if they do they don't do it that way.
Nir Shabib does not say - there is a problem with AWG and therefore our theory is correct - but he offers an alternative theory as part of his claims against AWG. Perhaps it is even possible to synthesize between the theories - then admittedly the effect of the warming will be smaller - but perhaps it will be possible to explain behaviors that the models could not anticipate at the time - thus strengthening the theory - although weakening the threat.
The problem is that the field is full of prophets of rage who don't like to hear a calming siren. And even the idea that the FAD is responsible for at least what it does is already too much for them.
SAFKAN and one other, you are no different than the deniers of evolution. You are locked into your theory and nothing will get you out of it. What exactly are you looking for here? You didn't make a mistake on the site? There are enough websites that are not committed to science such as the other truth or the yellow blog.
another one
SAFKAN indicates 0.315 degrees. And you yourself can't decide what you think - warming up or not? Paldor also claims that there is warming ……
I described to you an experiment that could disprove it - did you not understand it?
Miracles
The warming is indeed an observation - but there is acceptance on the observation itself - on the accuracy of the devices.
Nissim I would appreciate it if you could direct me to a model that shows the slowdown in warming over the last decade+ - preferably one that was made a large number of years ago.
The theory is that there is a connection between the warming and the FDF - what is the refutation of this theory.
SAFKAN
I just found the closest graph I wrote and rounded it up.
I always circle my argument against everything from the idea of fair play and avoiding argument to petty things.
I also have a minimal background in physics - I have a bachelor's degree in physics.
SAFKAN – You're just cheeky.
The figure I mentioned regarding a temperature increase of 0.3 degrees Celsius in the 32 years from 1980 to 2012 is *quite accurate*. In no way was there a temperature increase close to 0.4 degrees Celsius during that period.
I will explain below what I meant by the words *quite accurate* in the paragraph above, because I have to make two minor corrections to the numbers I provided, after I did another check. The other test is according to the GISS graph (I think) that appears in the English Wikipedia.
First Amendment:
It is not 32 years but only 31 years, because the year 2012 is not included in the number.
Second amendment:
The increase during that period is not 0.3 degrees Celsius but closer to 0.315 degrees Celsius.
I understand the reason for your mistake (the claim that there was a temperature rise of 0.4 degrees). Such a mistake is due to the lack of clarity of providing raw data, even I who try to be accurate had a lot of trouble verifying the data. It is important to be precise with numbers in physics otherwise all scientific arguments are worth nothing (using slightly wrong data can prove anything we want).
By the way, among those arguing with you, only Zvi is a physics scientist who really understands the subject in principle. Spring. I don't understand much and miracles are not even worth considering. But: it's good that you argue in any case, to show that the data published by David Rose in the Daily newspaper constitute a serious challenge to the conventions. It is not good to abandon the arena to the followers of the greenhouses without self-criticism.
I hope that at the end of the debates in the world - the data presented by David Rose (in collaboration with Judith Carey) brought in the Daily newspaper, will have an impact. These data will permeate the climate scientists who are not prisoners of conventions. That is, there will be brave scientists who will re-examine the reliability of the physical models sanctified by the "consensus". By the way, the Daily newspaper published another clarification article on October 21, the clarification article is important for those who want to understand his article in the Daily on October 13 (I think).
In my previous response, I referred you to a popular 75-minute lecture, on YouTube, that Nathan Faldor gave at Beer Sheva University in January 2012. A google search will lead you to his words. In my opinion, Natan Faldor is much closer to describing climate fluctuations than Nir Raviv.
Warming is not a theory, it is an observation. There is nothing to refute here.
CO2 emissions by humans can be calculated. We look at how much hydrocarbon fuel is burned, at the creation of cement, etc.
What remains is - does increasing the amount of CO2 cause an increase in temperature. One way to check this is to run the climate models twice. One time the human CO2 emissions are taken into account and the second time the human CO2 emissions are ignored. Now - we look at the climate over time and see which set of models was right.
Like I said, it's really simple.
What is the refutation of this theory, miracles?
Prof. Faldor is not right. Prof. Shabiv puts forward an interesting theory, but it has no evidentiary basis.
Zvi - you are simply wrong. We emit CO2 and CO2 is warming. It's really simple.
The "Khammasts" have a refutable theory, which explains the existing and has a proven ability to predict. In addition, there is a physical basis for this theory.
There are exceptions who do not accept it, according to my understanding it is because it is not convenient for them, because they are looking for provocations, or because someone is funding them.
You say that the burden of proof is on the "Khammists" but you completely ignore the proofs.
I'm a skeptic at heart. But, I see no point in ignoring facts that are so understandable. really no.
deer-
Don't think I'm saying what my father and miracles put in my mouth. -First thing- I am not exaggerating anything here.
I dismiss AWG outright, I do not call this science a "fraud" (although under the guise of this science there are many small frauds).
I say a few things - faith is something bad for science - scientific thinking requires a good level of healthy doubt.
I see many proponents of global warming scientists and non-scientists speaking in rhetoric that I think is anti-scientific.
I did not invent the fact that they claim that the science is already complete and any further discussion "confuses the public" they said that.
Second thing - there is a certain level of tinkering that anyone with a basic understanding of science can understand and tinker with - even if he cannot investigate on his own, he can find gaps in the explanations given to him - he also understands that "one line runs between every 3 points if it is thick enough" And he also understands how complicated a large fiscal system can really be. Even if he has no place in the scientific debate in academia (and he doesn't) his understanding still has a place in the public debate when the academics come and bring their prophecy of wrath to the whole world.
Third thing - scientists do not work in a vacuum - against a scientist who until now was a big supporter of global warming in a recent study he saw that the results were the opposite of what he expected and came to the conclusion that maybe there is no AWG.
Considering the fact that he believes that big industry is bad for the world regardless, that he has until now talked about warming in many forums, that he receives money from all kinds of associations to lecture about AWG - all his colleagues are strong and enthusiastic supporters of AWG, that everything he learned by people he considers Smarter than him is that there is AWG - whose boss in the climatology department - supports AWG - do you think he is not biased - even subconsciously?
Science is not a democracy - it has already happened in the past that individual scientists changed a paradigm such as Dan Shechtman and Barry Marshall, both of whom were ridiculed before they did it.
But that is not the discussion here.
The data shows that the trend of warming has stopped or weakened in the last 10-16 years - it is certainly legitimate to claim that the AWG science contains the possibility of this happening - only in my opinion it still raises the doubt that they are wrong.
The last time I saw a lecture by Nir Shabiv, I understood that he had an explanation for almost two-thirds of the warming and that the last third could be due to PADH.
The truth is that I haven't had the chance to hear Faldor yet (unless it's another lecturer I saw that I forgot his name)
Broadly speaking, there is a difference between creating an alternative theory like Shabiv researches (along with others in the world) and attacking another theory - you don't have to be world famous to find problems with the theory of a world famous scientist.
for miracles
Prof. Faldor and Prof. Shabib are honored in their place. Both are serious people who conduct scientific research using scientific tools - to say things like "Nir Shaviv's theory has no evidentiary basis" or "Feldor ignores the numbers" - is not relevant. Both have evidence for their research, based to some extent (like everything) and it may be that one day it will be proven that they were right.
to another one
Hanging on two scientists and ignoring thousands of others is not serious.
In almost every topic you search (with the exception of very extreme examples), you will find serious scientists who have the opposite opinion from most professionals. The fact that the majority do not think like them does not mean that they are wrong and that is important to remember, but it also does not mean that they are right and that is even more important to remember.
Like Prof. Shabib and Prof. Faldor, who did serious work and came to conclusion X, there are many other professors who came to conclusion Y. Since you cannot really check the work of all those scientists, it would be wise to avoid adopting strong minority opinions and embellishing the names of those who support your position.
For now, most of those involved in the field hold the opinion that global warming is caused by human activities. Furthermore, Professor Shabib, whose name you mentioned as a supporter of your position, does not claim that global warming is not caused by humans, but only that there are additional reasons and that the warming due to human activities is lower than expected according to the IPCC. You are therefore defending a minority opinion and that too by relying on all kinds of extreme blogs you find on the Internet - does that sound serious to you?
another one
I say "Consequently the only ones who can discuss AWG according to your method are those who understand AWG!"
There are very few scientists who understand the issue, and who say that there is no man-made warming. I think, and most of the scientific community also thinks, that they are wrong. They say "it's much more complicated", or "maybe there is another explanation". They ignore the evidence - I have no way of saying this gently.
I want to explain something. Faldor, as well as others, remind us that in the seventies everyone was talking about global cooling. This is another lie from your friends. There are very few articles that talk about global cooling - seven to be precise. One of the famous people who talked about cooling is Schneider from NASA - and he admitted that he neglected the effect of CO7.
I get to travel around the world a lot and meet people in the field, mainly farmers and fishermen. Everywhere, from northern Canada to southern Australia, without exception, everyone notes climate change. There is less snow, the sea level is rising and the summer is hotter. These are indeed anecdotes, but they correspond to what science says - our world is warming.
And it also happens in Israel - as Prof. Natan Faldor himself says - from a change in the composition of the atmosphere (Faldor says, not me...).
Coral bleaching is an example of the direct damage from the melting of carbon dioxide which is already tangible and only because of it is enough, as Giora Shabib says, to fight carbon emissions even regardless of warming yes or no. That's why it's not a marginal issue that you can continue the debate from and walk away as if nothing happened.
After all, your whole argument is that there is no need to lower the standard of living and deal with carbon emissions, and here is one reason why carbon emissions should be stopped even without the warming you hate.
You're right - let's define a third group - the group of scientists from whom I expect more...
I have now read some of Peldor's and Nir Shabiv's words. Shabib's theory does not have much evidentiary basis - just a theory.
Feldor says that warming causes increased emission of CO2. But - this is clear and known from the past as well. CO2, also in Faldor's opinion, is a greenhouse gas. So there is a positive feedback loop here. CO2 causes warming which causes more CO2 which causes more warming.
Then we add 25-30 billion tons of CO2 per year. We know the percentage of CO2 that man adds and the percentage that nature adds. There are numbers. Faldor ignores the numbers.
It's really not rocket science.
Father, I do not even force you to believe in anything.
Certainly not violently.
Faith does not have much place in scientific thinking.
Father, please, I don't understand anything about corals - give me the understanding or the time to get into the thick of it to form an opinion in this area. For the purpose of the debate, I will start from the assumption that you are right and indeed the condition of the corals is bad.
This means that there is warming and that there is a mass of too much carbon dioxide, but it does not give an indication of the heart of the debate - that there is a high sensitivity to the PADH elite in the atmosphere.
I didn't ask for graphs and information - I just stated that an article that claims A does not invalidate an article that claims B just by its very existence. Do you want to argue with the thermometer about this? Good luck - I don't know the subject at all.
Regarding what you say about my understanding of the graph and my reading comprehension of the article.
You understand that a graph is just a way of presenting data - there is no right or wrong way to understand it - you have the unclear interpretation that warming is increasing because there have been more than 10 warm years in the last decade.
According to this logic, if in 1997 the temperature had remained exactly constant for 16 years - it would still claim that there was warming because of those 15 years, 15 years were the hottest!.
You still haven't answered me why your assertion that warming is accelerating is the opposite of what the UK Meteorological Service said as quoted in this article you posted.
Miracles-
You divide the world into scientists and deniers - anyone who doesn't believe wholeheartedly in AWG is a denier and is therefore not a scientist - and since he is not a scientist he has no place in the debate about AWG.
As a result, the only ones who can discuss AWG in your opinion are those who believe in AWG!
Do you think that real science can be studied in such a mechanism?!
The thermometer and one other, you forget that people understand science, unlike the green blog. And with all due respect to the scientific dissidents, the site should reflect the scientific consensus, the green blog can reflect all the opponents - even to the force of gravity if it wants to. You in your violence cannot force the scientists to change their minds.
You guys are hysterics.
Miracles What type of people do you define as the climate expert Prof. Natan Faldor?
Uncertainties in climate forecasting (University of Haifa, March 2012):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFEogpB-L_w
again
you don't listen Go study the material. Until then we have no common language. I don't pretend to understand too much about it.
But - I see two types of people. One type belongs to climate scientists and diverse research bodies. They are based on the absorption of energy by the atmosphere, on the melting of the ice in Greenland and the poles (yes - at both poles), on the rise in sea level and the rise in temperature, both of the air and of the sea.
The second group, very small and very noisy, lies, confuses, distorts facts, does not understand scientific research, slanders senior and excellent scientists, and endangers the world so that they can continue driving their Hummer.
I, for some reason, I really don't know why, believe in the first group.
It's one thing to bring a graph, and another thing is to force you to understand it as it is and not as you want it to be. We are not responsible for the degree of opacity of the deniers.
And besides, here is a scientific study that confirms that there is coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef in Australia
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs003380000086?LI=true#page-1
And another,
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs003380050154?LI=true#page-1
Why do you need Google Schuler if you can always say that there is no evidence for coral bleaching and that's it.
Miracles
You won't call us deniers and I won't call you Hammists - any business?
It is convenient to use data in an argument that the person you are arguing with has brought - it is a source of information that both sides agree with. -Neither you nor my father explained to me how the assertion that there is no slowdown and even an acceleration in warming fits with the article and the data that my father himself provided in this article.
another one
The very use of the term "Khammist" is derogatory - you are talking about a huge group of scientists, each with a huge research background.
You are sickeningly hypocritical. You draw conclusions from a single graph that is here - because it is convenient for you. You ignore thousands of other graphs - because they don't fit your desires.
I must point out that you know how to differentiate very well between the main thing to take care of - and always choose the take care of.
The truth is you make me sick. You have no good intention. All you want is to keep destroying. Luckily for us you are in a huge minority and no one takes you seriously.
Have a good life.
By the way, you don't need films from abroad, I recently talked with coral researchers from Bar-Ilan and they said that this is a worldwide phenomenon. stop bullying These are facts, not a Talmudic discussion where no one has seen what it is about and they start arguing about who has the better argument.
My father - there have already been claims that there is damage to the corals - a BBC film does not give them any validity.
If someone provides information that does not suit you, you either explain why the information is not relevant or show alternative information that says the opposite or show that the information is false.
The point of assumption that anyone who does not believe in anthropogenic global warming is brainwashed who hangs out on the websites of deniers who simply lie to him and provide him with fabricated information - is not a healthy scientific debate.
You still haven't given an explanation as to why you think there has actually been an acceleration in warming in recent years, even though even your article - both the data and the testimony cited in it claim that there is indeed a slowdown in warming in recent years.
A simple explanation, you live in a virtual world and hang out only on websites of deniers. Yesterday there was a film on the BBC about enormous damage to the Great Barrier Reef.
And more regarding the unnecessary hysteria:
View the graph on page 775 (peer-reviewed journal article, published April 2012)
It was warmer around 1000 AD than today
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
Father, how do you explain that there is no problem with the Great Barrier Reef in Australia?
Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicated that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017516
I think you are swallowing hysterical propaganda without criticism.
SAFKAN- I think the warming is a little more than you said more like 0.4 in the XNUMXs and XNUMXs and much less in the XNUMXs.
If the Hammists are right - the cause of the slowdown is some other factor - and that its effect expires or reverses, we should see a strong warming like in the XNUMXs.
my father
Quote from you:
------
Regarding the 15-16 that the axis tilts, they meant history, not the last decade, I have already proven several times that there is no stopping in the last 16 years. It is in the imagination of the deniers.
------
Quote from article:
-------
The periodCurrent of warming blower rate It is not unexpected, and periods of 15 years are not uncommon
-------
You can prove the interpretation, you can argue the data
But it cannot be argued that those you quote in your article agree that there has been warming at a lower rate in recent times.
And without fish and corals in the sea, and without rainforests, and with one big desert. But apart from that Marquis everything is fine.
another one
Spring. We cling to anecdotes to draw conclusions from them.
The data apparently shows that there has been moderate warming in the last 32 years (in the 40 years preceding those 32 years there was no warming). The warming in the last 32 years is something of the order of 0.3 degrees Celsius.
It is clear that if for 32 years there is a moderate warming (of approximately 0.3 degrees), then over time events of hot summers will be recorded compared to the past, what is the significance of this? After all, records usually change by tenths of a degree or hundredths of a degree, so breaking summer records is not a significant story.
Note that the scaremongering of the followers of global warming are scaremongering about an apocalyptic warming of
*2 degrees and more* until the year 2100. But according to the rate of warming in the last 72 years, the temperature will not rise more than half a degree above the temperature today. Even if we take into account a scenario of the rate of warming in the last 32 years, then the warming from now until the year 2100 will be only 0.8 degrees.
By the end of the century, it will be possible to assess Nihuta for energy production by other methods, without bringing down deadly economic catastrophes on the weak strata.
As I told you, I rely on the conclusion of the IPCC and articles in peer-reviewed journals. This calculation of yours has not been peer reviewed either. For that matter, I am not a colleague, but those who went through the thousands of articles that proved that warming is accelerating.
Your argument, if I try to understand, goes like this:
9 of the 11 hottest years in 2010 were in the decade 2000-2010
- 7 of the 10 warmest years up to that time were in the XNUMXs
6 out of 10 in the 80s
3 out of 10 in the 70s
3 out of 10 in the 60s
3 out of 10 in the 50s
+4 out of 10 in the 40s
And since you see in recent years there has been an increase in the number of the hottest years out of a decade, do you state that the rate of warming is increasing?
Father, you can't prove anything - you're not a climate scientist and according to you, you can't prove anything.
I wasn't talking about stopping, but about slowing down - and you can't accept that either.
That is, you claim that the rate of warming increases over time - 10 years may be a short time, but it is still possible to notice some kind of trend - are you claiming that the rate of warming in the last decade is greater than in the decades that preceded it?
The answer is that even stoppages as a result of volcanoes, relaxation in the sun, etc. were only successful for a limited period, and in the long term the temperature rose considerably. Again I will repeat the insight that you do not grasp - a gradual increase in temperature over decades does not require that each year be warmer than the previous one by 0.1 degrees.
Just as the Israelites did not walk continuously for 40 years in the desert at a pace of 10 meters a day, but walked a kilometer and then camped for a long time, in the end they completed their journey and reached the land of Canaan. In the case of global warming, the stops are shorter. Regarding the 15-16 that the axis tilts, they meant history, not the last decade, I have already proven several times that there is no stopping in the last 16 years. It is in the imagination of the deniers.
Repeating the lie that warming is not accelerating will not make it true.
A quote from your article, my father:
--------------------
Over the past 140 years, the average global temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius, but within that time span there have been several periods lasting a decade or more where temperatures have risen at a slower rate or even fallen. The current period of warming at a lower rate It is not unexpected, and periods of 15 years are not uncommon."
————————————————————
That's the whole point I'm trying to make - there has been a slowdown in the last 10-15 years. And this slowdown like this can if it continues to cast doubt on AWG's models and theory.
Stop treating me with claims I don't make.
I will repeat my response again until you get it: you probably have a problem with perception. So much investment in introducing hatred into science and all to do nothing. If the population does not pay a realistic price for this product, it will eventually shatter in the face of all of us, so it is better that they pay the realistic price than continue to rob nature.
And I have already explained to you, analyzing data from one graph, by a person who has not been trained for this, is meaningless. I do not publish primary research on the science website, and it is a type of primary research. It has no importance, it was not done according to any orderly scientific method and was not peer-reviewed. Repeating the lie that warming is not accelerating will not make it true.
"The general trend is warming at an increasing rate."
no she is not.
According to the data that my father brought - the trend is not warming at an increasing rate - at least not in the last 10 years.
It is even many Hammists admitted it
- The meaning of this is subject to interpretation - You cannot say that this is proof that there is no warming - You can say that it means that most of the models presented that explain the warming are not perfect. - You want to say that the last 10-15 years were a known possibility in terms of theory - you can - some hammists said exactly It.
But to say that there was no slowing down in the last decade (or in the previous decade if you go by the volcano argument I mentioned earlier) is simply to ignore the data that my father published.
"They found that the only factor that can explain this is an increase in the concentration of CO2"
A lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack - the fact that they did not find additional factors does not mean that they do not exist.
A correlation is found in past periods between rising temperatures and CO2 concentration.
Yes, you just forgot to mention that in most cases the carbon dioxide reacts after the rise and not before-
And the simplest explanation is that warming damages the sea's ability to absorb carbon dioxide.
It is certainly not because of the humanity that was on it in prehistoric times and geological times.
Anthony Watts - sponsored by the Heartland Institute....
Val Gore made a fortune from a green industry he promoted while he lived at least as long as he received his Nobel in a decidedly non-environmental lifespan.- I don't know Anthony Watts and I don't need any authority to ask questions myself. The fact that there are some scientists who may be offended on my "side" of the debate does not mean that everyone is like that - just as not all scientists on your side are like Al Gore (Al Gore is not a scientist but for a good period he was the "face" of a large part of the green movement in the context of AGW ).
You are the one who doubts the consensus - therefore you have the burden of proof. not on me
No, it doesn't go like that, Kansas Census is not something meaningful in this context - because you want something from the population - that they pay more for fuel, for electricity, for food, for a car, and pay more taxes - all this to fight AWG - so the burden of proof is on you
You really choose the points that are convenient for you. The general trend is warming at an increasing rate. These are the facts and no climate scientist disputes the general trend.
The models are not as complicated as you are trying to say. Climate is not weather!!!
Put forward several hypotheses for the reason for the increase in the average temperature over the years. They found that the only factor that can explain this is an increase in CO2 concentration. Checked in depth and found that this was the reason. For example, it is clearly seen that there are wavelengths that the CO2 absorbs and does not return to space. For example, you can see that the day-night range is smaller than before. For example, a correlation is found in past periods between rising temperatures and CO2 concentration.
What you are saying is that even the earth is round is just a theory. And maybe Aristotle's theory of gravity is the right one? And maybe Apollo 11 didn't really land on the moon? Maybe the CIA brought down the Twin Towers.
Science has compelling arguments
But you, in order to be able to continue using plastic bags in the supermarket, are able to be convinced by any idiot who raises "doubts" in relation to facts that are indisputable.
Maybe you will really doubt your own self?? I suggest you check, as I did, the studies that claim there is no problem. Look who peer-reviewed them, who funded these "studies" and what other studies they fund. For example - one of the famous skeptics - Anthony Watts - is funded by the Heartland Institute - the same institute that funded research showing the benefits of smoking...
You are the one who doubts the consensus - therefore you have the burden of proof. not on me
Miracles - why prison?
Burn the infidels at the stake!
As soon as I point out a problem you say that I "play with the data" and choose the points.
You say the warming is easy to see and the reasons for it are easy to understand.
But most climate scientists - including those who support warming - say it's a very complicated system,
And they failed to build one good model that would predict the warming in a good way.
Your test is an absolute truth that cannot be disputed - and it's miracles - not science - it's religion.
In science there is always room for doubt - always - the question is not whether or not there is doubt in the theory of global warming - there is always doubt - but whether the theory should be made the working assumption of humanity in order to prevent a possible disaster.
As soon as you expect humanity to suffer in order to save on the FDF - you need to bring convincing arguments and face the skeptics. But afraid that the population will say: "It's just a theory" You have developed a rhetoric of faith for yourself - "It's not a theory - it's a fact, there is no room for doubt and anyone who says otherwise is deliberately confusing the public and usually does it at the expense of the big oil companies"
And I have to say - that it doesn't work - this behavior only keeps people away from taking you seriously.
You need to understand that doubt does not mean that there is no anthropogenic warming but that there is not necessarily anthropogenic warming.
You have to keep following the climate and keep an open mind to see what happens.
You have to pick the points that show, so to speak, that you are right.
You need to study the subject.
Do not read the studies by their conclusions.
Read them according to who did the research and what the purpose of the research was.
You are relying on a bunch of charlatans like Watts, who are not scientists, are not trustworthy, and in my opinion should even be in jail.
I (and most of the thinking world) rely on studies by large bodies that do not have funding from strange sources. These institutes compete with each other, there are intrigues, arguments, politics.... But scientifically everyone agrees.
The warming is easy to see and its causes are easy to understand.
The climate is warming.
CO2 is the main cause of this warming.
A very large part of the CO2 is the result of human activities.
All this is supported by the evidence.
It's awfully simple. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to himself, or doesn't understand what he's talking about, or is trying to sell something.
Miracles
When did I deny warming up!?
I just said that based on the data there is a slowdown in warming in the last decade.
Regarding the volcano, you have to understand that you cannot enjoy both worlds - you cannot say that there is much warming because you will see how much it has warmed since 1992 - and on the other hand say that 1992 and the years after it should have been warmer if it were not for the volcano that my father mentioned.
I will expand:
The mountain according to Wikipedia lowered the temperature by 0.4 (more in the northern hemisphere)
It is likely that the effect faded over time and was therefore colder only in the early XNUMXs.
So if we imagine that there was no volcano - then the temperatures that were supposed to be there should have been higher.
Since the second half of the 90s is mostly warmer - and apparently did not benefit from the effect of the volcano - this would mean that without the volcano it would have been hotter at the beginning of the 90s and the climb in temperature throughout the decade was more moderate and the increase before the 90s was faster - which only strengthens the The trend of moderation in warming and negative second derivative.
I remember the snow in Haifa as a result of the cooling of Pinatubo.
another one
The gap between 2000 and 2010 is indeed 0.25
The difference between 1990 and 2000 is 0.01.
I too can choose points of convenience and draw my own conclusions.
It is very easy to extract data and draw conclusions. And you can do what my father said - check why there are unexpected changes, and my father did give you the explanation -
On June 15, millions of tons of sulfur dioxide were discharged into the atmosphere, resulting in a decrease in the temperature worldwide over the next few years.
Listen - there is not a single national research institute and not a single research paper (that I know of) that denies global warming due to human activity.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a religious person. A religious person presupposes that God exists and from that tries to convince you that there is a God. He does not believe any evidence that contradicts his prejudice.
You are like that too.
In the nineties there was a huge volcano that exploded - Pinatubo in the Philippines which temporarily caused cooling.
However, we still prefer analysis by peer-reviewed scientists to amateur data analysis by an anonymous surfer.
Miracles, none of your comments are blocked. send again.
Miracles - the graph indicates a year next to each figure.
If you look, you will see that the temperature difference between 2000 and 2010 is 0.25 degrees
And the difference in the nineties is 0.44 degrees.
That means we have a more stable temperature in the last decade than in the nineties.
And we only have two years that are slightly warmer than the record of 98.
According to the graph, the eighties were the least stable with a very large gap between the cold years and the warm years.
Even if we ignore the hottest year (98) we still get a difference of 0.3 degrees.
Although a single decade is not an indication of too much - it is still true to say that the change in the last decade was smaller also based on this graph.
another one
Just type CO2 in the search window on the "Skeptic Science" website. It is difficult??
How did you deduce from the graph that the rate of warming is small?? There is no timeline there at all……….
My comment is not published...
For others to answer one another, I have no power. I also have to make sure there are interesting articles on the site tomorrow. He has only one responsibility - to be exhausted so that we give up and admit that there is no warming. These are Shin Bet methods, not accepted methods in science.
Gentlemen who comment against the fact that the world is warming:
You can equally object to a few more facts:
Existence of gravity, rotation of the world around the sun and more,
The problem (yours) is that objecting to the facts does not contradict and does not invalidate the facts
Therefore, despite all the nonsense and attempts to treat the facts as if they did not exist
Anthropogenic warming continues and intensifies,
And it was already said hundreds of years ago that:
"And yet we move on"
Miracles, maybe I wasn't looking in the right place - can you point me to some of them?
How did I infer that the rate of warming is small? Among other things from the graph that my father published in this article.
Father, where do you have proof that the difference between El Nino and La Nina is between half a degree and up (there is quite a lot of difference between half a degree and up) according to the graph you give, I don't see that there is such a difference lately
And it's hard to see if there was such a difference even in the last 150 years - can you give examples?
I guess he draws the conclusion from the dubious story in the Daily Mail, which has been quoted all over the world and is now being used as proof by the deniers. And as for the reference in Skeptical Science he must be looking for the phrase AGW which is a phrase invented by deniers. The scientists just call it warming.
another one
I found 20 different references in "Skeptical Science" without any effort.
Some fairness……….
pearl
You are right, almost completely. The facts are that there is warming and in part it is man-made. There are many studies that show and prove the 2 things.
Some deny human influence on warming, or warming at all. They are just like believers in homeopathy and Bigfoot: very loud, inconsistent, with dubious interests, or just plain badass....
another one
How did you infer that the rate of warming is small?
Coral bleaching is a direct result of the increase in carbon dioxide concentration even before we discuss warming.
The difference between an El Nino year and a La Niña year is extreme and ranges from half a degree up. Depends on the strength of the phenomena (El Nino is weak, medium or strong and so is the La Niña that follows it), but your wonder is misplaced. Those who think that there should be a linear increase and that the other laws of nature have stopped working are the deniers. Climate scientists are not being ignored, a fact that appears in the Met Office's reply. I'm glad that after two days of me explaining the problematic calculation of your denier, you were able to understand what I'm talking about.
All articles in the category may be about warming
But only a small number deals with confirming the connection between warming and FDH. and
Was it so hard to give this link?:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/scientist-sure-about-global-warming-0412072/
Skeptical Science is a site with a tendency to fight straw men - and yet I looked for information in it - there are quite a few references to the link between carbon dioxide and warming - which is quite surprising considering the fact that this is the heart of the debate.
The bleaching of the corals - something that happens which is a field I am completely unfamiliar with - can happen due to warming as I said that you are probably reading - there can also be a completely different reason why it happens - it is strange to me that of all the examples - you brought this one as an example considering the fact that there is also no graph that describes bleaching as a function of time.
"If a hot year of the XNUMXs is roughly equal to a cold year in the current decade, it shows that there was even a big warming, because it is a difference of at least one degree"
It is interesting that now we are suddenly in the warming of Ma'ale Shlomo according to what you imply - even though the graph you provide talks about a gap of 0.55 degrees in the last 50 years and a gap of 1.05 degrees in the last 150 years when it is clear that the gap is greater than the warming itself.
Are you implying that there is a fairly significant cyclical process that needs to be taken into account - and if we do that there seems to be a much more massive warming than what is observed? It makes sense, I guess - do you have any confirmation that this is a difference of a whole degree?
There is no need for a specific link even if you scream until tomorrow, all the articles in this category are about man-made warming. The fact that you can't read it is your problem, not the other surfers'.
You are starting to annoy me, when you repeat this lie, as if it will become the truth, there is no temporary stop and no stop at all, if a hot year of the nineties is equivalent in wall to a cold year in the current decade, it shows that there was even a big warming, because it is a difference of at least one degree. Beyond that, keep arguing with yourself, you don't listen to what they tell you.
And besides, all these arguments have a detailed answer linked to scientific articles on the site http://skepticalscience.net/
And specifically regarding the corals http://skepticalscience.net/coral-bleaching.htm
Evidence that I know more and it's only at first glance
https://www.hayadan.org.il/category/environment/environmental_issues/global_warming
I want you to direct me to the global warming category on your website and expect me to go through dozens of titles to maybe find a scrap of argument for the connection between warming and the FDF is a bit excessive - don't you have a more specific link?
Consensus can be wrong, but when it comes to tens of thousands of scientists, I don't see it happening.
It has already happened - as with Dan Shechtman and Barry Marshall for example
Stop using your mind, it won't help you, the person is guilty, and the actions should have been taken not now but ten years ago. There are enough problems such as the flooding of islands, the elimination of corals and sea creatures with shells due to the melting of carbon dioxide, the transformation of areas in Africa from rainforests to deserts and more, things that even a trillion dollars will not be able to fix and you are on your own, continuing to try so hard to do nothing
First of all, I would appreciate a link that says that these things are reading at an increasing rate with the warming - secondly, I did not say that there is no warming, only that the accuracy of the measurements is in doubt.
What exactly do you think we need to do to stop the warming?
.
And when you don't like the data, you simply lie, as in the case of the current article, where you compared a hot year with a cold year after 15 years and don't understand how others don't see the wisdom in your eyes.
The fact that there is at least a temporary stop/slow down in the warming according to the data - how is this a lie?
Even if there is a temporary stop in the warming, as they wrote in the Met Office, this does not indicate anything because a. Great damage has already been done and The system is not linear as you try to describe it and every stop will be followed by a quick compensation.
Do you have links to a source that confirms this statement? And if the stoppage continues for another 15 years - what will that say?
Nature does not sucker and does not work for the oil gods
It also doesn't work for El Gore
Thank you Pearl. Indeed, the damages are already visible - and yesterday there was a program on TV in which they mentioned the bleaching of corals.
But they are busy casting doubt on proven things, and thus they managed to push the end at a huge price that they don't even understand what it is. In the end, they do not understand that if the problem is not resolved peacefully, a severe war will break out, and all their savings from postponing action will be made a mockery of.
As I said before, the deniers go to great lengths to do nothing.
Hello you guys.
I followed all the discourse listed here regarding global warming. I have no scientific background in my training and I define myself as an "interested public". I am a regular reader of "Yaden", which I think is an excellent site and I really enjoy reading it. In the current discourse there is a lot of dealing with theory, and that is perfectly fine. But in my opinion the debate will continue forever the way we are going.
It is true that the theory is important for locating the main source in order to address the problem in a targeted manner, but we really lack a model for comparison... and what if we could deal with it in a different way?
Maybe someone can be a little more practical here? There is warming, there is no warming. What does it matter? There is a known and proven reality beyond any doubt, at least in the field of medicine that you have to deal with. There are diseases that are aggravated by the emission of PAD into the air we breathe, especially in cities. There is damage to vegetation and water around areas with increased PAD emissions. I am not interested in determining whether the warming is entirely or partially our own doing.
In my opinion, what needs to be done is finding ways to find massive alternative energy sources that will really replace the existing carbon sources. All resources must be directed to finding a way to drive all our engines without still needing "small, closed fires" as a driving force.
I have the feeling that we, as humanity, are deviating from the main point, and without being "green" which is almost an obscene word today, we must take serious care of our future generations. We must be more practical and demand a serious diversion of resources to the necessary developments. Solar energy provides a very partial solution and serves as a populist fig leaf for political parties who want to be considered green. It also involves a considerable investment, but it is nice that it has already been realized.
I would like to see worldwide efforts in an alternative energy solution on the order of the investment in decoding the human genome for example. I would like to see capital investments in this area from those who care where their capital will be invested, that they are so trying to accumulate, by their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, because they will not live forever, nor will they ever have resilience.
Maybe it already exists, but according to the results in the field, it seems to me that we are on the losing side. The world's rich still manage us and our agendas. Maybe it's time to use their tools to achieve the really important goals.
In short, where is the responsible adult here?!
210 proofs that I know more and that's only in the first retrieval
https://www.hayadan.org.il/category/environment/environmental_issues/global_warming/
Consensus can be wrong, but when it comes to tens of thousands of scientists, I don't see it happening.
Stop using your mind, it won't help you, the person is guilty, and the actions should have been taken not now but ten years ago. There are enough problems such as the flooding of islands, the elimination of corals and sea creatures with shells due to the melting of carbon dioxide, the transformation of areas in Africa from rainforests to deserts and more, things that even a trillion dollars will not be able to fix and you are on your own, continuing to try so hard to do nothing.
And when you don't like the data, you simply lie, as in the case of the current article, where you compared a hot year with a cold year after 15 years and don't understand how others don't see the wisdom in your eyes.
Even if there is a temporary stop in the warming, as they wrote in the Met Office, this does not indicate anything because a. Great damage has already been done and The system is not linear as you try to describe it and every stop will be followed by a quick compensation. Nature does not sucker and does not work for the oil gods.
good morning my father
Why do you think you know more than me?
If you think you know more than me - then share the information you think I don't have -
Where is the information that says that warming is anthropogenic, catastrophic, preventable but only in the short term, etc., etc.
You know that a forced reduction of PADF emissions will hurt the poor and the sick first and not necessarily the rich. Spending time on drilling will increase the price of fuel. Biodiesel raises food prices. A war on coal raises the price of electricity.
The rich will continue to profit - they will simply raise the prices.
Consensus can be wrong - it has happened in the past. Consensus is not necessarily the result of dozens of unrelated studies that have reached a common result - this is about something that has become a paradigm in the field - and there is a lot of ideology in it - do you think academia can't be biased in its research? You constantly accuse the skeptics of being biased, and serving ideological and economic staffs - and in some cases this is true - but why do you think your side is better?
I will ask you another question:
If in the next ten years you measure a gradual decrease in temperature - not a slow increase - decrease - would you agree that the theory could be flawed?
Another one, you can't get into an argument about a certain topic with people who know more than you and demand equal treatment of your truth and lies. Unlike you, I trust a thing called the scientific consensus, it has not let me down in all the 15 years I've been editing the site. If he disappoints you because you think that because of him some rich people robbing our natural resources will hurt, your right, but it does not obligate me nor all the decision makers who have to decide according to the scientific consensus.
And the scientific consensus is unequivocal - there is warming and it is man-made. And the harassment of your friends for the need to take steps only proves how essential these steps are.
And now, good night.
Avi - even according to your graph you can see that there is a slowdown in warming - that is, there is still warming - but at a slower rate. I do not belong to any group and certainly not to anarchists.
My father - it is very easy to fight straw men - but the argument is not that there is no warming - but only that according to the data there it has been quite slowed down in recent years.
You have other data - nice - it is possible that there will still be warming, only slower than it was before.
And regardless of the order of magnitude of the warming - the existence of warming of any order of magnitude is not proof or confirmation of the assumption that GHG emissions are the main cause of that warming.
What data? An anarchist from your group Hinds? After all, even if we go according to his engineering, a hot year of the nineties is equal to a cold year of the 2010s. This is a clear sign of growth and not of stagnation because otherwise the El Niño year of 1990+ would have been equal to the El Niño year of 2010+ and not a La Niña year.
First of all you steal public opinion with a false announcement that warming has stopped (and I just proved that according to your data it has not stopped either), and then you take it as an axiom in your responses.
Shame and shame on the one who taught you calculus. And since there is warming, your argument is irrelevant. Everything must be done to stop her before she stops us.
So even though according to your data the warming is slowing down and not accelerating - you claim that there is no time to wait and check the data more - and there is no time for technology and scientific progress to bring about a natural decrease in GHG emissions - humanity must be forced to stop emitting GHG in a massive way - whatever the damage - Because otherwise we all die? is that what you say
What if you decide to do nothing and the earth will be destroyed and unlivable, will you then apologize? Will the apology be worth it then? There are experiments that are not performed, especially when the chances of catastrophe if nothing is done are increasing year by year.
Miracles
Another one - I will do everything for you - search here for example http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/247.htm
I'll read it while I'm awake enough to understand what it says
No CO2 gas "can be used as a greenhouse gas" - CO2 is a greenhouse gas... do you understand what that means?
You stick to the rhetoric - yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - why do you think I don't agree with you on this issue?
Should I give a disproving experiment?? Let's release CO2 into the atmosphere and measure your impact. Wait, wait... We already did it!!!! We know how much we released, and we know the impact!!! Scientists are constantly investigating the issue. what bothers you That it doesn't fit your opinions??
It's just a shame that we don't have a completely identical Earth minus the PADF emissions to serve as a control
It would be better if we had 100 similar planets as a control and a hundred as an experiment - it's just a shame that we only have one planet - and we have no way to isolate the variables here.
In other words, you don't have a measurement of what the temperature would have been if there had been no emission of FADH
Your argument that every physicist understands climate is simply infantile. Nir Shabiv deals with the climate, and the truth is that his theory is not exactly acceptable - can you suggest an experiment that would disprove it??? My friend - this argument works both ways - your way and the right way.
I didn't say that his theory isn't also in doubt - everything is in doubt - in general what needs to be done is to put together a model that establishes a mathematical relationship between the level of cosmic radiation and cloudiness and temperature and then wait a certain number of years to see if the forecast was good - of course the same problem that global warming has is also present here - We don't have a laboratory and a good ability to separate variables - but in this situation - why exactly is your theory the correct one?
I really, really don't understand your approach. You claim that you were not shown the dangers of warming up? really???
You write "I'm waiting for a graph that shows damage in dollars from natural disasters over the years - do you have a link?" - If I show you - what will you do with it?? Say it's a lie? Distorting reality? An invention of politicians? You don't believe in the UN, you don't believe in the CRU. You don't believe in the laws of physics.
A clear increase in damages due to disasters (with adjustment for inflation and other economic considerations of course)
There will be a good indication that there is indeed a significant change in the climate - it still will not prove the connection between the emissions of GHG and warming - for that you need something else
Really - I don't think you care about anything in the world. There is so much evidence for warming, and such a clear explanation. But you doubt everything. Except for all kinds of charlatans.
There is evidence of warming - all I said is that its accuracy is questionable for any number of reasons.
I have not yet been exposed to a strong argument for the link between GHG emissions and warming - strong is not one that will remove the doubt - there will always be a doubt - but an argument that will convince me that we need to act to reduce GHG emissions in order to prevent global warming.
Father, there is a difference between a theory or a physical model, measurements and facts - a fact until now, heavy things without lifting capacity fall from top to bottom - a fiscal model - the theory of gravity. Someone will come with another model that will explain all the observations we have and also give a new prediction that will test and confirm his model or alternatively an observation will emerge that will disprove the theory of gravity in any way - this does not mean that we are all suddenly floating - it only means that the framework that explains the phenomena we have predicted is not perfect .
another one
Don't be moved by raising your voice (remember the words of Moshe Sana who said when you need to raise your voice). You make (mostly) correct arguments and it really annoys the followers of global warming.
I have reservations about Nir Shabiv (?), his theory relied on overly complex evidence, a considerable chance of error. As a hypothesis it is interesting but (in the absence of strong evidence) it is not certain that the complex process it describes is correct.
I am more inclined to accept the position of the physicist Nathan Faldor as presented in the lecture he gave at Ben Gurion University on or about January 26, 2012. The aforementioned lecture is on YOUTUBE and is 75 minutes long. In short: he says that there is uncertainty both in relation to the measurements, both in relation to the findings and in our ability to predict chaotic processes in which the natural parts are difficult to follow (especially processes in the oceans and their depths). I recommend watching his lecture above on YOUTUBE.
Another one - I will do everything for you - search here for example http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/247.htm
No CO2 gas "can be used as a greenhouse gas" - CO2 is a greenhouse gas... do you understand what that means?
Should I give a disproving experiment?? Let's release CO2 into the atmosphere and measure your impact. Wait, wait... We already did it!!!! We know how much we released, and we know the impact!!! Scientists are constantly investigating the issue. what bothers you That it doesn't fit your opinions??
Your argument that every physicist understands climate is simply infantile. Nir Shabiv deals with the climate, and the truth is that his theory is not exactly acceptable - can you suggest an experiment that would disprove it??? My friend - this argument works both ways - your way and the right way.
I really, really don't understand your approach. You claim that you were not shown the dangers of warming up? really???
You write "I'm waiting for a graph that shows damage in dollars from natural disasters over the years - do you have a link?" - If I show you - what will you do with it?? Say it's a lie? Distorting reality? An invention of politicians? You don't believe in the UN, you don't believe in the CRU. You don't believe in the laws of physics.
Really - I don't think you care about anything in the world. There is so much evidence for warming, and such a clear explanation. But you doubt everything. Except for all kinds of charlatans.
To another, my side of the argument relies on facts, while you point to a goal - that the person is not guilty - and then try to gather only what proves the goal and ignore other facts.
Your point about skepticism is indeed correct, so let's all start questioning the theory of gravity and start floating. There is also logic, you don't just have to spout slogans.
Miracles:
Another one - I deserve a compliment for my patience
Get an invoice
Regarding CO2 - we know how much energy each molecule of the gas absorbs in the radiation spectrum from the sun. We know how to easily translate this into a temperature increase. There is no arguing about this fact. I'll say it again slowly so you understand:
A n h n v i d i s t h a t t h e s e f e a t h - 2 CO about the temperature !!!!
- It's very interesting - all the scientists who work on the subject - even the most devout Hammists say that climate is a very complicated system and it's hard to know exactly what the sensitivity of heat is to the FDH level in the atmosphere and there are many, many different models that give very different observations that constantly need to be updated with new information and new computers More. So please provide me with a link where there is the calculation of the effect of PADH on the temperature.
You mention the physics I know. Do you know any other physics? Are we back to the creation story??
Not what I meant, it was a narrative 'you' not 'you' Miracles in physics as well I know carbon dioxide can be used as a greenhouse gas
Your skepticism is extremely strange. It is like questioning the small number of Bengal tigers in the world, and also saying, even if there is a decrease in their number, it is not because of man. It's equally stupid, twisted and dangerous.
You don't understand that every scientific field should be open to doubt and criticism - I have already listed some of the points that raise a certain level of doubt - a scientific theory is a theory that can be disproved, therefore I am asking you to give a prediction or an experiment that can disprove your theory.
You say - climate is a field of physics. Building is a field of engineering - how about I (a software engineer) design a building?? Even in my narrow field in the software world, it would be very difficult for other software engineers to enter without 25 years of experience in my field….. and this is true in every field today - such as medicine, physics, mathematics, philosophy and even cooking.
Theoretical science is not a profession, it progresses quickly and specialization in the field has less meaning.
Any sufficiently talented physicist could learn any other field of physics in a relatively short period of time. (few years)
If you see an astrophysicist like Nir Shabiv who has been dealing with astrophysicist effects on the climate for several years - it is unlikely to assume that he is not knowledgeable in the field.
And about your understanding of science. You put forward a theory that there is no global warming, and there is global warming that is not due to man, and the physics known today is not correct and all scientists are liars. You have been shown that the evidence does not support your theory. You were shown the dangers of denying the evidence including examples that a mind sees in its own garden.
and yours
No, that's not what I said - if you so want to argue with a straw man - respond once with a different nickname - give straw arguments and then in your own name defeat the straw man.
I did not claim that there is no warming - I claimed that there are problems with the accuracy of the test.
I did not claim that global warming is not related to man - but it is definitely not certain that it is and stronger arguments are needed to convince the public that something should also be done about it.
I was not shown any dangers - I was told about dangers.
I'm waiting for the graph that shows damage in dollars from natural disasters over the years - do you have a link?
----------
Father, it is true that many people choose a side in this debate due to political, economic or religious considerations -
But why do you think on your side of the argument this isn't also happening?
You tell me, I see it in the fact that no one competes on the site and unfortunately, despite this, no one advertises on the site either, because apparently no one sees intellectuals as an audience worth investing in.
My father - what is amazing is that we are in the minority...
Thanks Nissim. All the people who deny proven and solid science just because it is inconvenient for them because of religious or political belief frustrates me.
Another one - I deserve a compliment for my patience 🙂
Regarding CO2 - we know how much energy each molecule of the gas absorbs in the radiation spectrum from the sun. We know how to easily translate this into a temperature increase. There is no arguing about this fact. I'll say it again slowly so you understand:
A n h n v i d i s t h a t t h e s e f e a t h - 2 CO about the temperature !!!!
You mention the physics I know. Do you know any other physics? Are we back to the creation story??
Your skepticism is extremely strange. It is like questioning the small number of Bengal tigers in the world, and also saying, even if there is a decrease in their number, it is not because of man. It's equally stupid, twisted and dangerous.
You say - climate is a field of physics. Building is a field of engineering - how about I (a software engineer) design a building?? Even in my narrow field in the software world, it would be very difficult for other software engineers to enter without 25 years of experience in my field….. and this is true in every field today - such as medicine, physics, mathematics, philosophy and even cooking.
And about your understanding of science. You put forward a theory that there is no global warming, and there is global warming that is not due to man, and the physics known today is not correct and all scientists are liars. You have been shown that the evidence does not support your theory. You were shown the dangers of denying the evidence including examples that a mind sees in its own garden.
and yours
Avi-
With all due respect - this Yes science.
This is how science is supposed to work. Someone has a theory - and others look and point out the problems in it.
In our case, the public participates because the public is the one who has to decide (in the case of a democratic country) what needs to be done - and therefore needs to be convinced with more successful arguments than: "very smart scientists have studied and discovered that this is what it is" - sorry, it doesn't work anymore. The public increasingly wants explanations as to why fuel prices should rise more than they must.
My claim and that of many skeptics is not that there is no anthropogenic warming - but that there is doubt that there is anthropogenic warming - There's a difference We bring the various reasons that make us bring doubt.
(Besides the fact that in science there should always be a certain level of doubt for everything)
In the case of heat islands - even if the studies found a way to adjust local effects such as urban warming to measurements - this is still an element that increases the range of error, the size of the contribution of urban warming should be extended - and take into account that urbanization is a process - that is, you cannot just look at an anomaly - when it comes to At a measuring station around which a city was slowly built - not to mention a large number of cars and factories. All of these affect the area - in order to reach a conclusion about a global effect, you must first take into account the local effect and this is something that increases the range of error.
Again - I'm not saying there is no warming - I'm saying that you have to take into account that there is a certain level of error in measurements and calculations that you have to take into account.
Another one, you may disagree, there are as you know many who do not agree with the theory of evolution, and there are many in India who think it is possible to float in the air and therefore do not agree with the theory of gravity.
And again, you and your friends turn proven facts into Talmudic gibberish. With all due respect this is not science.
As the editor of a scientific website I am committed to the scientific consensus, as it is expressed in Science and Nature. As soon as they change their position, I will also reflect this on the knowledge site.
In the meantime you fail to change their minds and you resort to all kinds of fraudulent methods such as cherry picking, and misleading the public as if the Met Office approves your claim.
You are welcome to read about the heat islands and all the issues that interest you on the website http://www.skepticalsciences.com
Miracles - I doubt that warming is due to man - and I also doubt the statement that it is not -
This is the idea of doubt - and I will always doubt on one level or another because that's how science is supposed to work.
Even the graph that my father posted here shows that there is a slowdown - of course there is no acceleration according to him.
Climate - miracles - is a field of physics - anyone who has studied the basics - can learn the relevant material quite quickly - you don't need to do a bachelor's degree second third and a post doctorate in climatology for the right to talk about it.
What I wrote is that there are measurements that indicate a warming trend - but you have to take into account that there are problems with the measurements themselves - this does not mean that there is no warming - only that there is a problem with their measurement.
Avi - what needs to be seen is the damage that can be prevented and compare it to the damage caused by the actions required to prevent it. The considerations are the quality of life and longevity of humans - but it is easier to represent these things in money. –
Where did you direct me to brown islands? - In the article there was relatively little written - it was written that he took it into account - but not how - do you have a link to the study itself? - it doesn't matter - I was just clarifying what the argument was if someone came and in the study he somehow took the effect into account in his average or received Evaluation of the effect and reduced it somehow - this does not mean that it is not true - as I said - I am not claiming that there is no warming - but in addition to all the problems - you have to take into account that the measurements themselves are also problematic. So there is doubt.
I directed you to the heat islands.
And as for dollars, there is something that cannot be measured in money - the ability of the earth to sustain its inhabitants. I suppose there will be those who will refer you to the damages that have already occurred and are yet to be expected, if the migration of half of Africa is an easy thing in your eyes and for which it is worth continuing to burn oil and coal as if there is no tomorrow for you to be perfumed.
Avi Blizovsky
There is actually something in the middle - Nir Shabiv, for example, claimed when I was at his lecture a few years ago - that global warming can explain a third of the warming that his theory does not explain (meaning he had an explanation for two thirds of the warming).
Regarding the heat islands - can you refer me to this test?
In any case, I only clarified what the argument of the heat islands is - not whether they found their effect to be negligible or not.
In science there is no such thing as "proven" there is confirmation and refutation.
You haven't given me a number yet - how much should be invested to prevent how much damage - in dollars - do you have a number? Someone gave an estimate - I remember you once had an estimate of up to two trillion damages but you didn't say in what time frame.
It is not clear to me why I am not ready to hear - about everything you wrote - I read and replied.
There is a difference between not hearing and not agreeing.
There is a lot of money in the green industry as well and there is also a lot of prestige and ideology in the field - why do you think your side is purer than the other side?
---------------
Miracles - where did I say there is no warming?
The percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is quite small - and a climate system is a very complicated thing -
There are many factors that affect the temperature - the fact that carbon dioxide can raise the temperature - does not mean that it is the one responsible for the warming shown in the measurements - I will explain it this way.
You have a function - average global temperature - which is related to many variables, one of which is carbon dioxide -
You start from an assumption based on the physics you know that the increase in carbon dioxide will cause an increase in temperature - but you don't know by what order of magnitude - you don't know all the other factors and you don't know how the function is structured. Only you know that it is monotonous and does not decrease with carbon dioxide-
Is it enough to know that global warming is due to carbon dioxide?
And now - to your attitude towards:
Again, you decide. Is there a warming or no warming? The measurements show that there is. Don't just argue without understanding. You are just philosophizing on this point. Really - check the studies and then you will understand.
Regarding CO2 - again, don't just argue. CO2 absorbs radiation in the infrared range. It is easy to understand, easy to explain and easy to show. Get a CO2 laser and measure yourself....
You say "there is a slowdown in warming" - again, is there warming or not? And regarding the "slow down" - on what basis do you say that? The measurements clearly show that there is an acceleration.
Maybe you are confusing between 'C' and 'T'?
You really need to get your thoughts in order….
You say serious scientists doubt global warming. Those I know, and indeed there are, are not climate scientists. It's just like a nuclear physicist would express an opinion about evolution. It's just like Gavi Avital will express an opinion on anything that is not aeronautics.
And regarding your last sentence - I will quote it so that you might read it and think about it: "So tell me - what needs to happen in the world for you to question the theory of anthropogenic global warming?"
All it takes is one piece of evidence to disprove this theory. As I say all the time - I would be very happy if the world does not warm up!!!!!!!!!!!!
My friend - handsome demands handsome fulfills. I ask you: what has to happen in the world for you to doubt that the earth is not warming as a result of human activities?
Another one - listen and understand:
You have an opinion - and you adapt the evidence to your opinion.
On the one hand you say there is no warming, and after that you agree there is.
The greenhouse effect of CO2 - don't talk about all kinds of complicated effects. It is a physical fact that CO2 absorbs radiation. It's not "maybe" it's "theory" - it's a fact that laser engineers deal with on a daily basis.
CO2 - is partly absorbed by plants - but the amount of plants in the world (at our fault...) is getting smaller over the years.
The ocean - is warming up and therefore absorbs less - not more!!!!!! Again - a physical fact that everyone who drinks Coke knows 🙂
You keep quoting people like Watts - but in the scientific community such people are not exactly considered reliable.
Listen, you're an expert at turning words around, I answered you and that's it, because you're probably not ready to listen.
Either carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect or not, there is nothing in between, when there is something proven you make it a maybe. The topic of the heat islands was examined, including a researcher who belonged to the skeptics of your method and they did not find that it had an effect.
I wish the investments were a tenth of what you are offering. But demagogy of lies and half-truths funded by hundreds of millions of oil tycoons' money is hard to contradict with words because they will always find another excuse and if not - they will invent something that doesn't exist.
There is warming, this is measured both by direct measurement from thermometers but also from satellites that measure the return of infrared radiation from the land and the sea and a number of other methods and there are dozens of satellites. How reliable are they? Do you use GPS?
In the latest article by (Creationist) Gabi Avital is an example of a study that showed that a large part of the measuring stations in the United States suffer from quite large measurement errors - you can rule out everything that Gabi Avital says in the claim that he is a creationist - and the assumption of most of the skeptics I read is that there is indeed warming - but it Still something to remember - we have measurements - not facts - there is a difference. I'm not familiar with Levin's method of measurement and I don't know how to measure temperature with them, so I can't really testify about the measurement error - I know that I saw on a TV program (which was pro-warming - that there was a satellite that showed that there was cooling until they discovered that he had lost altitude and that they added the change in his altitude In the calculation - then it turned out that there is warming - this makes me think that even the satellites are not the most accurate system. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to a neutral place that explains how these satellites work and what their error is.
----------------
Each station checks what is happening in its place and reports to Moked (in the past they would go manually and check each station, today it is broadcast), it is about temperature on land. There are measurements that are made in the air using balloons, regarding the stations, read the following article https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-world-indeed-warming-2310114/
The concept of heat islands - if the reference here to urban heating is to explain global warming but to explain the warming of some of the measuring stations.
It says there that a third of the measuring stations showed cooling by the way. In my opinion this is enough to cast a certain level of doubt.
I didn't understand in the end - do they generalize or not generalize the less accurate stations (the ones that usually measure a higher temperature) the fact that they are in the same trend makes sense - but why include them in the calculation?
----------------
Precisely here it is not a question of correlation but of pure science, the issue of the effect of greenhouse gases on trapping the infrared rays in the atmosphere instead of radiating it into known space from other planets and also from theoretical calculations, there is no matter of observations here, on the contrary the observations confirm the theory.
The theory is not confirmed - the fact that carbon dioxide gas is a greenhouse gas is confirmed does not mean that in a complicated system like the climate an increase of such and such a percentage of carbon dioxide will necessarily lead to heating of one magnitude or another. What's more, some of the carbon dioxide is absorbed by plants and the ocean if I remember correctly - and the amount of carbon dioxide that dissolves in the ocean depends on the temperature.
There are many old models that received backing from reputable organizations that missed reality by a lot - the fact that there are so many models that one of them happened to be close to reality - does not mean that the theory has been confirmed. In general, an observation in science of this kind is problematic because there is no control, no separation of variables and there are endless possible results (including apparently 15 years of no warming) I find it hard to call it scientific confirmation.
-------------------------------
The damage is enormous, and it will come to the point that many places will be uninhabitable - especially in Africa and southern Europe - Spain and Italy will become deserts, islands will be flooded, but already today there are damages of tens of billions every year as a result of hurricanes, fires and more. Part of the financial cost is measured, for example, in the price of building the fence between Israel and Egypt to stop the climate refugees from Africa
The subsidy in the United States alone for green energy, which was directed among other things as a fight against global warming, was (according to Mitt Romney at least) 90 billion dollars - a good number of these companies also went bankrupt (what to do with an ideology-oriented tech start-up is a financially problematic thing) so "tens" of billions In a year all over the world it is not that much - in any case you have to compare the damages caused by disasters every year for the last century and see if there is a significant increase - do you have data for something like that?
Catastrophe means an increase of more than one degree in 50 years - which is more or less what the Hammist models now say.
Many countries in Africa were a bad place to live even ten, twenty or thirty years ago - it's political reasons that are the main reason there is a crisis there.
-------------
As I explained, the damage is already in progress, it's not a matter of future guessing
The intention is that if we now wait another 10 years to extend the data and develop more efficient technologies in terms of FDF (instead of reducing it by force or massively applying immature technologies) then all kinds of positive feedback will come in and global warming will become inevitable and we will also reduce FDF zero.
——————————————————————————–
As time passes and your friends in the legislatures in the developed countries delay the treatment the damage will be irreversible-
Exactly what I said - do you have a reference for this claim?
Do you have a scientist somewhere who gives a cost vs benefit assessment of preventing global warming?
You need the money invested to be less than the money saved - otherwise it means we are doing something wrong.
------------------
Miracles I don't believe in anything - science is not a matter of faith - the opposite is a matter of doubt.
The evidence is that there are measurements that say there is warming in most of the measured points.
This means that (probably) the world is warming.
The fact that FDFH is one of the elements suspected of being the cause does not mean that it is necessarily the only, the main, or even at all factor.
The models did not (mostly) predict the slowdown in warming.
They do not explain why Antarctica actually adds ice.
This means that there is a problem with these models and it casts doubt on them.
I don't believe that FDF is not the cause of warming - I simply doubt it - you on the other hand - you and many Hammists - are not ready to listen to serious scientists who question or offer alternative theories - you see it as a danger because they confuse the public and make them not think that there is a debate in the field Therefore, there is no need to make the moves that will "save the world". I have seen professors in the discussion - serious people claim this in front of serious colleagues - like Nir Shabiv - not that his claims are incorrect - but that the discussion itself is incorrect -
Politics has entered science - too many scientists see themselves as part of a struggle to save the world from wasteful humanity - which causes science to bend from an end to a means - which leads to research bias - bias in magazines and bias in academia.
So tell me - what needs to happen in the world for you to question the theory of anthropogenic global warming?
Every question has an answer
Warming - how much warming is there? How reliable are the measuring stations? How reliable are the satellites?
There is warming, this is measured both by direct measurement from thermometers but also from satellites that measure the return of infrared radiation from the land and the sea and a number of other methods and there are dozens of satellites. How reliable are they? Do you use GPS?
Global-how do you define global temperature? Where do the seas and oceans come in here? What weight does each station have in calculating the temperature - how do you average over time?
Each station checks what is happening in its place and reports to Moked (in the past they would go manually and check each station, today it is broadcast), it is about temperature on land. There are measurements that are made in the air using balloons, regarding the stations, read the following article https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-world-indeed-warming-2310114/
Anthropogenic: How can it be proven that there is a connection between PADF emissions and other greenhouse gases - and warming? Are there no alternative options? Is correlation an indication of causation?
Precisely here it is not a question of correlation but of pure science, the issue of the effect of greenhouse gases on trapping the infrared rays in the atmosphere instead of radiating it into known space from other planets and also from theoretical calculations, there is no matter of observations here, on the contrary the observations confirm the theory.
Catastrophic - what is the magnitude of the damage that will be caused by this theoretical warming - are we not exaggerating the description of the expected disaster?
The damage is enormous, and it will come to the point that many places will be uninhabitable - especially in Africa and southern Europe - Spain and Italy will become deserts, islands will be flooded, but already today there are damages of tens of billions every year as a result of hurricanes, fires and more. Part of the financial cost is measured, for example, in the price of building the fence between Israel and Egypt to stop the climate refugees from Africa.
Immediately - don't we have more time to evaluate the data and develop new technologies - will inaction now condemn us all to warming that will be impossible to stop? How do you justify this claim?
As I explained, the damage is already in progress, it's not a matter of future guessing.
Reasonably preventable - will the expenses and the economic damage that will be caused by the preventive actions prevent more economic damage than the damage that will be prevented? How much damage will it cause? How much damage can be prevented? How much would it cost to prevent this damage? Are the methods that the green organizations offer really the best way to prevent warming in the most effective way?
As time passes and your friends in the legislatures of the developed countries delay the treatment the damage will be irreversible.
You are welcome to go through the site's archive in the science of "Global Warming" and see countless examples of all the issues you raised https://www.hayadan.org.il/category/environment/environmental_issues/global_warming/
Another one - you believe so much in what you say that you don't bother to do 2 things:
1. Check the evidence
2. Understand what they mean.
For example - the amount of sea ice at the South Pole is indeed increasing, but the total amount of ice there is small!!!
For example - there are 2 data that we know:
What is the effect of CO2 on the absorption of solar radiation
What is the volume of CO2 that man produces in a year.
In science there is no debate about these 2 figures. Skeptics say two things:
The first is that there is no global warming
The second is that global warming is not man-made.
I researched the topic a lot. Let's say that the deniers - as my father rightly calls them - are not exactly truth tellers. I have not found a single article (!!!!) that is reliable and completely denies the influence of man on the warming.
I personally would love to know that there is no danger here and that everything is a bluff, but I will not deny the facts because of a group of charlatans!!!
What are facts?
Facts are not studies and information of climate scientists - facts are measurements - not what the measurements measured - just measurements - the fact that there is a measurement that shows warming - it is not a fact that there is global warming as man-made - it is a scientific interpretation of the measurements.
It is a fact that there is a slowdown in warming - which most of the models that came before or at the beginning of the slowdown did not predict.
The difference between skeptics and deniers is that skeptics change their minds if the facts show otherwise, and deniers look for any way to prove their claim, including non-scientific ways such as the crooked floor, the scientists don't let it enter the journals, etc.
I have an answer for all these things but I also have to work on urgent projects so I'm content with short answers for now. give me a reminder at night
In the meantime, you are invited to read the summary of Prof. Yoav Yair's lecture at the Hadaan site's event from a year ago
https://www.hayadan.org.il/professor-yoav-yair-at-hayadan-event-0711115/
my father
It's a good opportunity to talk about the issue more generally on this site so I'll take it.
Skeptics of global warming do not necessarily say that there is no warming - the full term should be:
Immediate catastrophic anthropogenic global warming that is reasonably preventable.
Reasonably-avoidable Imminent Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
RAICAGW.
These are the questions the skeptic asks:
warming-
How much warming is there? How reliable are the measuring stations? How reliable are the satellites?
global-
How do you define global temperature? Where do the seas and oceans come in here? What weight does each station have in calculating the temperature - how do you average over time?
Anthropogenic:
How can it be proven that there is a connection between PADF emissions and other greenhouse gases - and warming?
Are there no alternative options? Is correlation an indication of causation?
catastrophic-
What is the magnitude of the damage that will be caused by this theoretical warming - are we not exaggerating the description of the expected disaster?
immediately-
Don't we have more time to evaluate the data and develop new technologies - will inaction now condemn us all to unstoppable warming? How do you justify this claim?
Reasonably preventable - will the expenses and the economic damage that will be caused by the preventive actions prevent more economic damage than the damage that will be prevented? How much damage will it cause? How much damage can be prevented? How much would it cost to prevent this damage?
Are the methods that the green organizations offer really the best way to prevent warming in the most effective way?
These are all important questions that skeptics ask.
It is not clear to me why this entitles them to the nickname of "deniers" by a large percentage of RAICAGW supporters.
Yes, but the length of the response is also limited and it was impossible to go into detail, so there is no choice but to link. I personally contacted the supervisor of the opinion section and asked him to confirm the response.
Avi - In NRG, comments with links are usually downloaded.
There are cynical politicians on all sides - Al Gore is a good example of a politician who made a career out of supporting the Khammist argument. The fact that at the time he received the Nobel Prize for this he had a footprint of 10 ordinary people - is less important...
First of all, it bothers me that the mass media don't do a little checking of the facts and copy from the Daily Mail as if it were God. For me, this finding has no meaning because it did not pass peer review, and from the Met Office's initial response it was clear that it would not pass either.
As for the effect - unfortunately cynical politicians take advantage of such a statement even if it has no support http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/409/010.html?hp=1&cat=459&loc=36 And they don't even approve my comment that contained a reference to this article so they don't know they are wrong, God forbid. By the way, even from a scientist like Gabi Avital, I would expect greater responsibility in checking facts. If such a person who does not check facts is in the Knesset, we will be in a bad situation.
There is no warming up! Continue to use with all your might and at the highest possible rate! Consecrate our temporary lives, at the expense of future generations! Not to consider my "beloved" children whom I love with honest and pure love!!!
My father - the problem here is a interpersonal problem.
Your side of the debate sees this publication as an attempt to confuse and mislead the public with irrelevant facts.
A decrease in the rate of warming was possible according to (some of) the models. And the period of almost no warming was also possible. The problem is that in your view this keeps the public and consequently the politicians away from working for a policy of reducing FADH and "saving the world".
Of course it is demagogic to show only the stable years and not show the increase in temperature that was before.
But your side (especially your side in my opinion) is also guilty of demagoguery - this graph you present is pure demagoguery - no one argued that there was no warming.
If there was warming until now and after that a period of no increase but also no decrease in temperature degrees - then obviously the last few years will be warmer - but this way we have a graph that is much less intuitive than the usual graphs - and since such a graph must go up - it always goes up - so First of all, those who see this see a graph of much more uniform and threatening warming - and the colors are already on an intellectual level - they do not separate from year to year but only between decades, so it seems as if there is a constant increase in heat from year to year to those who do not look closely.
There could have been a small but steady decline over the decade and such a graph would have looked the same from a distance.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
My father - another question - is this average? record temperature? Average of the summer?
Can you provide a link to the source of the graph?
I was wrong, of course it is less than 1 degree
another one,
I think the length of the rectangle in each year is the temperature range in that year (summer-winter, maximum-minimum) and the black line in the middle is the average.
If I'm wrong someone correct me.
You can see in the graph that the old rectangles will be bigger - longer.
This is especially noticeable in the purple rectangle from 1878 (the 39th warmest year), you can see that it is clearly longer than the rectangles next to it.
What I know is that overall the ice in the south is growing - not at certain points - overall - this means that in some parts it may be small but when you sum it all up it is growing. - Of course if you have data that says the opposite then feel free to provide it.
No one is saying that general warming can't coincide with cooling in the South Pole - only that there is cooling - you are the one who claimed that there is mass in the Antarctic.
And one more thing, the ice grows only in a few limited spots in the South Pole and not in the entire Antarctic continent as you are trying to claim.
There is a matter of spirits and point positive feedback. But the other 99% of the Earth is cooling, so this figure is irrelevant.
The length of the rectangles as far as I noticed are the same. And your claim sounds like a dancer who is angry that the floor is crooked. I have nothing to do with such grievances, I rely solely on peer-reviewed studies, whose interpretation has been critiqued. I'm not a climate scientist myself and neither are you so our private interpretation is irrelevant. I trust the Met Office.
My father - if the ice grows in the south, which includes everything, not just the ice in the Antarctic Peninsula - that means more freezes than melts.
Do you have data that it goes differently?
Avi - it is a solid scientific fact that there are measurements that indicate warming - this is a fact - everything else is interpretation - warming by thermometers does not necessarily mean global warming.
The volume does not say that it is related to the FDF, or any human-made element, does not mean that it will be catastrophic and does not mean that humanity has anything it can do to prevent it if it exists.
Question: In the graph you gave - the length of the rectangles - what does it represent - the size of the error?
With all due respect, what you and your friends on the green blog are doing is denying solid scientific fact. What do you want me to call you data engineer?
The graph is from the Met Office so if the Met Office is good enough to lie about there being no warming it is also good enough for me to deny your lies.
As for the South Pole, there is a very limited area in the South Pole that has a cold trap. Beyond it, the glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula are melting at a rate that does not embarrass Olympic medal-winning runners and flow water into the oceans like all the world's rivers combined.
By the way, "studies" of your kind show how important it is to stick only to peer-reviewed studies, and to the systematic line of Science and Nature. Such a study would not have passed any peer review, even at Azet Naas.
my father
Avi Blizovsky-
As far as I understand the ice in the South Pole is growing a little - although not at the rate that the North Pole is melting - but still growing - do you have any data that shows the opposite?
No one claims that there is no warming, but they see that it is slowing down - something most of the models did not expect - this does not mean that there is no warming - this does not mean that a big warming will not start in a few years.
Your graph seems to me to be demagogic and not related to the debate - you create a graph that goes up impressively with the last few years at the top - that way you can visualize how terrible the warming is when in reality the situation is different.
Please stop calling anyone who doesn't believe with complete faith in 'preventable catastrophic anerogenic global warming' a "denier" - this is not a form of discussion - none of us receive money from the "Koch brothers" or the big oil industries and neither do any of us want to warm the Earth because we hate the environment.
All the claims of the deniers have been tested and rejected, including the claim of Antarctic cooling. And on the question of why this or that decade - because it's a matter of definition, what's more, nature doesn't consider the human count, so there's a chance that such phenomena won't have an effect because they won't occur precisely at the beginning or at the end of a decade. If you choose in retrospect, it's a different story.
By the way, regarding 91 to 2001, here you are right because the counting started from 1 and not from zero, which is an Indian concept that the Romans did not know and neither did the first Christians who worked in Rome.
A single number indicating the global temperature is misleading….
Why is 91 to 2001 an unreal decade, while 1990-2000 is real mmmm not buying it
There is a problem with global warming on the southern side.. the question is why this site which is supposed to be scientific does not provide more facts such as for example the median of variation and the number of samples...