A study published this week in PNAS proves to those who doubted that the heat waves of recent summers, including this summer, are no coincidence. What was once an exception has become the norm
The recent heat waves throughout the Northern Hemisphere were caused by global warming. This is according to a report published this week in the journal PNAS.
James Hansen and his colleagues explain the role of the global warming process in causing the severe heat waves like those of Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010. Using historical data and empirical approaches that do not require knowledge of the causes of the observed climate changes, the researchers were able to compare the anomalies in the ground temperatures in the months of June, July and August in relation to the data from the years 1951-1980 which constituted the base period for the comparisons.
Their findings reveal that in these hot summers the temperature was three standard deviations higher than the average temperature during the base period, and heat waves occurred more frequently in recent years than during the base period, when they were hardly felt.
"These hot summers affected about 10% of the earth's surface in recent years compared to less than 1% of the earth's surface from the 1980s to XNUMX. The study concludes that the anomalies in recent summers would not have occurred in the absence of warming of the entire earth. Continued warming can cause extreme events in the summer to become the norm and contribute to droughts and floods." say the authors.
Whereas the NASA website adds in an article from last Friday, August 3 that over 170 temperature records were broken in June, as well as in the months of July and August in recent years, compared to years that were considered to be historically the warmest years. All of this is happening when a drought is spreading across the US, the ground is as dry and crisp as a salt field.
By the beginning of July, 56% of the continental US suffered from drought, the highest rate in 12 years. The heat caused 1.3 million acres to burn in June, destroying hundreds of homes in the West. And not just in the summer. The last winter was the fourth warmest in the temperature record since 1895 and it was also dry, and in many places the snow that the residents had become accustomed to did not fall. says Jake Crouch, a climate scientist at NOAA's Climate Data Center. Positive pressure over the North Atlantic Ocean caused the jet stream to move away to the north and make the US warmer and drier than usual. The lack of moisture caused the soil to lose fluids through evaporation and dissipate the sun's energy. More radiation from the sun turns into heat and it is noticeable," he explains.
Article #12-05276: “Perception of climate change,” by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, and Reto Ruedy MEDIA CONTACT: James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY;
49 תגובות
It was this hot in the summer during La Niña. 5 such summers. Talk to me about the warming of robots.
Well, I'm tired of you guys, I'll let you know that it's because of global warming, it's become clogged, it won't help, there's no warming, it's because of the sun rash eruptions, there's no warming. Nina, talk to me about warming, you are going to be born in an ice age, you deserve it, the world is warming
I read the litigation between Ben Moshe and Ben Avi from the book of illuminations
1- Even if man does not cause the current heat wave due to the emission of carbon dioxide, beyond any doubt human actions destroy the atmosphere and violate the balance of the amount of gases in it
2- Every beginner naturalist knows that carbon dioxide is a gas that contains radiation better than nitrogen and oxygen
3- Therefore, there is no doubt that part of the recent warming is due to the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide increases
The big question is how much influence man really has because cycles of cold and heat have passed over the earth even before the biped appeared here
Whether the warming is mostly caused by humans or not is still not clear, but anyone who denies that part of the change is not caused by humans, in my opinion, is wrong
A final and somewhat scary point
A lot of people don't understand what positive feedback and a non-linear system mean
The movie that depicted a global disaster is a completely plausible scenario and is not as imaginary as most people think
The change can happen so quickly just like we saw in the movie
The ball only needs to leave the hole it is in to roll into another hole with completely different equilibrium conditions
Good Day
I know how to read comments. We have fundamental differences of opinion regarding the role of the scientist. There have already been countless articles on this, just for example, should a scientist work for a government that might misuse his product. The debate about this was in the USA in the XNUMXs whether to participate in President Reagan's Star Wars program. Carl Sagan was one of the chief opponents for example.
You cannot dismiss the need for scientists to also warn if the results of their research require it.
Well, this is quite discouraging... I understand that reading comments is not your forte...
I see no point in continuing.
I return to my research.
The proof that I am not a green activist but one who is concerned about the real problems is in the disagreements between me and most of the greens on the subject of animal experiments. My opinion on the subject is that the advancement of science leaves no choice but to conduct such experiments, with the utmost care and while reducing them to the most necessary, compared to the activists who insist on their complete elimination.
And besides that, a scientist who discovers a serious problem for the future of humanity as part of his job, should keep his mouth shut and leave the work of raising the issue to awareness to the activists?
I know there are, but your company insists on publishing in magazines whose connection to the subject is marginal and therefore they have no expertise and may slip non-standard articles, and indeed this happened and several editors of such magazines had to resign. Science and Nature have a large system of editors who check that the chance of such slips will be more rare.
And as for the role of the sciences - if not to save humanity, then what is? To be used as a tool for making profit by the tycoons?
You know there are other magazines besides Science and Nature, right?
And you probably know that the high impact factor they get is more or less the number of quotes from there...
Their prestige is mainly due to how much people want to flatter themselves and feel important and less about some scientific statement.
Believe it or not, there is censorship of editors in the scientific world.
Articles that do not fit the general agenda are not published in the "regarded" periodicals because the editors do not like them, even though they undergo peer review...
This is a known thing in the scientific community, so there are many! Other peer-reviewed periodicals whose impact factor is not high, but they allow publications that are not in line with the general agenda (we'll call it a paradigm). And believe it or not, science is not a program as you wish because sometimes (and history is full of proofs) even things that are not so acceptable in the current paradigm are published and suddenly fit more with reality than the original alternative.
And now regarding the role of the scientists: it's a shame that you see the scientists as the saviors of humanity and if they don't do it then they are promoted in their role. This is certainly not the job of the scientists! It might be the role of an activist...
In my opinion, the role of scientists is to advance knowledge, and I hope that most scientists do this because it interests them. I leave the ideological/political judgment to the activists/politicians. The trouble is that if there are scientists (and unfortunately there are! Like Jim Hansen) who mix science and a certain ideology (green mouth) then there are a lot of biases in their studies and it is really evident.
Climate scaremongers is a fictitious name spread by climate deniers towards the scientists who are simply doing their job - to warn of a global danger caused by human activity. If they don't do it, they will overstep their bounds. And by the fact that you yourself testify that the reporting of other sciences is objective, you had to understand that this is also the case with climate issues.
The subjectivity is not on the site but only in your head. There are scientific authorities, first of all - the publications in Science and Nature. You don't like it - Zebashach. Science doesn't have to be a program as you wish.
And the scientist is not an innocent site... it is a site of climate "scaremongers". (Although, to be fair, his reporting on the other issues in science is quite reasonable).
Father, have you noticed that the discussion with you always leads to extreme opinions?
I am not a "denier" nor a "scarer" but in discussing with you I always end up exaggerating my opinion. I wonder why ?
In any case, as usual regarding your "religious" belief, you did not address the points that appeared in the link because you invalidated the site.
Maybe you feel that you need to "protect" the users of the site so that they don't go to the website of "deniers"...maybe you let people respond with an open mind and receive criticism from other people about the article you published here? What are you afraid of, that the criticism is legitimate? In science, there is always criticism. And yes, things are not always clear, and yes, also in areas whose complexity is great with many variables such as climate. Therefore, absolute titles and clear statements are not a scientific option, although a political and ideological one.
And maybe you don't have the tools to understand what the review is at all.. that's okay too. I'm sure there are surfers here on the site who can handle it 🙂
The WhatsApp With Date site is not an innocent site, it is a site of warm-up fools. If you want to know what the oil gods think about energy they won't be able to cut a coupon for, this is the place. Not for science.
Proved beyond doubt? I do not think so.
Here are some questions, an exercise for the beginning scientist:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/nasas-james-hansens-big-cherry-pick/#more-68722
To Shlomi
You must be a great scientist
As much as I read the article, I found only one claim in it and it is:
There are definite findings that the earth is warming!
Although the author used a not so standard wording by writing the obviously unscientific sentence as follows:
"The role played by global warming in the extreme heat events this summer has been proven beyond any doubt"
(Emphasis on the term "proven") but his intention here is completely clear. After all, even if there is no proof here of course
Purely scientific, there are definite findings here that require some kind of reference, and that is the point.
Please note: the article does not contain any claim or omission regarding the causes of global warming.
Ghosts, it doesn't contradict each other, each of the topics is important.
And besides, there are also those who have not formed an opinion on the subject of evolution, this will not change the fact that evolution took place. Nature does not always ask us for our opinion, even on the subject of climate.
Avi Blizovsky
In my opinion such disasters: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4264474,00.html
should worry you more. Such subjects are no less scientific, and such materials should also be published on this site. This is only for your benefit (and I say this as someone who has not formed an opinion on the climate issue and is not interested in this debate). Thanks.
There are no disasters, Africa is really flourishing, and there are no millions fleeing from the desert, including to us.
There is also no disaster in the North Pole, not terrible, less ice (and this is what a friend who returned from there a week ago tells me).
There are no heat waves in the US, it's just a summer inconvenience and in the winter, Fox will once again report that the warming has stopped due to a snowy week.
You probably wear dark glasses because you don't see all the disasters.
Shlomi
You are wasting your time on B and the like.
Currently, there are no extraordinary disasters in the world, neither in the heat nor in the cold nor in the change of precipitation, nor in the melting of glaciers.
Fluctuations of 2-3 degrees have already been in the last 5000 years, for unknown reasons and no disaster happened.
Pointing to anecdotal unusual weather events as if they represent some kind of process (what's more the fluctuations are in two directions). Today is unusual weather in the United States, tomorrow in Russia, the day after tomorrow in India, and so on and so forth, God forbid. This has always been the case, no terrible crisis takes place despite the dire prophecies of the climate scaremongers.
In the meantime, agriculture feeds three times more mouths in the world than it did 60 years ago, so we are predicted a prosperous, fruitful and pleasant future as long as we have agricultural land reserves.
To Shlomi:
There is no absolute "truth".
There is only absolute truth without any quotation marks. Science is the study of truth and not the declaration of "truth". And I suggest you look for the truth instead of guessing. The issue of uncertainty is also true and this issue also has limits. Even if there is uncertainty, the truth is still not "truth". Uncertainty can be reduced with research. Decisions can be reached even under conditions of uncertainty. Sometimes you even have to reach a decision even under conditions of great uncertainty. Sometimes there is simply no time to make sure. Sometimes you have to act quickly even in conditions of uncertainty. The uncertainty in itself is not a reason for not taking steps.
Even if there may be other reasons. This does not rule out the cause called the greenhouse effect. We know this reason and can definitely take care of it. If there are other reasons, they should be addressed as well. At least some of them can be treated. And the sooner the better.
Hello,
Blah blah blah..
Man's activity in the last two hundred years, as if you are careful to remember, brought the extinction of so many species to the level of disaster, this is the level of impact that humans have on the environment today.
You talk about 'monsters', is it so hard to notice that it's us?
The Kyoto Protocol is just because people are broke and have nothing to do in life??
” There is no absolute “truth”. There is "truth" to the point of uncertainty."
This is absolutely nonsense, it is clear that there is one absolute truth - reality, the one that does not depend on whether the human observer chooses to ignore it.. It is also clear that it cannot necessarily be reached beyond any doubt, and it is all a matter of reasonableness.. From here to eye-rolling 'skepticism', the road far away…
This is precisely the claim, the science in this field is weak... mainly based on computer models from which you can extract more or less what you want... (given the role of the clouds you can extract from them any sensitivity you want).
Anyone involved in science knows that there are uncertainties. There is no absolute "truth". There is "truth" to the point of uncertainty. And here it is very big. In the meantime it can be said that there is warming in the 20th century (if you accept the data from the stations - here too it is not a simple story - I tend to accept this information). What is it caused by? Is it just a greenhouse effect or maybe there is some other mechanism that is sensitive to, for example, their change to the sun? Or a combination of both... right now, we don't know.
Most of those involved in this tend to accept the version of just a greenhouse effect, but are aware that there are other factors and for their own reasons are not so opposed otherwise they will be portrayed as "deniers" (although in Israel it is less terrible - although this site tends to spread this crusade).
And by the way, in my opinion, a good scientist keeps an open mind and does not involve ideological considerations in his research.
Unequivocal assertions in science and adherence to a paradigm have mainly led to refutations. (And it's good that this is how science progresses).
To Shlomi:
Is what you wrote here a practice of science?
It seems to me that you wrote something similar to this "either yes or no, which is for sure maybe"
It seems to me no more scientific than playing cards or coffee.
There is a lot of text here with a very unclear statement and I have the impression that it is on purpose!
And another thing:
How do you "see" that I don't do science? And how do you "see" who is really engaged in science?
Well, b, we see that you are not really involved in science... what is its existence proven beyond reasonable doubt? There is no such thing.
There are a lot! Processes that occur in the atmosphere, one of which is the greenhouse effect (which mainly includes water vapor and also other greenhouse gases such as greenhouse gases). The biggest fear of the whole story is that the heating will lead to a process with positive feedback and then we will become the planet Venus. But as I mentioned there are a lot of processes, among others those with negative feedbacks that moderate the same effect so that in total it is possible that there are no feedbacks at all... this is the question of climate sensitivity. One of the truly unknown variables that affect a lot are the clouds. So that diverting the complex discussion to a simplistic one has no scientific value (although it has political and psychological value of course).
And to say that you should be careful if you don't know what to be careful of and what you need to do to be careful is not saying anything at all.
If there was any "suspicion of fear" that indeed "the star-eating monster exists" then it would have been appropriate to take preventive measures. However, when there is no "fingerprint" of the monster in the universe, then we don't have to fear it.
Regarding the greenhouse effect:
The "greenhouse effect" monster leaves many fingerprints every day. Therefore we must suspect its existence.
Besides the suspicion we must also verify its existence. But even before its existence is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, it is still possible and necessary to take precautions!
Sorry to disappoint you, I'm not a warming-denying troll...and I wonder about you - how does a site that claims to be scientific have a title like proven beyond all doubt??
And gravity is not a science, it is a law of nature, it cannot be proven, it can be explained in different ways.
I feel like I'm really wasting a lot of time on this. It is better to engage in real science.
Indeed the link clearly reflects what you want to see in it - if you read it creatively. I will ask the global warming denier trolls to save their ammunition for other sites. There are many sciences that can be denied, for example gravity (yogic flight), the need to eat (Gilad Diamant already wrote a nice article about this).
To my father: I don't actually complain about my standard of living... I don't need to light a fire inside the house to heat food or prepare it... but there are people in Africa (a lot of them) who do and their "tycoons" force them not to burn oil to generate electricity because " Other "tycoons" decided that it harms the environment.
And besides, my argument is not about that at all but about the unbalanced coverage, but you already know that.
post Scriptum.
Dear surfers: whenever you see a title that has the phrase "proven beyond all doubt" in one variation or another, cast doubt! This is not a scientific statement, there is no such thing as proof in science, and certainly and certainly in climate science.
This is an agenda-driven title, especially since the link that the masker was kind enough to put reflects this so clearly!
Shlomi, of course you won't agree, because they put it in your head that it will lower your standard of living. There are a thousand and one other things that lower the standard of living, but the tycoons who cause them prefer you to think that the source is something that does not depend on them and that they actually protect your standard of living.
my father
to...b. We will agree to disagree…
The question of whether this is warming as a result of humans is a much less interesting question from a scientific point of view...
What is interesting is how sensitive the Earth's climate system is to change.
By the way, the argument that it is better to be careful can go exactly like this:
"There is a monster that swallows stars and it might be on its way to us..." It is better to prepare for its arrival than to be sorry.
This is assuming of course that something can be done about her arrival and if she even wants to swallow us, maybe she is very friendly 🙂
Solar on a larger scale The reason today there is high radiation Solar panels can cause two things A. Reducing pollution from emissions
B. Reducing the warming of the ground
C. A new agenda regarding oil and neighbors
I do not agree with you!
In view of the fact that the earth is warming. The question is only:
Is the warming man-made?
On this question we "assume" (I am convinced) that the answer is positive, meaning that the warming is definitely a result of human activity.
Even if we were wrong in this "assumption" we still need to take precautions!
B... It's a somewhat irrational argument...
You can scare with future scenarios on any topic you want (invented or not).
Better to be safe than sorry is a rationale that legitimizes all those scenarios...
You owe more than just "better safe than sorry"...it's not enough.
To Shlomi:
Even assuming that global warming is not true.
Better to be safe than sorry!
Wow, really wow, how trendy can you be, my father?
You really didn't read to the end the link you brought from NASA...
On their site they are much more balanced than your coverage…
They bring Dr. Christi and talk about a scientific consensus which is: we need to improve our understanding of clouds!
I suggest to all surfers to read the link to the end (the link my father gives from the NASA website) What to do is in English, but for some balance in the coverage and not an agenda you have to make an effort 🙂
PNAS is not peer reviewed... therefore I will take what is published there with a limited guarantee...
Planting is really not difficult.
But the capitalists (the tycoons) are a very difficult problem!
Gatekeeper, is it not possible to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
I think we just need to plant more plants to address this problem.
This is a futile war
Capitalists control the media which controls public opinion.
© © ¨ × ¨
Yes indeed:
Some things are so predictable that the disaster can definitely be prevented by early preparation:
for example:
Areas exposed to tsunamis:
You have built houses where the first floor and maybe even the second floor are not used for living.
Preparation of safety measures for nuclear reactors so that they are immune to tsunamis.
Preparation of tornado shelters.
And so forth.
These steps, if taken ahead of time, will prevent disasters and damages. So the price for them is definitely justified!
Even if the emission of pollutants stops suddenly, the warming will continue
Because of the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere,
The melting of the glaciers and the rise of the sea level will continue,
Therefore together with the necessary activity to stop emissions
It is necessary to prepare for environmental disasters - storms, floods, heat waves,
which will continue to occur with increasing frequency and intensity.
To Ernest:
You are of course right.
On the other hand, statements like "this is a futile war" are also not scientific statements.
deer
A hole in the ozone is an ecological disaster that is already damaging and felt, so it makes sense that this is how the fearful humanity would act.
However, damage to the ecological balance in various ways such as the destruction of forests, uncontrolled growth in the population and more, which are still not a disaster, this is only a prediction of a disaster, do not cause global consolidation, also the destruction of peoples, villages and tribes that we all
You see, they did not lead to any worldwide action.
The private existential danger was and will remain the strongest and most natural prevention in man, only through it will humanity act
together in unity
ב
Her article "There is nothing that stands before the will. "Everything is possible" is a sentence that is never true and unrealistic, but "impossible" is often true and corresponds to reality, so before you suggest to others to delete, think
You need to check for yourself what you are basing your prophecies on such as "they will win in the end"
Apart from you and a large number of other deniers of reality, it is known that there is a deterioration in the world in the quality of the environment, in the economy, in security due to uncontrolled growth of the population and more, one of the greatest dangers is baseless optimism like yours, which weakens and also prevents from taking the right steps.
Hello everyone:
1) Confidential:
Although the problem has existed for a long time, attempts have been made and are still being made to ignore it or deny it.
2) To my father:
Indeed the main problem is the tycoons. They should be banned. But it's a bit difficult for the mice to ban the cat!
3) Confidential:
Indeed it should! But the tycoons thwart the attempts to do what is necessary!
4) For Ernest:
Please delete the pair of words "impossible" from your lexicon! There is nothing that stands in the way of the will. Everything is possible. Especially in light of what is happening now in the world and in particular in Israel. This is a revolution in worldview.
A revolution of all humanity in the way things are seen and in the way the public reacts.
This is unprecedented in human history. The whole world, all humanity has reached a point of no return. This is something reminiscent of the critical mass. Another grain and another grain until everything explodes. The global system today is approaching critical mass. Approaching the point where the public really controls and really decides in every matter related to the benefit of humanity. And when it reaches critical mass, the public will erupt and the public will rule.
Then anyway the public will also solve the problem of global warming.
This is not a situation that cannot be resolved. This is a situation that has several solutions. Some are even quite easy to do. But there are those who frustrate the attempts to solve the problem.
5) To the point:
The war of liberation was a futile war: there was no chance of winning or surviving. We survived and we won!
The Yom Kippur War was a futile war: there was no chance. We survived and we won!
The French Revolution was a barren war: what could a handful of peasants do against an orderly and organized army?
And so on and so forth.
The war is neither barren nor lost.
Humanity and humanity will win in the end!
It is not true because nothing can be done,
In the 90's there was a lot of talk about the hole in the ozone (which by the way is not related to global warming but mainly to the amount of UV that the atmosphere manages to absorb before it reaches the ground). The hole in the ozone was created due to the use of certain gases mainly in deodorants and cooling systems. These compounds break down the ozone molecules and thus create a "hole" in it.
In this case, people got involved and the Montreal Protocol stopped the use of these gases in the early 90s. As of today we are 20 years behind and it seems that this problem has been solved and within a few decades the atmosphere will be restored.
The global warming resulting from the burning of hydrocarbons is a more difficult story (mainly more expensive) but we must not surrender to the thought that there is nothing to be done - there is something to be done and it seems that if we don't do it, we will be in a big problem during our lifetime in the range of decades from today.
This is a futile war.
If to date there has not been a significant decrease among the individual in smoking, being overweight, consuming alcohol, drugs, etc., even though he knows that his behavior is considered harmful to his health, there is no chance that he will act for the future or the health of the other.
The only factor that brings about unification and cooperation on a large scale, however temporary, is the disaster itself, extensive, global,
This can be seen in World War II in the activity and unity of the Allies against Hitler. On time
The war and the danger and its aftermath.
Whoever claims that there is a chance for unity and global cooperation, based on a forecast of the impending disaster, realistic as it may be, is wrong
.
The pollution caused by industrial plants should be reduced, and the use of cars that emit less pollutants should be increased. These contribute to increasing the greenhouse effect.
We also need to raise the level of awareness about "Earth Day", and it is recommended that there be more such days a year. The only way to do this is unfortunately, by using force, with not excessive punishment.
After all, the main causes of global warming are the hole in the ozone and the increasing of the greenhouse effect. An ozone molecule is formed by 3 oxygen atoms, so... isn't it simpler to plant more plants to solve this problem? There is more oxygen in the air - there is less pollution.
First of all, you have to stop the process so that it won't increase even more with the effects of 'positive feedback'. Secondly, all the oil tycoons who donate money to campaigns that hinder the fight against global warming, finances and taking over parties and hijacking democracies from the majority of the public to a small minority of tycoons who don't care that their children won't have a normal planet to live on, should be banned from prison.
Father, global warming didn't start yesterday. Is there no solution to the problems caused by this warming?