How is the fact that the winter in Israel is getting shorter and the summer is getting hotter and hotter related to global warming? Let's find out what the expected climate trends are in Israel
Baruch Ziv, Hadas Shaaroni, Pinchas Alpert Galileo
This article summarizes the findings of a study to examine the climatic trends in Israel, which was based on data from dozens of meteorological stations in a wide area, and is part of the global effort to trace the manifestation of global warming at the regional level.
The research was funded in large part by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and in part by the National Fund for Israel, with the intention of knowing what we should prepare for following possible changes in the country's climate, and in particular in the rain and temperature regime. The period on which the research was focused is the last 35 years, from 1975, during which the world has been warming consistently.
Anticipate climate change
According to the forecasts of the leading research centers in the world, warming is expected in our region in all seasons of the year and a reduction in the amount of precipitation. The reduction in the amount of precipitation is expectedly related to the expansion of the margins of the "bucket cell" towards temperate latitudes. The bucket chamber is a name for a circulation circle of enormous dimensions in which the air in the equatorial region rises, and by the way creates clouds and multiple precipitations, moves in the upper layers of the atmosphere north and south to the subtropical regions and sinks in them.
The sinking of the air causes it to warm, and prevents the formation of clouds and precipitation in the subtropical regions, and is the source of the existence of the world's deserts, such as the deserts of the Middle East, the Sahara in the north of Africa and Namibia in the south. The condensation of water vapor into clouds in the tropics releases heat, and this heat is the driving force of the bucket cell. The higher the temperature in the equatorial region, the more water evaporates from the oceans, so it is expected that climate warming will increase the strength of the bucket cell and expand its influence.
Israel is slightly north of the edges of the bucket cell, where the air sinks, which explains the desert nature of the Negev. The bucket cell migrates north in the summer, which explains the dry season that lasts in the country from May to October; and moves south in the winter, a season in which Israel is located on the edges of the barometric depression tracks that cause the rain to fall. A further potential expansion of the bucket chamber due to global warming will cause its edge to advance northward, along Israel, shortening the rainy season and a general reduction in the amount of precipitation. In addition to this, the climatic boundary lines that run across the country and separate the area where a Mediterranean climate prevails in the north and center of the country, and the arid area in the south of the country - will be encrypted.
Breaking News
The most striking finding in the field of temperature is a statistically significant upward trend. In the summer season, its rate increases by half in 10 years, a rate that is twice the rate of global warming (0.8 degrees in the last 35 years). The reason for the extreme warming, in addition to the global factor, is the weakening of the seasonal western winds that dominate our region in the summer and relieve the heat. It is not clear what caused this change, so it is impossible to determine whether it is a transient change, i.e. a fluctuation, or a continuous process.
The warming trend in all the warm months, June-October, is clear in all parts of the country. Even in the winter season there is a warming trend, but its rate is smaller than its rate in the summer (and significant only in some of the measuring stations). The increasing trend is evident in both the maximum and minimum temperatures.
However, the minimum temperature increases at a higher rate than the maximum in the coastal area and in the flat areas, while in the mountain areas the maximum temperatures actually increase at a faster rate. One of the consequences of this difference is that the summer nights in the coastal area become more severe, while there is a reduction in the frequency of cold events in the winter and their severity decreases. The heat load, which is an index that expresses the combined effect of temperature and humidity, is also found to increase significantly in the hot season and this is due to the noticeable warming, without a significant change in the relative humidity.
Heat waves and cold waves
One of the difficult phenomena that characterizes a hot climate is heat waves, especially those that last several days in a row. For the purpose of the study, a 'heat wave' was defined as an event in which the temperature exceeded the threshold of 33 degrees Celsius, the acceptable temperature for hot conditions. It was found that during the last 35 years the heat waves not only increased but they also got longer, a fact that has serious environmental consequences.
In order to trace trends in the risk of cold, we focused on the nights when the temperature in the meteorological sukkah (at a height of 2 meters) dropped below five degrees (a situation where the temperature near the ground is lower than that in the sukkah to such an extent that it could reach the freezing point, which could cause cold). There is a noticeable decrease in the number of cold nights, as derived from the general warming trend, although cold nights and cold events are still observed in most parts of the country. Unlike summer, where the trend of increasing the number of hot days is consistent, the trend of decreasing the number of cold nights is not consistent, and extreme cold events are still observed.
One of the heavy periods of cold nights was in the seam between the eighties and the nineties, especially in the winter of 1988/9, when severe damage was caused to agriculture due to dry cold without rain, and in the winter of 1991/2, which was very cold and rainy. After a significant decrease in the number of cold nights in the late nineties and early 2007s, the cold events returned. The winter of 8/2008 was considerably cold and dry and an extremely cold event occurred in January XNUMX.
Change trends in the rainfall regime
As mentioned, our region will suffer from a drying trend. Indeed, in the last 35 years there has been a trend of reduction in the amount of annual precipitation in most parts of the country, although it is statistically significant only in the southern Negev and the eastern Golan Heights. On the other hand, there are places where an increase was recorded, albeit a small one, mainly in the center of the country, and in particular in Gush Dan, as a possible result of increasing urbanization (the city produces heat, which may increase the formation of clouds). It can be seen that in all the areas indicated on the map the trend is a decrease (in most areas it is, as mentioned, indistinct).
There is also a change in the distribution of rainfall throughout the season. A significant and clear reduction was recorded in the rains at the end of the season, in the months of March-April. Even in the fall, there is a reduction trend, but tiny and indistinct. On the other hand, at the height of winter there is actually a slight and insignificant increase. To evaluate the changes that occurred in the length of the rainy season, we recorded for each year the dates on which 10%, 50% and 90% of the annual amount of rain accumulated. The date when 10% is accumulated in any year indicates the beginning of the rainy season in that year - and the date when 90% is accumulated - its end. The duration of the season was defined as the period of time between them.
According to this definition, the season usually starts at the beginning of November, and ends at the end of March. For example, in the winter of 2010/11, the first ten percent were accumulated only on December 10, much later than usual. Examining the change trends in the dates of the start and end of the season shows that the rainy season is shortening, and that the main reason for this is the advance of its end date, a fact that corresponds to the greatest reduction in the spring season. But the beginning and middle of the season are also delayed.
During the 35 years of research, the rainy season was shortened by 12 days. This trend, even if not statistically significant, is worrying. It means, among other things, that farmers can no longer rely on the fall and spring rains, and must extend the irrigation season, and probably consume more water, especially at the edge of the season when the rate of evaporation is also higher.
Increasing the intensity of the rain
One of the expectations related to global warming is the increase in the intensity of the rain, a trend that may worsen the danger of floods, especially in urban areas, where the drainage systems are limited in their ability to remove the accumulated rainwater. An increasing trend in the amount of aquatic precipitation, which is an expression of the intensity of the rain, was detected in the countries on the western coast of the Mediterranean and in its center.
In Israel, which excels in large daily amounts, it was impossible to point to a clear trend of change in the daily amounts of rain. However, in the coastal plain, where the sensitivity to floods is particularly high, there is an increase in the proportion of rainy days in which more than 30 mm and 50 mm fall, a worrying finding, even if it is not statistically significant.
Another subject that was examined is the duration of the pauses between the rain events. It was found that while the length of the rain events themselves does not change, there is a trend of longer pauses between the events, which is evident in several regions of Israel.
In conclusion, it can be said that the trends found, even if some of them are not statistically significant, point to the worsening of the problematic characteristics of the country's climate; The summer is getting hotter, the heat load and heat waves are increasing, the amount of precipitation is small, the rainy season is getting shorter and the breaks between the rains are getting longer and longer.
Dr. Baruch Ziv is the head of the physics group at the Open University, Professor Hadas Saaroni is an associate professor in the Department of Geography at Tel Aviv University and Professor Pinchas Alpert is the head of the Porter School of Environmental Quality at Tel Aviv University
for further reading:
Report number 8-810 of the Ministry of Environmental Protection: "Fluctuations and trends in temperature, heat load and precipitation in Israel in the last 30 years - evidence of climate change?" Climatological-Synoptic Examination", B. Ziva. Saaroni and F. Alpert 2011.
The full article was published in Galileo magazine, March 2012
140 תגובות
What determines the winter and summer times is the angle of the earth's axis relative to the sun and the speed of the earth's rotation.
Until now, God willing, the situation has not changed (during our lifetime).
According to studies and examination of geological layers in different places, there is a cycle of dry and wet periods resulting from a change in the angle of the axis or the reversal of the magnetic field or the fall of a meteor or a volcano or an earthquake above 9 Richter.
There is also evidence that the greenhouse gas effect causes global warming, so we need to address this issue as much as possible.
There is no global warming either from this blessed scientist. And there is no shortening of the winter, stupidity in the juice. And Israel isn't warming up either, we saw how last winter the winter was going to get shorter hahahahaha I don't hate charlatans, blessed be Red from the tree, the winter is getting shorter hahahahaha
No problem, go to any site you want. In the first class there are also writers who deny evolution. The scientific truth will do without first class as it does without other websites.
Charlatans are the ones who shoot the arrow and then mark a target around it - apparent proof that there is no warming.
The response is only for the innocent readers who may think that I post charlatan articles on the site. Not for those who are convinced that scientists by definition are charlatans because they are not willing to work for the capitalists.
which Pat
Your argument with my father b. It is an idle argument and the high tones are unnecessary (even if you are right). It is true that he published their research on his website, but he cannot motivate them to act as decent scientists (or he doesn't want to, it doesn't matter).
Concentrate mainly. The main thing is not an argument between you and my father b.
The main thing is a debate between real scientists and the charlatan Israeli climate researchers who published the data-free article.
The same researchers published an article on climate warming in Israel without providing detailed raw data from which their accounting analyzes were based. This is an act that would not be done in scientific research.
Furthermore, the same Israeli researchers promised 50 days ago that they would bring the aforementioned raw data on which their research is based. They promised to do it within 30 days. They didn't even though 50 days had already passed.
The conclusion is unequivocal: these researchers are charlatans.
(Of course the Koch brothers, the tycoons, the oil companies and all the other vegetables - not related to the fact that their research is not worthy of publication).
Now the question is what to do.
First stop the argument with my father b.
After that, my suggestion is to contact the "first class" website of the journalist Yoav Yitzhak through the green blog. Yoav Yitzhak's site is a respected site that cooperates with the green blog. He can give wide publicity to the allegedly false study published by the Israeli climate researchers regarding abnormal warming in Israel.
As you understood correctly, my insistence on sticking to the scientific truth is what brought me to the recognition of the Academy of Science. If I had stuck to your position I might have received recognition from the Academy of Science Fiction.
I rest my case
Honest scientists, who are not puppets in one way or another of the Koch brothers, insist that there is warming and prove it and even publish it in thousands of scientific articles. The others do not manage to get into the scientific magazines except in marginal subjects and it is not because of a conspiracy but because their science is simply not good.
As the editor of a science website if I have to choose between someone whose scientific argument is weak but he promises that thanks to him no money should be spent to fight global warming (because there is none) and a proponent of global warming whose science is strong I will choose the one whose science is strong and solid.
Beyond that, if you want to read your opinions and not the scientific truth, you have the green blog, other truth, the daily capitalist and other websites.
"Anyone who refuses to submit to the terror employed by the Koch brothers' emissaries is a charlatan. An interesting definition."
Father, really, look at your comments from the side. Have you ever tried to analyze them - in what percentage of them do you attack the other side by accusing them of being puppets of one of the following:
(1) the oil companies;
(2) tycoons;
(3) the capital families;
(4) the rich;
(5) The Koch brothers.
Really, how do you know that I or others are paid employees of the above (especially, the brothers...). This is not suitable for an adult and serious person - everything with you ends with "la-la-la-la-la" - you are puppet slaves of the oil companies/tycoons, families, etc.
Don't you think it's ridiculous?
Fan
The publishers of the article have not forgotten anything. They were just trying to forget.
The authors of the above article tried to forget the claim that they would publish raw and detailed data, by their false promise (a promise that they would send data as if within 30 days). They thought that after 30 days readers would forget their promise to send data.
you are wasting time If you send more letters the authors of the article will smear you with more stories aimed at avoiding providing all the raw data, individual data without processing. For example, at best, they will send you a small portion of the data, or send you processed data instead of raw data.
Don't be tempted by their future smears. Their whole purpose is to avoid providing data that they *had* to include in their fabricated "research" in the first place, so that the reliability of this "research" could be tested. They had more than enough time to send data, their time was up.
Since they did not send data within 30 days (nor within 50 days) the conclusion is that their "research" is worth nothing.
I suggest that you contact the owner of the blog so that he denounces the authors of the fabricated "research", if possible he publishes his article of condemnation on the Internet. His main claim is about the omission of raw information mentioned above.
The criticism of range calculations is not an important matter, all the preoccupation with this technical matter (which can be debated) distracts from the main failure of the article. The failure of the article is the omission of information about the raw data, individual information. Whoever uploads such information is a charlatan.
You're right, I sent them a request about it. we will see what will be.
The emails appear on the personal page of each of them on their university website.
Can I please have an email of one of the writers? Maybe they just forgot... 30 days, go remember...
Anyone who refuses to submit to the terror employed by the Koch brothers' emissaries is a charlatan. Interesting definition.
Fan
You're right. The aforementioned study by the climate scientists belongs in the garbage bin of the Israeli academy.
Anyone who does not issue raw data to substantiate his "research" is a charlatan in the guise of a scientist.
This trashy study testifies to the poor character of the climate researchers who signed it, including the "illustrious" professor Pinchas Alpert. Pinchas Alpert's connection to research indicates Mr. Alpert's shallowness
A bunch of charlatans.
Really what about the data?!?!? It's been 30 days already, hasn't it?
The truth, I'm just kidding, let's be honest with ourselves, I, and basically all of you, didn't really believe that the data would be published.
Now we just enjoy harassing the "scientists" caught in their corruption.
You don't have to go to the supermarket, you can produce food yourself, that's what your method will cause and has caused in dozens of countries that wanted the communism method.
I don't have to go to a restaurant that smokes, I buy in the supermarket, because the big ones choked all the owners of the small containers.
"The majority supported regulations on big business", aha, you want "Venezuela on the iron". I don't believe you, my father. After all, a restaurant can also work and make money at your expense
To confirm that the support for this method even in America, its birthplace, was only of the drowsy extreme fringes. The majority supported regulations on big business. The problem is that now Koch's people have simply hijacked the Republican Party with threats and made anyone who is not radical to be suspected as a liberal and not to be re-elected to office.
Money and power do not buy truth. I am the proof of that, I stick to the truth even if it causes me a financial loss.
I also eat fats, but in moderation. Make sure to count calories, stay away from starches and get closer to Atkins.
My father, I am sure that "the method is problematic", that is why I said in my previous response, that you should have been born into another, more humane method, communism!
To Yuval, I just went up because I eat more fat instead of sugar, and I've known this for ten years.
Avi,
I also have type 2 diabetes. I was diagnosed 9 months ago. Paradoxically, it's the best thing that ever happened to me. Thanks to this I entered a diet regime and returned to the dimensions of the age of 18 🙂
Your comparison is wrong.
I don't think that the manufacturer should not make money, but it seems to me that the German manufacturers also make enough, even there the wage and transport expenses are high, and yet they manage to make a profit even with less work.
But that's how it is, when Cadbury wanted to enter the country, Elite forcibly removed it from the supermarkets with threats and temptations on the supermarket owners and what did the state give them? A few million shekels in a fine, and that too after the Cadbury franchisees went bankrupt... and we still eat the fruits of this in the prices of chocolate products to this day (due to a time-out protest).
It should be noted that this happened before Strauss acquired Elite.
In any case, this is how tycoons operate, the method is the problem, not this or that tycoon.
Father, you were born too late. You had to be born in the middle of the 20th century to a middle-class family in the USSR, where there were no tycoons, no one would celebrate at your expense and everything belonged to the people! But for "chocolate without sugar" you had to pay a bribe to the shop assistant, or more likely, you wouldn't eat "chocolate without sugar", because, "HET".
COME BACK TO USSR, YOU KNOW HOW LUCKY YOU ARE BOY, BACK TO US, BACK TO US, BACK TO USSR
,
I have type 2 diabetes
The connection is that the tycoons you protect me are celebrating at my expense and you are using the police to suppress the protest that would make me pay a sane price for products.
Why buy "sugar-free chocolate" - it's yuck! But father, look at yourself from the side (or at least at your reactions) - what is the connection between the research we are discussing and sugar-free chocolate? I read your responses, it's always something like "yes, but the tycoons, the capital families, the oil companies are climate deniers, etc."
And by the way, with the difference between rent in a major European capital and rent in Sheinkin, you could fly to Europe to buy the chocolate and still have money left over, but they don't say that.
Responding takes a few seconds, starting to contact the meteorological service and requesting full information (I personally don't need it) as you request takes a lot of time.
You probably don't mind paying 12 shekels for sugar-free chocolate when in Europe the same product costs 4.50 because the Strauss family wants to be rich or another three shekels for a box of tuna so that the Mittelman family can be rich and finance Chabad that makes our lives miserable. Otherwise it is impossible to understand why you like the tycoons so much.
And one more thing. I didn't ask the people there, not even the owners of the blog, to do any work for me.
Father, I will break my promise - you say you don't have time to answer me because you are busy, etc.
I think I know what you're up to. I counted no less than 23 comments on the "Daily Capitalist" blog "Don't be right. be strong"
(http://www.nrg.co.il/app/index.php?do=blog&encr_id=a28b07a102084d28785d2d933122ebb1&id=3768)
bearing your name! And you have some obsession with the word "tycoons". It's interesting that you have time for confrontation in the "Daily Capitalist", but you don't have time to prove yourself right. Wait, maybe it's an impostor using your nickname?
You are welcome to continue to respond, a response that will take me several working hours I simply will not be able to respond to.
Father, first of all, it is not fair to accuse me of "changing nicknames" I did not change nicknames.
Second, you say that you answered me "politely" 3 times, wouldn't it have been more effective to at least direct me to the site where the researchers might publish the series? Really, this is my last comment here (I know, I know - thank goodness we got fired), I'll look up the data myself, the capitalist tycoons who own the capital live in the money of the brothers, of course.
Asher, I gave you the same answer three times politely, I'm already tired of repeating it because you are trying (while changing pronouns) to give the impression that there is a huge demand for information that is not in my hands. I don't find time in the coming weeks to do this. My schedule is full, and I need to leave time for regular updating of the site.
If someone else doesn't keep their word, contact them.
You shouldn't automatically trust researchers, probably people who speak from their guts funded by the Koch brothers are more reliable in your eyes, Shabosm to you.
It was not the researchers who put in the cover photo but the Galileo editors, and they answered you on the green blog.
You can't compare a site with dozens of thousands of uniques per month with a blog of 20 readers.
There is always doubt in everything, even that the sun will rise tomorrow but there are different degrees of certainty, and global warming is a certain issue within these limitations, no amount of terrorism against scientists will change that.
By the way, as the editor of a news website, I recommend to all news editors to stick to the scientific truth. I am not responsible for ideological blog owners for whom the scientific truth is only a recommendation - only if it fits with their ideology. Fortunately, NRG understood the error of firing the environmental reporter, and although unfortunately they did not return their excellent environmental reporter, they hired a new one who does a good job, although mostly on things outside of Israel.
Father, there's no need for insults, you don't have to answer. And the condemnation "snooze" is more suitable for those who obsessively shout with unrelated cries, usually something like - "tycoons-capitalism-oil companies-owners".
Unlike you, Father, I do not automatically trust "researchers", even if they say something that supports my "gut feelings". But I also have preferences - I prefer researchers who publish their research with a white page as a cover page, not with a dramatic-scary picture. And I prefer researchers who publish the data on which they base their research - this is the heart of scientific research. You published the research on your blog, and even contacted the researchers who, according to you, said they would publish the series before the end of May, as I imagine (30 days).
You don't owe me anything, and I wish you success in your business, but you were attacked on your blog by other bloggers - isn't it requested that you show them the series so that they will be ashamed of their doubts about the tycoons' funding? I just ask that you ask the researchers for the link, that's all. If not, the doubt will always creep in, that the data does not support your position.
you are snoozing I explained to you that I have no connection with the meteorological service, and that I have no time to devote to this nonsense. There are more important things to report on such as the Rio conference from the number of Israelis traveling there, or the Chinese launch.
I will not let anyone manage my time and waste it on nonsense. I trust the researchers - two professors and the greatest climate experts in Israel, who did their job faithfully.
I suggested that you contact yourself under the Freedom of Information Act, which would help to steal my time, which is also devoted to work for other clients, because your capitalists avoid posting on the science website.
Father, I would appreciate it if you could renew the publication of the data. Thanks in advance
Anonymous user.
The 30 days in which they are supposed to publish data will pass before May 31 (actually they are supposed to publish by May 20 but we will all give them another 11 days of grace and round the waiting time for their data to a round date of the end of May).
If by May 31 the authors of the study do not publish raw and detailed data (each station separately), data on which their conclusions are based - then their article can be thrown into the trash can.
It doesn't matter at all if the review was done by an expert or by a layman. Whoever uploads individual raw data on which his research conclusions are based - his conclusions are worth nothing (no matter how respectable he may be).
A. I don't know and I don't have the resources to start running after the meteorological service to ask. Please do it yourself. I have enough work updating the site with regular materials.
B. It seems to me that when you study statistics then they will agree to discuss with you.
So what about the data they said they would publish?
Do they have a few more days left or has it already been 30 days?
Thanks for the article and data!
"60 Minutes" had a segment about a year ago about the huge sums that certain companies transfer to scientists working in the field of global warming. These are companies that have an interest in showing that warming exists and that we are responsible for it. On the same subject, Al Gore, who was reported to have 2 million dollars in private capital when he ran for president in 2000, is worth today (after the movie, the Oscar and the Nobel) over 500 million dollars.
Let me add to the statements of the green blog.
Don't worry, 23 more days to publish the raw data, then we will know the whole truth!
As long as they don't do an exercise for us and publish the data starting from 1975 only...
If they are going to publish, then let them publish from the 50s. If this happens, I will really appreciate the "greens" more.
On second thought, it won't happen, transparency is not their forte...
Father, climatic processes that the research claims to examine are not measured in one or two years here or there.
What bothers me is that they removed two particularly hot decades from the 50s and 60s... The data range was limited to the years 1975-2010, a period with a cold beginning and a particularly warm end that turns on a red light for me! (You see I can warm up too) since this is the goal that must be marked around the arrow in order to get the most startling warming up.
If the researchers are honest with themselves and the public they will tell you how this range was determined and under whose guidance.
In any case, both you and Galileo can boast of sensational headlines now - but there is a point to the flaw.
Boaz, take two hot years off the end, what are you talking about?
It could have been even more extreme if the warm winter of 2010-11 had been added.
Comment from the Green Blog: Accusations have been made here against the "Green Blog" and it is appropriate to express the position of the blog. The main claim that has not been addressed in relation to the study cited above is why a section of data was "marked" in advance for examination, one that is clear to all that it will lead to a result that will show the most extreme warming. Who was responsible for dictating this range?
As evidenced by the response of the research team, even a slight change in the years of the test moderates the sensational results and it is likely that a change and extension of the test also to the hot decades of the 60s and 50s would have led to a much greater recession to the point of destroying the results (we will know this after all the data is released for analysis and testing) .
As we know, it is important not only to tell the truth and only that, but the *whole* truth. It is very possible that the culprit lies in the directives of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, which seeks to intensify the alarm and its importance, but the respected researchers are not exempt from responsibility for the classification of their findings and the responsibility for the way they are used. The authors of the study should have emphasized that the range of data that they analyzed is partial and biased in advance and does not contain it to give a complete picture of "acute and unusual warming" or to use it for the purposes of intimidation - this classification is absent from the reports of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, which uses the study to promote its goals, and does not appear in the articles In Galileo and the site of science.
SAFKAN
The study may shed light on more than one thing, including on the results of the paper.
Regarding the urban impact: you need to find out with the editors of the observations if and how it was taken into account.
The right to express an opinion is an ethical and political question. I don't understand much about this, so I can't relate
Fan! Not everything is known, and you and your ilk confirm that. But this is not the reason why we go back and conduct research. This is the way of science - to put to refutation tests through experiments and observations. The problem with scientific studies is that no matter how many such studies are conducted, they do not prove in the mathematical sense but at most confirm. There will always be a group in the target audience that will show a lack of understanding and worse - willfully ignoring essential details.
Fan, after the researchers answered you, I am convinced that the scores are in the heads of the deniers and not in the research.
jubilee,
I am amazed at your logical abilities (or maybe you read what I wrote too quickly).
I will explain again,
If (and only if) everything is already known then (and only then) what was the research for?
If (and only if) not everything is known, then (and then) readers have the right to comment on the research!
If you could not understand these two sentences, tell me and I will explain again in another way
Thanks
A little more information for the fire,
Regarding the effect or non-effect of the warming or non-warming of the urban areas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#Global_warming
jubilee
The study did not waste money. It may prove that the researchers are fabricating results.
I did not refer to the question of the "slope of the graph" but to another question. I referred to the "urban effect" ("urban effect" means: if a temperature measuring station is located in a rapidly developing urban place, the temperatures there will rise regardless of global warming-cooling).
The responses I received from Abi Blizovsky to the question of the urban impact are so farfetched (denying that there is an "urban impact") that I am more inclined than before to think that there are warming researchers who fabricate results.
How can you deny the "urban influence" if any person (without any knowledge) can check that it exists? Whoever dares to deny something that is so obvious, will tend to fabricate results in matters whose examination is complicated.
Regarding a fan's demand that the raw measurements be published. This is a requirement that puts the reliability of the researchers to the test. If the researchers do not present the raw measurements (individual measurements) within a reasonable time, then the researchers' conclusions are not of much value.
Why was money wasted on this study? Because of the stubbornness of the deniers.
And why don't the deniers spend money on research that will prove the opposite? Because they know they are wrong and misleading. All they are willing to do is to pry into studies that have invested a lot of resources, take points out of context, find apparent inaccuracies in them, and shout Hamas as a robbed Cossack.
deer,
I know how a trend line is constructed, for the avoidance of doubt I will explain that the trend line is the line where the sum of the squared distances of the measurements is the lowest. But, a trend line is greatly influenced by the extreme points. Of course, until the data is published, it is not possible to know how big the effect of the start of the measurement is.
Avi,
If everything is really known and there is no doubt about the warming of Israel, then why did they waste money on this research? If money was wasted on this study then readers should have a right to comment.
It is impossible to publish a study and when flaws are discovered in the study to say that the study is not important because the phenomenon has been proven in the past...
The issue of cyclicality means that the increase will be discontinuous, but it is still a clear upward trend.
In addition, in all the writings of the deniers, I found no reference to the fact that humanity is emitting more and more greenhouse gases, but an attempt to claim that it is not important. Sort of like the AIDS deniers like Menachem Ben who claim that the diseases are the same diseases only that if the virus is dormant in the body they blame it for all the morbidity and if not, then it's just diseases.
I think there are two types of fallacies in published studies.
The first, it cannot be that everyone loses from global warming. There are areas on the planet where there will be a worsening or will simply be harmed by climatic changes and there are areas for which global warming will be good. Therefore, in order not to create a conflict of interests between different countries and to harness the entire world to the effort of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which also harm humans and the animals that breathe them, scientists distort the data and claim that everyone loses.
The second is that it is known that there is a cycle of the earth in front of the sun that causes global warming and this cycle started a certain number of years ago. Many scientists tend to ignore this because it can raise doubts about their research and attacks from vested interests. Also, this does not mean that all the studies on global warming are false or biased, but many of them are indeed but slightly, in addition, I am not saying that the emission of polluting gases ("greenhouse gases") do not cause global warming.
What I think is that because of our cycle in front of the sun there is global warming and the emission of greenhouse gases only exacerbates it and therefore one should and even must make every effort to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases and not only because of the warming they bring with them, also because of the heavy pollution and the health consequences of this pollution on the species the human Humans have unfortunately been short-sighted towards the future expected of the human race and the consequences of its actions on its future.
Thanks to whoever took the time to read this comment,
and Shabbat Shalom.
Two things I noticed in Natan Faldor's lecture (thanks to Rami Haifa for the reference):
A) The "Little Ice Age" ended exactly with the beginning of the industrial revolution. If this world does not break out, then we and our children and our children's children (if we are even born) may be stuck deep in some glacier between Syria and Egypt.
b) From the middle of the 1940s to the beginning of the 1960s, a clear opposite trend of a decrease in global temperature was recorded. In the early 1960s, the warming trend reappeared. To remind us, in 1945 a world war ended which claimed about 40 million human victims (in addition to the normal mortality) in less than six years, followed by a high birth rate (the "baby boom").
The immediate conclusion I jump to is that the size of the human population is one of the significant factors dictating the rate of global warming.
There is a cycle of about thirty thousand years (related to the change in the angle of the ball's axis) in which the desert areas such as the Sahara become greener and have more precipitation. Findings in these areas revealed many marine fossils, including in the Negev and Araba region.
There is a situation that despite the rise of carbon in the air, we will still see greening forests in the Sahara and Negev. Probably not in our time but maybe our descendants.
Regarding the greenhouse effect, the melting of the glaciers increases the surface area of the water in the sphere and hence the evaporation of the water is greater and hence more precipitation is expected for us and more powerful.
Fan,
In case your question hasn't been answered yet, the temperature change trend on page 18 is not measured by the difference between the average temperature in the first and last year. If that was the case then you would be right.
The trend is measured according to all the data. Note that the straight line indicating the increase in temperatures does not start at the first point and end at the last. Therefore, dropping two points from the data, every two points, will not change the trend much.
Ron, what other names will you use to get around the block?
As a matter of fact, getting the man you refer to to talk about global warming is like getting Milton Friedman to talk about socialism. Both know what it is about, but oppose it.
Professor Natan Faldor climate expert from Jerusalem University in a January 2012 lecture at Ben Gurion University.
The topic of the lecture: Global warming - facts and beliefs
(from the university channel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6QPO0lmZPM
And here he is a lecturer at Haifa University February 2012
The subject: Uncertainties in climate forecasting
(University Channel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFEogpB-L_w
Professor Faldor took part in and signed a study commissioned by the Ministry of Environmental Protection
For Israel, unfortunately this fan probably won't satisfy.
For a fan - ask the study editors. Unlike in the 'studies' you publish, it is not customary to publish the names of the peers who conducted peer review in scientific articles. The editor of the research should not even know who the visiting colleagues are (and certainly not invite them himself as you do in your policy pages). But ask them.
The circumstantial relationship between the development of industry and global warming over more than two hundred years is one to one.
The relationship between the development of industry and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is not only circumstantial, but directly results from the increase in the burning of fuels, particularly mineral fuels.
The relationship between the increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the warming is confirmed in every laboratory and every experiment.
Any attempt to present reality in pink pastel shades, and certainly not to place any responsibility on the person, is criminal complacency!
my father.
Eli Ziperman, a research professor of earth sciences at Harvard University and also at the Weizmann Institute, has been conducting courses at Harvard in recent years that clarify the issue in which all sides are considered, for and against. Their conclusion is quite unequivocal: there is warming, it is man-made, its effect is extremely negative, and the cost of preventing it is much smaller than the cost of not preventing it.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/
So everything is fine. If Eli handles the matter, he can be seen as closed and calmed down.
Father, there is no need to be angry, the data will be published in another 24 days if I am counting correctly (and if not then in at least 30 days).
After the publication of the data, our network will have the same raw information that the authors of the "scientific" study had, and then we will all be smarter.
By the way, you have not yet answered me (or the authors of the study have not yet answered) has this scientific research undergone any kind of judgment and if so, by whom (names)?
Thanks
Where is Michael Rothschild?
There is an answer to the argument, and the researchers have answered you, but you have to close your ears and shout the mantra "no warming" as if this mantra will cool the earth.
Yael - thank you! 🙂
Spring.,
You sound like a religious preacher from the time of the Inquisition with your accusations: cursing and dismissing the infidels and rolling your eyes at the rabbis (Nature and Scientific American) when you are faced with an argument for which you have no answer. You represent religion and not science!
I'm actually more convinced by the attitude of a fan! Why should data be hidden? Why play with the data? All science is based on the presentation of data and each person's critique of the theory that explains it. Anyone who tries to curse and threaten, defame by associating with such and other interests only arouses disgust.
1 - Slight correction: Contrary to what is written in the study, the Namib Desert was not created due to the "shift of the bucket cell" and is not part of the desert strips (to which the neighboring Kalahari Desert belongs), contrary to the conventional wisdom, the Namib Desert is (relatively) young and was created due to a current
The cold water that comes from Antarctica and "draws" the moisture from the land and thus causes drying.
2 - Among other things, those commenting how the warming will affect, a question that can be divided into two:
How will warming affect the human population and the environment?
If we start from the natural environment, then there are the obvious phenomena that are already happening of pushing the feet of species in need
to ice fields (polar bears, seals, penguin species), plant species, insects, birds and "advanced" mammals
For areas that are warming and crowding out local species, coniferous forests "rise" to the north and crowd out taiga areas,
Brown bears go up north and mate with polar bears or push them,
On another level - because of the warming, plants advance their flowering and flowering (up to two weeks),
For local insects a slight change that causes them to have a coordinated life cycle, migratory insects arrive at the blooming areas
late and "losing" time since they fail to take advantage of the entire flowering season for eating,
The same is the case with birds: the relatives shorten the stay of the bird and arrive at the nesting grounds at the beginning of the blooming season, i.e. at the same time as the distribution of the local insects and in time to enjoy fruits and seeds,
But those migrating from great distances arrive late, meaning again less food for the insect and seed eaters
which affects the size of the population and of course there is less food left for the raptors (which arrive very late),
There will be those who will say "what do I care, the main thing is that people continue to exist"....
Late activity of insects that pollinate flowers will cause a lack of fruit and damage to the multiplication of plants
But it must be assumed that human "wisdom" will be able to overcome the lack through artificial pollination methods (?)
Because of the warming, there will be more land that can be cultivated and prepared for growing food... (at what price ?)
It must be assumed that the "human genius" will be able to overcome the negative effects of the warming
and the "fatal" damage to the natural environment,
In other words, humanity will "succeed" in liberating itself from nature, man is no longer a part of nature, but in order to continue
and to exist, the entire globe will be "managed" for the benefit of that part of humanity that will survive the floods, droughts,
The storms and the rest of the "benefits" that will come with climate change, what remains of the natural environment will be concentrated
In zoos and zoos, butterflies, birds, reptiles, predators will be seen in films.
Humanity will continue to exist in the world... dead
Who wants to live in such a world, who wants to be part of such a humanity.... Rehabilitation!
The natural will become an artificial environment
The study examined urban areas, where there were apparently heat islands according to the assumption in the study, compared to rural areas. If there was an effect on the heat islands, the urban areas should have shown a more significant increase in the warming trend, compared to the rural areas, while in practice this did not happen. Therefore, the researchers concluded that the urban heat islands do not change the warming trend.
Therefore their very effect is an urban legend that the global warming deniers spread.
Usually when you are confronted with a claim that you do not agree with, you relegate your testimony to distant articles that the reader cannot analyze and deal with what is said in them. Because of this, the reader cancels his opinion before the "experts" who published an article.
Here your method does not work. I suggested to anyone who wants, who has a car and a thermometer, to try measuring temperatures in the middle of the night (eg at 2 am).
No respectable article, in the most respectable newspaper, by the most respectable scientists, will contradict the fact that the thermometer in the experiment will show a temperature drop of several degrees (when they left the center of a large city to a nearby place that is in an uninhabited area). This is especially true on days when the air is motionless (which keeps the urban atmosphere in place that acts as a heat blanket).
I don't know what exactly they checked in the article you mentioned, maybe it's not relevant to my claim.
My argument is that Jerusalem developed very urban in the next 35 years, which makes it impossible to use it as a place for comparative temperature measurement.
The subject of the heat islands is examined. No differences were found in the warming trend between urban and rural areas. It's a shame to make a false claim. It also shows the rest of your seriousness.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
Spring.
The urban greenhouse phenomenon is well known (you don't even need research to recognize this phenomenon). Any forum participant who has a car and a thermometer can check it himself.
I don't know what is meant by the article you mentioned, probably not relevant to the claim I mentioned.
Skeptic, the phenomenon of the heat islands has been hidden for a long time, only your false priests continue to spread it because they have no better claim
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-world-indeed-warming-2310114/
As mentioned, I checked in detail Ohad's original claim above:
"It therefore follows that all the "facts" regarding Israel's warming would change completely if the years in which the temperatures were measured changed. Also, if we only move the first year of measurement forward one year and leave the last year of measurement unchanged (1976-2010), we will find the opposite conclusion to the one presented in the article/study."
It seems that his claim is not true, as the researchers themselves later testified. I just wanted to check it out independently, myself, based on the specific data a fan referenced.
monument
Jerusalem was not allowed to be included in the above statistics at all, since Jerusalem underwent a large urbanization during the aforementioned period.
Urbanization can raise (in an extreme case) the temperature by several degrees (especially the minimum temperatures). This is because urbanization causes a decrease in heat emission at night or on cold days. Two factors (that I know of) that reduce heat emissions are the built-up area that functions as a "heat store" and the atmospheric greenhouse that surrounds the city.
The remaining days do not depend on me or Prof. Alpert, but on the meteorological service.
And by your very comments on the green blog, you accuse me as if I know data and hide it while I contacted the researchers and asked for their response because I don't have the data, and you didn't have the patience to wait.
In any case, I responded on the principle level, that the suspicion of the global warming deniers towards scientists stems from political motives and not from the interest of science. And I witnessed it more than once. Your and Yaakov's banter from the green blog shows how important it is to you at all costs to deny the warming - and that it is easier for you instead of dealing with the fact of the warming you prefer to deny.
Hello to you all,
I was happy to see that you are devout readers of the green blog and pay attention to every article that is published there - a really great blog!
Abby, after I simply gave up on your answers that attacked me personally instead of answering the questions I asked, I preferred to publish what I think and the manager of the green blog agreed to publish my words.
Regarding the data and the trend line, it is a bit difficult to determine what number each point represents. Let's wait for the data, if I'm not mistaken, there are only 25 days left until the (secret) data will be revealed to the public.
So,
I took the graph that a fan refers to in his blog as a demonstration of the "bias",
I reverse engineered the numbers that stand behind the "Jerusalem Winter" data to which he refers (the reconstructed data appears as red dots on top of the original blue dots).
I added a linear approximation to all the points (completely overlaps the approximation that appears in the original graph), then I omitted the two extreme points that a fan thinks are responsible for the whole effect (see lower graph).
The slope does decrease slightly, but the upward trend is still clearly visible.
http://sharpthinkingblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/d794d7aad797d79ed79ed795d7aa-d790d795-d794d7aad7a7d7a8d7a8d795d7aa.png
This. I'm not going to address and argue what it means, what the causes are, whether it's part of global warming or not, man-made or not.
But numbers are numbers. And of course we will wait for the official data.
It was to satisfy my curiosity.
Fan! You are bad.
One of the two: either you have no idea what to do with statistical data, or someone is simply paying you to pretend to be sad. Are you ready to tell us what your motives are? What exactly do you hope to gain from these attacks? Do you get any personal profit from it?
Please answer only to the point or don't answer at all.
I wanted to draw the attention of the readers that a fan is not an innocent reader of the scientist who happens to think that he can change the results of a study by playing with the data. He is one of the operators of the blog that, ironically, calls itself the Green Blog, - here is an article he wrote following the debate in talkbacks for this article:
http://www.green-logic.info/2012/04/blog-post_26.html
The Green Blog is a website of people who cry out that the country lacks energy and that they must quickly invest in oil, coal, nuclear energy but just not in solar panels and wind energy, in short all the absurd claims that are made on Fox News, and every conspiracy theory like the one put forward by Ohad - as if the scientists are distorting the data (for What exactly, is someone paying them something? After all, scientists are supposed to search for the truth), is conceivable, just not really acknowledging the conversion that the earth is warming due to human activity.
http://www.green-logic.info
This short-term thinking makes them forget the simple fact - we did not inherit the land from our parents, we borrow it from our children.
They all sound like charlatans, only for some reason the deniers of solid science sound credible to you.
Tim Flannery sounds like a charlatan who talks about areas in which he is not knowledgeable, and also makes predictions for the next 90 years. But I don't want to get into that anymore here.
Regarding what I claimed about the water economy of plants - it's quite clear and just read it again. (The trees of the rain forests are not supposed to lose fluids *at all*: what they are supposed to lose in precipitation they are supposed to gain in the absence of evaporation).
The refutation of Flannery's thesis is to trace the rainforests over the last hundred years:
(as far as I know) there has been no deforestation in the rainforests in the last hundred years even though the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased by 30 percent (I think).
Tim Flannery specialized in writing popular science books and probably the "ecological horror books" genre is a successful literary genre.
Mr. Skeptic,
Tim Flannery does not make his claims based on his own research but cites others - in general, the book is mostly about the effect of climate change on the animal world.
Regarding your claim about the lack of influence. I'm not a biologist and I really don't understand it enough, but on the face of it, it seems to me that your claim is wrong. A decrease in the amount of precipitation changes the surface of the vegetation - it is possible that only a part of the plants (those that tend to lose less water than the plants, let's say) will lose from the decrease in the amount of precipitation, but ecological systems are a complex thing and there is interdependence between different components of the system.
deer
Regarding Tim Flannery's claims regarding the collapse of the rainforests, in the event of an increase in the amount of CO2
Tim Flannery is not a climate expert (I think he is a biologist). Therefore, I am not sure of his estimate that 20 percent of the water for the vegetation of the rain forests is water that is recycled from the evaporation of the forests themselves.
In addition, it is not at all clear why the reduction in water recycling that he described would cause significant damage to the forests. Below is the explanation (below).
In general, plants need water to enable metabolic processes, most likely the amount of water *relative* to the mass of the plant is a constant value (excess water in plant tissue is not beneficial and may even be harmful to metabolic processes). It is likely that when the plant receives precipitation in excess of its needs, it does not absorb the water (except perhaps for a little absorption that is directed to vegetable fruits that become larger in a year of high precipitation). There are few plants whose tissues are designed to store water (cacti are known for their ability to store water in their tissue, the storage reserved for changing dryness), the rainforests do not need to store water because there is abundant precipitation there.
Suppose where the evaporation in the rain forests is small (due to the increase in the amount of CO2) and the precipitation also decreases. what happens then There is no significant damage to the forests:
Plants have more water in their tissue (since they have evaporated less water) therefore they need less water from precipitation.
To the authors of the study,
I asked for a slightly more substantive and comprehensive response. To say that when we downloaded the data of 1975 we received a similar answer is not so factual.
If you have the data, I will give you my email and would be happy to receive it.
According to the data that emerges from your scientific research (by the way, has the research passed any judgment? Who?) when you subtract the two years at the ends, it is obtained that the average temperature decreased from 2976 to 2009.
There are still 38 days left for the publication of the data, when the data is published, I will be happy to analyze the change myself.
Thanks
Note regarding the positive effect of global warming (greener jungles).
In the book "Climate Generators" by Tim Flannery, the author presents a number of extreme scenarios that may result from global warming and the increase in carbon dioxide concentration. One of the effects he describes is precisely the collapse of the rain forests due to the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide.
According to the author, about 20% of the precipitation in the rain forests originates from water that comes not from the evaporation of the oceans, but from the evaporation of water from the vegetation - this evaporation occurs as an unwanted side effect for the plant when it opens its leaves to absorb carbon dioxide. The increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide at a significant rate (and we are talking about 2 times) will lead to the reduction of the opening time of the peonies and less evaporation and therefore also less precipitation.
The main problem of this process is that it is a process with an extreme positive feedback, since the death of plants from lack of water leads to the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby the acceleration of the process. Estimates speak of a process that will last several decades and which will begin in the next few decades (he noted in the estimate that the process will begin around 2040 and end in 2100).
For the sake of full disclosure, I will emphasize that the book is characterized by a distinct view regarding global warming and repeatedly emphasizes the unequivocal nature of the findings and the urgent need for actions to prevent the continued emission of greenhouse gases. I myself don't have the tools to assess whether he is right in this view, but I would certainly be happy if he would refer more to the concrete claims of researchers who believe that global warming is not the result of greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this criticism, this is a comprehensive and professional book, and therefore I found it appropriate to tell about an important and unknown script that it presents (in relation, let's say, to stopping the flow of golf that even won a Hollywood movie).
Thanks
my father.
Translation attempt for the article you brought in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/hot-israel-190412/#comment-336799
Both negative and positive results of global warming.
—————————————————————
The skeptic's argument:
"Two thousand years of history show that the warm periods were good for humanity. The cold periods (as in the case of the Little Ice Age) that brought great storms and premature freezing, are the ones that caused famine, plague, and other plagues" (Dennis Avery)
And here is what science says:
The negative effects of global warming on health, agriculture and the environment far outweigh any positive outcomes.
Here is a list of effects that show that climate change often has few if any positive results, but it can cause great damage at an enormous cost.
agriculture.
Although carbon dioxide is essential for plant development, agriculture also depends on a steady supply of water, and climate change could disrupt the supply through floods and droughts. It has been hypothesized that in the high latitudes - in Siberia, for example - the effect is positive, and Siberia can become productive due to global warming. On the other hand, the quality of the soil in the Arctic region is very low, and the amount of sunlight reaching Israel in the summer will not change due to the warming because it is only affected by the tilt of the Earth.
Agriculture can also be disrupted by fires and seasonal cycle changes, which in fact already occur in practice today. Adverse changes in water supply can adversely affect the welfare of local animals. Increased warming can also have a greater impact on the countries where the temperature is already at the border point that allows agriculture at all, in the tropical or sub-Saharan regions for example.
health.
Warmer winters mean fewer deaths, especially among vulnerable groups such as the elderly. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to further warming, and the number of deaths attributed to heat waves in the summer is expected to be 5 times higher than the deaths that will be prevented in the winter. It is estimated that a warmer climate will encourage the migration of insects such as mosquitoes that carry diseases such as malaria, which in fact is already appearing in places where it did not appear before.
The melting of the poles.
Although opening the Arctic passage between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans to year-round ship traffic may provide some commercial advantages, these advantages pale in comparison to the disadvantages. The harmful effects include the loss of the polar bear's natural habitat, and increased risks to shipping due to floating ice floes. The loss of the albedo ice (reflection of heat), causes the ocean to absorb more heat, and causes a positive feedback that will cause more ice in the glaciers to melt and thus reduce or eliminate the ice cap in Greenland, as well as the increase in the temperature of the arctic tundra, which will cause the release of methane, a strong greenhouse gas is very. (Methane is also released from the sea floor, where it is trapped in ice crystals called clathrates). The melting of the ice shelves in Antarctica is expected to cause a further rise in the sea level, and this without positive results.
Excess acidity in the oceans.
a source of great concern. There seem to be no benefits in changing the pH of the oceans. This process is caused by the absorption of CO2 by the water bodies, and may severely affect the entire food chain in the oceans.
melting glaciers.
Very serious. It is estimated that many millions of people (about one-sixth of the world's population) depend on the supply of fresh water every year by the natural cycle of melting snows and glaciers for drinking water and agriculture. All this is expected to change for the worse with the warming.
sea level rise.
Many parts of the world are flat and would be severely affected by sea level rise, even a modest rise. Rice fields may be flooded with salt water which destroys the crops. Pollution of rivers and seawater upstream and pollution of aquifers will seriously damage the supply of drinking water and water for agriculture. Given that the IPCC did not include data from Greenland and Antarctica due to the uncertainty at the time, the concern is that estimates of sea level rise do not reflect the full extent of the problem.
No known possible benefits to sea level rise.
environmental effect.
Positive effects of climate change could include greener rainforests, improved vegetation growth in the Amazon region, increased vegetation in northern latitudes and a possible increase in plankton biomass in some parts of the ocean.
Negative effects may include the addition of areas in the sea that are poor in oxygen, pollution or depletion of fresh water sources, an increase in the frequency of natural fires, the withering of mature vegetation in droughts, an increase in the extinction of corals, a decrease in the level of global photoplankton, changes in the migration patterns of birds and animals, changes in cycles Seasonality, disruption of the food chain, and loss of species.
economic.
The economic effects of climate change could be catastrophic, and there are very few if any benefits.
The Stern report left no doubt as to the general pattern of economic distress. Although specific data and numbers can be challenged, according to the report the price of climate change is much higher than the price of preventing climate change. According to certain scenarios in the AR4 IPCC report, we will witness massive migration from the low-lying areas in the countries that will be flooded, disruption in world trade, transportation, energy supply, labor markets, banking, finance, insurance, investments, and more. Chaos may take over countries, both developed and developing, and may cause increased volatility for institutions such as pension funds and insurance companies and cause them considerable difficulties.
Developing countries, some of which are already involved in military conflict, may be drawn into larger and more protracted disputes over water sources, energy, or food supplies. All of these may disrupt economic growth at a time when developing countries are increasingly struggling with the effects of climate change. It is common knowledge that the destructive effects of climate change will mainly affect the countries least equipped to deal with them, socially or economically.
The response of the members of the research team to the responses to this article on the knowledge website
Hello friends,
Below is our answer and this response, and we ask Avi Blizovsky to publish it separately on the "Hidan" website, mentioning our names
We are sorry that statements claiming that the supporters of warming "play" with the data in order to strengthen their position are published and even quoted, without substantiation. Such claims have no place if they are not accompanied by proof. It is easy to write such things and claim that the data is not available. The data are the meteorological service data and this is explicitly stated in the report. However, the raw data was acquired for the purpose of the study funded by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and for the time being we do not have permission to publish it.
As for the claims, there is no truth in them, and nothing, because even if you omit or add years at the beginning/end of the research period, the warming trend remains clear with small changes in value. The beginning of the study was chosen for the mid-70s because since then continuous global warming began, and the purpose of the study was to examine how global warming manifests itself in Israel's climate and whether the trends in our region correspond to the long-term trends predicted by the climate models.
The first winter included in the study is the winter of 1975-76. When we removed the cold winter at the beginning of the research period and the warm winter at the end (which was the winter of 2008-2009), the warming trend still remained intact and even remained statistically significant, although its rate decreased from 0.28 degrees per decade (on average for all stations) to 0.22, that is, A two-year trend removal that "didn't please the sharp-tongued commenter" did not produce the cooling he expected at all.
Beyond that, the two much warmer winters, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 were not included in the presented analysis, and the 2010-2011 winter was the warmest in the history of measurements in Israel, and would have shifted the trend line significantly upwards.
Hence, there is no basis for the claims made and the warming trend that exists in all seasons and is greatest in the summer season must be treated with all seriousness.
Best regards,
Hadas Saaroni, Baruch Ziv and Prof. Pinchas Alpert
Another note:
Prof. Alpert adds that according to conversations he had with the meteorological service personnel, the data will soon be put on the air by them according to the freedom of information law.
Avi Blizovsky
Fan
An increase in temperature in the Land of Israel between 1975 and 2010 can be due to the rapid urban growth of the country (the population grew 2.2 times during that period). The built-up area probably increased much more than 2.2 times, due to the accelerated development of the country. (I don't have data on forest growth, but growing planted areas can also increase the heat capacity of the soil). Note that it was the _minimum_ temperatures that rose mostly in the survey in question. It is known that the nights become hotter in the city due to the emission of heat accumulated during the day in the urban areas, also there is the urban greenhouse effect that reduces the emission of heat at night.
In a dense urban area, the temperatures are about 3 degrees higher compared to the same area when it is empty of inhabitants. The farther you get from the built-up area, the smaller the effect of urbanization on the temperature rise, but it can still (for example) explain an increase of half a degree on average at all the stations where temperatures were measured.
I don't think there is any point in measuring temperature changes in such a dynamic place like Israel and drawing conclusions from that.
Another 30 days to publish the data...
please
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm
Avi,
Please find the graph that shows the average global temperature in the last 20 years and put a link in your comment. If you show me this and I will see a statistically significant constant increase - you bought another supporter of warming.
Thanks,
Michael
The connection to pirates is really funny. There is the greenhouse gas mechanism and there is the increase in carbon dioxide. There are two components that need to be taken into account and not one of them, because when one of the components is ignored, absurd results are indeed reached.
And even with hard facts with you. The year 2009 was the hottest so how exactly has it stopped in the last 12 years. What do you think if you say Abra Kadabra it will help?
Nir Shabib is also in the minority and his situation is more complex than that of Lindzen because he is an astrophysicist and not a climate scientist.
No, you are confused: the difference between correlation and proof is very big. Global warming, it turns out, also has a large correlation with the decrease in the number of pyrites in the world http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php
And it is still not proof that the success in eliminating the pyrites causes global warming... there is no debate about the mechanism of greenhouse gases (although there is a debate about something called the positive feedback, but I didn't quite understand it from what I read), not about the fact that there are more of them (Da), But about the fact that they are the direct causes of the warming we have observed (and it too, according to my understanding and reading, has stopped in the last 12 years).
So as far as I understand, the one who wants us to spend tax money, is the one who has to prove that it is worth it, because there are many things that you can spend money on.
And the aforementioned Prof. Lindzen is not the only one, here is also an example of Prof. from Jerusalem, astrophysicist and climate expert Prof. Nir Shabiv. He was also insulted/financed by oil/lonely in front of thousands?
http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1294746
I'm actually in Firefox. Anyway, I asked an expert to check my computer. It will happen later today.
And as for the argument - you got confused. The mechanism of greenhouse gases is very clear, and also the fact that the amount of greenhouse gases - in particular carbon dioxide - is constantly increasing. In the face of such proofs, you are the one who has to explain the difference between correlation and proof, and why even though it is basic physics it is not worth spending billions on?
The man is alone in front of thousands in his field, not to mention denounced, because we do not give an explanation why there is no problem. This too will not be a sudden change, it will still hurt our children (I'm sure ours too, but I'm making a discount for you). Do you not know the term - we did not inherit the land from our parents, but we borrow it from our children?
I understand the plight of the oil tycoons, the question is why should I care? For my part, let them go bankrupt.
Avi,
Here you do it again: the aforementioned scientist (Lindzen) makes scientific claims, and you attack him (as if he was offended by someone, I didn't quite understand) and don't answer the argument. What kind of discussion culture is this?
(By the way, I'm currently listening, it's his video on Youtube and there is no problem with it, try something that isn't explorer maybe).
His claims are as follows:
1. The climate is indeed changing. He always changes!
2. There is no proof that it is due to CO2, only a correlation (positive correlation). Obviously there is a greenhouse effect (it's basic physics), but it's not a reason to panic, it won't be a sudden and dangerous change, and it's not worth spending billions on.
And this is from a global climate expert from the most respected institution in the world!
So who to believe? Please, send us proof that there is warming caused by _CO2 emitted by humans.
Thanks,
Michael
Not uploading, not good, uploading not well either. What will?
In about a month?!?!?!?
The article is based on data from at least a year ago. If the article had data then why doesn't it already exist???
The question is what will happen to these data during this period. I believe more and more that during this period the data will be "handled"... but I hope I'm just imagining it.
By the way, what is the reason for the month it takes to upload data that has already been used for research in the past?
What about a response to the claim I made, it will also be another month (by the way, it's better than not responding at all, but it still raises thoughts...)
I was promised that the data would be uploaded to the Internet in about a month.
Michael, sorry, I have a problem with the sound of the video (and I checked the speakers are working perfectly fine). In any case, I read about him on the English Wikipedia and it turns out that he is unusual in the scientific community in the field of climate. He was personally offended that in 1997 they published a conclusion about his research that was more conclusive than what he claimed. But since 15 of the hottest years in history have passed, what does he have to say to defend his claim?
I am not funded by solar companies. You are welcome to go ad ad through all the direct ads of the site and see that there is not a single solar ad. Google ads of solar companies appear equally on websites that oppose global warming. The engine of these ads knows how to recognize the word, not its meaning.
And another small reference - to the title of the video - after all, this is what the oil giants want to achieve - that they will not spend money on fighting global warming. For this they finance a brutal campaign all over the world that comes to deny solid science. They are not interested in science, but in their pockets.
Michael,
without going into the claims of other parties. I'm just reminding that I didn't talk about global warming at all, yes or no...
I made a simpler claim... all in all, I made a claim regarding the research that the article is based on. The claim dealt with the fact that in measuring the temperatures the years 1975-2010 were taken, while on the other hand if you take the years 1976-2009 then the picture that emerges is the opposite. The cooling of the State of Israel...
I also asked if it was possible to get the source of the data on which the study was based and to see if even when checking the years 1974-2010, you get a similar picture of cooling. This is in order to check what was the reason they started measuring precisely in 1975, a year that was very cold relative to the average, and ended in 2010, a year that was very warm.
In my estimation, it was to attack the claims of the study, but maybe I'm wrong, so that's why I asked for a reference.
Of course I haven't received it until now and I believe I won't either.
In addition, I do not believe that there is data as the study claims because I really searched everywhere possible and did not see that anyone collects such data, this is only data on average maximum and minimum temperature and in addition the study does not show any place (where the data comes from).
Let's remember that this is a study that was published on the site of the rebellion for the protection of the environment...
Avi Shalom,
Here is a link to an interview given by a professor named Ritzked Lindzen, a climate researcher from MIT (which is at least as good a place as Tel Aviv University and the Open University 🙂 ), and he does not say that there is no warming, but only that it is not related to our emissions, that it is very slow and that it is really Idiot to spend money on it. So now I have on the one hand your opinion and that of Prof. Pinchas Lampert (even though in the article you referred to they only showed warming and did not specify the factors with certainty), and on the other hand this professor. As a layman who is not an expert in anything, who am I supposed to believe?
(And don't start with the story that it is financed by oil companies, because you can answer in the same currency that you are financed by solar companies, so this argument is not really valid).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbnVj7E4iZ8
I would appreciate a factual response
Michael
A fan, I contacted the author of the article, and we'll see if he decides to respond. In any case, the story of the vaccines in Australia shows that creative reading of scientific articles by people - including other scientists - who make claims that are not in their field of research or expertise should be taken with a pinch of salt. There we are talking about a geologist - who already retired 25 years ago - who decided to head the anti-vaccination movement and it must be said that she does so in a really irrational way. I trust the researchers who specialize in the subject they write about.
Avi,
Please, I referred to the article that the article refers to. Please address the claim I made regarding the data and one page in the article.
After that, if I have any more questions about articles in Science Venture and the theory of vaccines in Australia, I would also appreciate it if you answered them for me, but we will start with the simple things that were raised in the article and we will not delve into other things.
After that, I would love to hear other things as well.
Thanks,
Fan
Here is a link http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
If you could help translate it I would be happy, and I will donate the translation to the site itself as I did with 2-3 other items of the same site.
my father
I also think like you, but I would be interested to know if studies have been done on the positives of warming, or maybe there is nothing positive about it. If possible, link.
Israel, there is a variable that turns the whole theory of the cycle on its head, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This may have delayed the next ice age by tens if not hundreds of thousands of years.
Canada, Alaska and Siberia are suffering from higher temperatures, the ice is melting and with it methane and greenhouse gases stronger than carbon dioxide. This is part of what is known as a positive feedback (there is nothing positive about it to be honest) by which mild warming accelerates and becomes strong, especially in these extreme areas. What is optimal in the current situation is that we have gotten used to the 'previous' situation. Any change will require population migration - especially from areas that will become a desert like the Sahel, which is actually in progress. As you know, this is a very sensitive issue in many countries.
my father.
Is there any research or data on the benefits of warming for certain areas? Greenland? Siberia? If the situation were the other way around, the temperature in the world would be much higher than today, all of Europe and North America would have enjoyed a favorable climate and then a cooling process would have started that would have returned the world to its current state, wouldn't we have heard cries of distress to the same extent against the cooling as those heard today against the warming? What is so optimal in the current situation?
The thing about the girl (elderly rather) is that she claims that her knowledge about vaccines comes from scientific experts, but she does not accept their conclusions, but examines the raw data and draws conclusions on her own. That's exactly what you're doing here.
thanks Michael. You probably don't understand the situation that makes me react. I have been under attack for several years to change my position. It is indeed better that I do not respond and hope that Pinchas Alpert will explain his position better than I can.
The journals in question are not Scientific Ma'ariv or Yedioth, they have a much more rigorous peer review process than professional journals, although they are primarily aimed at advances in science that may be of interest to scientists in fields different from those of the authors. Changing a scientific paradigm is exactly the matter that will be dealt with if there is a need for it. But there is no need, the issue of the climate, precisely because of the criticism, has been studied again and again. Studies are constantly appearing that confirm the warming, an example of this is an article that is currently being translated - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419143115.htm
In one of the stories about Galileo it is said that a good friend of his asked him if he cared to tell the church what it wanted and close the matter to save his life. He answered her, Madam, I am not a lawyer who serves one side today and another side tomorrow. And he was right. Science is not a matter of negotiation.
And on the same subject - Alan Leshner, the publisher of Science explains why warming (and evolution) are not scientifically disputed
https://www.hayadan.org.il/science-publisher-on-glpbal-warming-and-evolution-1211112/
Avi,
You are really strange: to me and it seems to me that the fan has no financial interest and certainly no one pays us. I'm really not a capitalist in almost any sense (well, I have a bank account, but I voted March...) and I don't really understand the connection. Nor is it clear to me that journals cannot be wrong. And the most unclear to me is your aggression, it's really unpleasant. I almost decided not to log in later because of this, so what's the point? It's best if you just don't respond and that's it, everyone got paid.
Avi,
I would really appreciate a factual response from the author of the article or the report to which the article refers, but I expect the response to answer the two simple questions I raised and not to other articles that I did not read and did not respond to, such as the girl you mentioned who resists vaccinations or other unrelated things.
Thanks,
Fan
This is exactly the problem - the doubts are not justified but arise from political and pseudo-economic reasons. If they were justified, there would be no problem in convincing the scientists. There is an IPCC body set up to check all the articles in the field because of all the 'skeptics'. And it is a fact that over 95% of scientists, including almost 100% of climate scientists, say that the Earth is warming as a result of human activity. (There are scientists from related or tangential fields, some of whom claim that there are other factors besides man, but they are in the minority in the scientific community and rarely manage to publish articles).
In any case, I asked the author of the article to answer, if he wants to, his answer in any case will be more valid than mine. And as I explained to all the capitalists and their followers, my point of reference is the journals Science and Nature, which have been the scientific compass for 200 years. Not every spirit that makes a politician can blow them away. The reputation of the science website came out precisely because of the attachment to science as the scientists see it, and I will not spoil the reputation because of unknown commenters who were influenced by one or another propaganda.
As soon as it is brought to my attention that Science or Nature will unequivocally declare - there is no warming, I will publish it here. (And intentionally not other journals, because the deniers occasionally manage to plant articles in journals that touch on the climate field while misleading their editors, who are not always well versed in the specific field).
To remind you just a few months ago there was a very strong statement about neutrinos faster than light. I published this with all due caution (or rather Gali Weinstein did it), and in the end it turned out that I was right. It takes something particularly powerful to distort a scientific consensus. In the field of climate, after all the emotions it is doubly important and certainly I will not change a scientific position under the pressure of talkbackists who may be experts in statistics or may be high school students.
I just saw that there is also an end to your comment, and now I'm totally confused. You claim that there is a "science position". Suppose, although it is rather hard to believe that all climate scientists in the world agree. Still, you say that the attackers are sowing discord. I, for Tommy, thought that sufficiency is good when it comes to scientific matters, so what does it matter who finances them? If there is good proof, a clear scientific argument, then it is very easy to answer sufficiency and there is no problem. If it is difficult to answer sufficiency, then maybe they are justified?
And in answer to your question, as a scientific site I would expect you to take a scientific approach, where it is allowed and even desirable to impose sufficiency. You sound a bit like the Church Vs Galileo, really.
Best regards, Michael
Avi,
First of all, it's nice that you finally admitted that you are not the authority and that the experts should be asked. I do not agree with you that it was a "creative interpretation", especially in light of the fact that neither you nor I know the fan commenting above. He may have a doctorate in statistics and he understands very well what he is saying.
To be precise, this article you brought was not published in a scientific journal but was submitted to the Ministry of Science, so I don't know if it went through the so-called peer-review, that is, if other experts read it and found no fundamental mistakes in it. Of course, although I trust the researchers in general, it's pretty clear that they won't submit a position paper and write in it "everything is fine, we can start studying Spanish slugs instead of climate" because then they won't get research money, if I'm not mistaken that was the Climategate story , No? (Maybe I'm wrong, I don't remember anymore). And I quote from the study (concluding paragraph, page 78) "The alarming findings that were discovered in this study, and which have far-reaching environmental consequences, require follow-up studies, every few years..." So, of course, I'm not saying anything about the scientific work, because I don't understand it enough, I'm just pointing out to you that if there is anyone here with interests, it's probably not me and a fan (who entered, to hire you, your website to read) but the researchers, who clearly write that the Ministry of Defense for the Environment must continue to give them money for research. For the benefit of the researchers, it will be said that they are exactly stating what Ohad said, that more information is needed (from before 19759 to understand better.
Good, successful and peaceful day,
Michael
Michael
Reading a scientific article on page 18 is a matter for experts. Not everyone can read a creative interpretation and tell the experts where to start and where to end so that there will or will not be warming.
I accept the conclusion of the researchers, Prof. Pinchas Alpert is one of the greatest experts in the world. If this or that anonymous person has any mistakes, he should contact him, and/or the scientific journal that published the article and correct it there. Science is not the place for such corrections and I am not the authority to discuss them.
And besides, Michael, there is a well-financed global attack on everyone who supports the position of science. Even if you have no personal interest, you are affected by the falsehoods that the attackers sow. Among other things, they invented Climategate exactly at a critical time when the world leaders gathered in Copenhagen to make a decision to extend the Kyoto agreement, and managed to do a targeted countermeasure, and continue to pollute and warm the planet without hindrance. As a science site, who do you suggest I support?
Avi,
I have no interest in the matter, but note that you again avoided answering the question. What's the deal with the oil tycoons? And no one said there is no warming, including the kind commenter fan. But why is it so hard for you to answer his question? In the end it really seems like you are hiding something, probably your lack of knowledge. Then say "I don't know the answer" and that's it.
Except that leading journals state it doesn't mean anything to me, because I don't know how to read them. Here you posted something with an article in Hebrew, it is possible and desirable to read the source (and indeed I did it this morning after your comment), and really a fan makes an interesting claim, and you don't need to be a scientist to understand it. why are you so aggressive
Don't be offended, answer to the essence of the matter and not to the essence of a person and everything will be fine.
We (I and I hope also the fan of the above commenter) are still waiting for your substantive response to his question regarding the statistics.
Greetings, calm, peaceful and pleasant,
Michael
Yes, the oil tycoons do research and find that the problem is not urgent. Meanwhile, places on Earth are becoming deserts and others are flooded due to the melting of the poles, the sea level is rising but nothing is urgent.
I follow the situation in the world and unfortunately I thought we were better but no, we learn all the nonsense of the USA. It's a shame that there are planted here by capitalist sites and other truths, who try to build an alternative reality for them, even among the readers of the science site.
The science is unequivocal, the leading journals - Nature and Science are unequivocal, so the science will also be unequivocal - there is warming and it is man-made.
It is very upsetting that instead of dealing with the facts, they try to challenge them. It can be good in a debate in the Knesset, but not with the Earth.
What do you think that if talkbackists say that there is no warming it will change the fact? Anyone can hire hundreds of talkbacks.
fan and father,
It is simply a pleasure to read the exchange between you: Ohad makes a very simple claim, which casts great doubt on everything written in the article (and by the way, there is a problem with the statement "the trends found, even if some of them are not statistically significant, indicate the worsening of the problematic characteristics of the country's climate" Scientifically difficult, because something that is not statistically significant cannot point to anything, by definition). My father, on the other hand, does not answer the body of the question, attacks him personally, accuses him of taking money from interested parties (!!??!!), and turns things around in such a way that in the end a fan apologizes.
My father, this is exactly why in a survey conducted in Australia some time ago, 65% answered that the problem of warming is not urgent and it is a shame to spend money on it before the matter has been examined and closed scientifically. If you answered the question simply there would be no problem. If you don't know the answer you could simply say "I don't know, it's worth checking the point with the editors of the original study and the writers of the original report", and that would be fine. But your answer was really embarrassing for someone who is supposed to run a scientific site. I don't know why you lashed out at the poor fan (I hope I won't suffer a similar fate) but you have to answer to the merits of the matter, otherwise no one will take your articles seriously, and it's a shame because sometimes you say things that make sense (and sometimes you don't, what to do) .
I don't know her but that's exactly what I mean.
In our case, when the deviation in degrees is so small (but critical!!!), it is very easy to play with the data and that is what I think they did in this case.
I hope you didn't mean that I took something out of the threshing floor and the winery...
After all, I read the report that the article refers to. Already on page 18 I came across an issue that I raised here on the site.
I didn't bring some new research from somewhere else, I just asked a small question regarding the data analysis in the report the article brought.
but…. At least we agree on something (at least about creative reading :-))
And by the way, creative reading of scientific articles, that's what Vera Shivner, the biggest opponent of vaccines in Australia, did for articles that unequivocally proved the effectiveness of the vaccine. She took arguments from the threshing floor and the winery as if the data showed otherwise than the conclusions of these studies.
By the way, you don't need the data to refer to the comment I made regarding the incorrect analysis.
Just look at page 18 of the report the article refers to and use common sense.
Good Day
Okay, I understand your concerns.
However, I think we are drifting into personal emotions here.
I drew the attention of the authors of the article to the error in the analysis of the data of the report on which they are based.
Since I'm not a scientist, I wanted to get a reference to my claim (who knows, maybe I didn't analyze the data correctly..).
From my specific comment to this article to the article in Science and Nature that I didn't read (and similar things) the distance is far...
Not bad, maybe one of the readers of the article and the talkbacks will be able to answer my question.
Thanks
I don't have the data, I guess you have to contact the relevant research institutes to get it.
But I read the "green blog" and know very well from which interests these claims come, and not from the love of science.
There are still people who think that only an abundance of polluting energy (which only the tycoons benefit from anyway) is the one that will save us. Since the truth in the face is that it endangers our very existence as a species on the face of the planet, they use the method of the crooked floor and the dancer is not to blame, meaning that the data is incorrect, that the one who alerts the truth is an alarmist (ie alerts false alerts), etc.
Since what is at stake here is on the one hand the survival of the human race and on the other hand the short-term welfare of the energy tycoons, let me decide which side I support, the side where the scientific evidence according to the main scientific journals Science and Nature.
I got double... sorry
It's hard for you to relate to my claims, even though you don't need a degree in statistics to understand it.
I ask, do not treat me as someone who disbelieves in everything they say without sense. On the contrary, I'm looking for logic.
I made a claim that if you take the temperature measurements from 1976 instead of 1975 (as they did in the report that the article refers to), the conclusion that is reached is that the State of Israel is cooling down...
In addition, I asked for a link to the data to see what the temperatures were before 1975.
The statement: "The data should not be given because people will analyze it in the wrong way" reminds a bit of Big Brother (and not the one from Channel 2). Even if you don't have the data (and you don't), a less condescending attitude would be welcome, especially in light of the fact that I claim that the data was analyzed poorly and you repeatedly ignore addressing my claim.
I know, it's easy to write irresponsibly, but from a scientific site that calls itself "Hidan", you can expect a little more science, right?
If I'm wrong, correct me. I would greatly appreciate it!
It's hard for you to relate to my claims, even though you don't need a degree in statistics to understand it.
I ask, do not treat me as someone who disbelieves in everything they say without sense. On the contrary, I'm looking for logic.
I made a claim that if you take the temperature measurements from 1976 instead of 1975 (as they did in the report that the article refers to), the conclusion that is reached is that the State of Israel is cooling down...
In addition, I asked for a link to the data to see what the temperatures were before 1975.
The statement: "The data should not be given because people will analyze it in the wrong way" reminds a bit of Big Brother (and not the one from Channel 2). Even if you don't have the data (and you don't), a less condescending attitude would be welcome, especially in light of the fact that I claim that the data was analyzed poorly and you repeatedly ignore addressing my claim.
I know, it's easy to write irresponsibly, but from a scientific site that calls itself "Hidan", you can expect a little more science, right?
If I'm wrong, correct me. I would greatly appreciate it!
Again, it's hard for you to relate to my claims, even though you don't need a degree in statistics to understand it.
I ask, do not treat me as someone who disbelieves in everything they say without sense. On the contrary, I'm looking for logic.
I made a claim that if you take the temperature measurements from 1976 instead of 1975 (as they did in the report that the article refers to), the conclusion that is reached is that the State of Israel is cooling down...
In addition, I asked for a link to the data to see what the temperatures were before 1975.
The statement: "The data should not be given because people will analyze it in the wrong way" reminds a bit of Big Brother (and not the one from Channel 2). Even if you don't have the data (and you don't), a less condescending attitude would be welcome, especially in light of the fact that I claim that the data was analyzed poorly and you repeatedly ignore addressing my claim.
I know, it's easy to write irresponsibly, but from a scientific site that calls itself "Hidan", you can expect a little more science, right?
If I'm wrong, correct me. I would greatly appreciate it!
I would be happy if some of the skepticism was also transferred to topics such as quantum physics, why do we treat only those who speak the truth on environmental issues?
I almost didn't notice that you didn't address the body of my claims...
I will understand if you evade again, but in my opinion the writer of an article should know how to deal with claims and questions that arise in relation to the article and the data he relied on (the exception is academic research that has undergone a judgment, in this case the ones who have to deal with questions about the data are those who approved the article)
Don't worry, I will do the surgery for me and anyone who will do it for him...
I didn't understand why you hide the data??? Or rather, why does the Ministry of Environmental Protection hide the data (if it exists at all...) then it's not a trade secret..
This was exactly the debate about the University of East Anglia. The researchers were afraid that people who don't know how to analyze data would make a fool of themselves and give them an interpretation, so they hesitated to give it to them, and this is what led to the "Climategate" affair, whose lie was intended to cast doubt on the politicians gathered in Copenhagen.
What you require is to play with the data so that it fits your theory - a theory that those who promote it in the world are funded by oil giants and this is even done quite openly.
Leave it to scientists and science. Even if the result is that the standard of living has to be lowered (which is not true because there are substitutes), then what to do, that's what there is. We don't need to burn oil that we don't have just because the tycoons don't want to invest in substitutes.
The authors of the article, for your reference!
Since it was discovered several years ago that the scientists who publish the global warming predictions "play" with the data in order to strengthen their position, I am skeptical of this type of articles and prefer to stick to the facts.
In the report you refer to (Report 8-810 of the Ministry of Environmental Protection), on page 18, you see the increase in temperature in Israel in various places in the years 1975-2010.
These graphs use the simplest and cheapest statistical bias.
I will explain:
In all the stations you can see that there is a cycle of colder winter and warmer winter. For some reason, the beginning of the measurements (year 1975) was made when there was a colder winter (an increase of two degrees on average can be seen the following year and the same decrease the following year).
In addition, the last year of the measurements was a year of a warmer winter, in which temperatures rose by two degrees on average.
That is, if the measurements were made for the years 1976-2009, we would find that the State of Israel is cooling down (mercifully).
It therefore follows that all the "facts" regarding Israel's warming would change completely if the years in which the temperatures were measured changed. Also, if we only move the first year of measurement forward one year and leave the last year of measurement unchanged (1976-2010), we will find the opposite conclusion to the one presented in the article/study. (By the way, what is the reason for starting the measurements in 1975, what happened in 1974?)
Additionally, I searched and searched in all possible places for the average daily temperature data shown on page 18 of the report, but to no avail. (Of course there is no reference to the source of the data in the report itself).
In short, all these reports and their statistical games should be treated with skepticism.
And if anyone has the raw data that appears in the report, I would appreciate the link :-).
Thanks
Fun and interesting article
According to its content, I understood that there is no certainty, that there is indeed a downward trend in the amount of precipitation in Israel.
However, in the summary chapter, a "decrease in precipitation" appears as part of the "exacerbation of the problematic characteristics"
Thanks for the summary.