The report of the UN Climate Panel, the damage already caused by global warming will accompany us for hundreds of years; According to the report, the probability that the person caused it is 95%

50 תגובות

1. http://www.sciencebits.com/AR5-FirstImpressions

2. This is me

3. Eran
   I answered you. In a few minutes I managed to endure (according to your prompt) it was said that the data of tens of millions of years in the Arctic ice clearly shows that the heat preceded the CO2.
   I explained to you that it is not true and why it is not true. What exactly is your problem with this??

4. In short, let's summarize...any response that makes this amazing report incorrect is a lie, all the senior scientists and scholars, some of whom reluctantly signed the report of this committee even though they did not agree, are crooks and crooks.

   And every answer to miracles comes down to 3 sentences that always say the same thing, all the wise men are wrong. I'm right..why.? ..like that...a great scientific paradigm ..really

   I liked the most the mention of her from 1750 and even more I liked the fact that they talk comfortably about the last 30 years in which there was actually a decline in industrialization after the energy crisis of the early 70's but amazingly forget to mention 1940 to 1975 in which there was a sharp drop in temperature even though those were the years The most polluting in the last century with the revolution of modern industrialization accessible to every home.

   But what do I think to myself..who needs scientists when we have here "Mr. scientific facts don't confuse me" miracles.
   Instead of reading a lie lie lie, scientifically contradict what they said in the movie without making up gibberish.
   Don't forget that even if I had the IQ of an average Kofif Lemur, I would still be able to go to Google in 5 seconds and find out if the nonsense you throw into the air is true or not.

   And they say it was taken out of context. It was not offered. It was offered. It was offered for sale. From the word offer.

5. Eyal. Not sure if you meant it but most of the results lead to sites that underestimate the understanding of the scientists, do they understand what two standard deviations mean?

6. Another one maybe try one of the results here:

   https://www.google.co.il/#q=ipcc%20warming%2095%20how%20calculated

7. If they don't have something scientific, something mathematical, some kind of calculation that explains this number, then it's not science, it's nonsense
   Then it's not an assessment, it's an explosion, h-n-p-c-e.

8. another one
   Grow up already! This is an estimate. assessment. You really don't understand??

9. How do you calculate this certainty, father?

10. I calculated 96%, can someone check if I made a mistake in the calculations?

11. In the previous report it was 90% and in the first 66%
    As more studies accumulate, the certainty increases.

12. Another one is right
    Our real problem is why 95%……..why didn't they write 94%
    Another one - let's leave it at that? Scientists asked and this is what they answered. They are the people who understand it the most. Isn't that good enough??

13. I understand that you have no idea why this number exists, either it's in the report and you haven't read the report, or you've read the report and it's just a blown number.
    95 percent depends on the situation, a flu epidemic with a survival rate of 95 is a national catastrophe. for example.

14. 95% - it's really far from certain.

15. another one
    I understand you are just a troll. good luck with that.

16. I am asking about what is said in this article.
    The first line says:
    "The report of the UN climate panel, the damage already caused by global warming will accompany us for hundreds of years; 95% probability that the person caused it"
    So I would like to know what they are basing it on, after all my father quoted it - so he probably read the report and he will be able to explain to me where this number came from.

17. another another
    What other problem did you find in the report without reading it? 🙂

18. another one
    So typical. Let's find the comma that's out of place... all this on the condition that we don't have to read (lest we end up in trouble...).

19. This is not the most serious problem I find in this report because I don't read this report. I am not that interested in the formulation of this organization. I ask you as people who apparently did read this report - what does this number mean.
    Because I have the impression that it is a meaningless number. Part of demagoguery and nothing else.

20. another one,
    The truth is that this is a really interesting question, I would be happy if someone who knows (not miracles) answers the question.
    I am very intrigued as to how they reached the percentage exactly 🙂

21. another one
    The 95% value is statistically significant. That's why they probably chose this value to make it clear how distinct the information is.

    Interestingly, this is the most serious problem you find in this report. why is it?

22. I think giving a number to assess your level of certainty in a scientific theory is already something strange for me.
    So I want to know why they talk about 95 percent and not 94 percent or 90 percent or 99 percent or 84.12 percent.
    Or did they just make up this number to convince politicians?
    What exactly does this number mean? That they have a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong? Is there any relevant random process here?
    How exactly do you measure it? In medicine, chances are measured according to statistics, in communication, chances are measured because there is random white noise in the system, how do you measure the chance of a theory being correct?
    Is it from the noise in the measurements? Some intelligent probability calculation that calculated that there is a chance that because of the noise in the very many measurements they made there is a chance that the theory actually does not hold? That's the most scientific explanation I can think of, but I really doubt that's the case. Multiple measurements should reduce random noise in the system.
    So what's going on here?

23. another another
    What number do you know?

24. another one
    A little meat - that's two or three times a week. And I grew up in a place where you eat meat 3 times a day.... 🙂

25. And there is still no explanation for this number, 95 percent.

26. What is a little meat, once a week?

27. another one
    Because you are trying to drag the argument in another direction.
    I eat meat, but little. The production of meat (a somewhat problematic concept) has a heavy environmental price. Of course there is no justification for making animals suffer. And from a health point of view - you should eat meat, but a little...

28. Asaf
    I don't know if it's completely true - but I know claims that say that meat, whether it's about raising the animals, growing the animals' food, exposing the forests for the animals, are responsible for something like 30 percent of emissions, and there's also the issue of methane emissions from cows.
    I am, for that matter, a vegetarian.

    The western world does not have a problem of population explosion - there is a problem of population aging. Anyone who preaches a low birth rate in the western world - is an irresponsible person. Whoever wants to enforce it by law is an immoral person.

    I understand from what you write that your view regarding the environment is ideological and not pragmatic, it is not clear to you why humans are more important than the environment, but you still eat meat. I think it makes you a bit of a hypocrite.

    Miracles, why slander?

29. Jeez what a joke...almost like arguing with a religious person about the existence of God only a little worse.

30. to another (co.) -
    I didn't mean to get into the futile debate but:
    Since you asked,
    1 - I am not a vegetarian, I eat a little meat out of sheer laziness,
    but :
    I am against the wasteful and polluting wild use of mineral fuel
    and all other natural resources,
    Against the "consumer culture" (originating in America) that harms every good part,
    Against the animal "need" to "produce and multiply and fill the earth",
    against the "Nalvishech concrete and cement ladder",
    Against the "culture" of noise and dirt that invades every good plot,
    Against many of the signs of "progress" and "culture" that originate from them
    In the short-sightedness of many and the profit-making attempts of a few,
    Since I am also against the "you chose us" I do not agree with the moral "right".
    of humanity to control the environment and in the process to destroy,
    2 - You should go back to my first response,
    Then maybe you will agree that there is a lot of similarity between prediction and prediction...
    At least as far as your comments are concerned,

31. Eran
    Yes. There is false information there. Information suggested from context. All of a sudden, you're protecting scientists? Dissociate from the lying IPCC scientists?
    Do me a favor….

32. another one
    Are you trying to defame? good luck with that.

33. Is the information in the film false? ..is the information from senior scientists false?
    Or maybe the same organization that has admitted more than once that scientists who resigned from it are still listed as if they signed its reports is the liar.
    And by the way, the information from the ice reaches much more than tens of millions of years.
    How exactly do you think they know about disasters that the earth went through about 200 million years ago, reading the cards? ..Maybe this is how they do it in this committee.

    In any case, according to your answer, I see that you just skipped along the film like that.

    A point for thought...if you are really right...air bubbles through the ice, which means that layer X contains older CO2, which means that the level of CO2 was more than 800 years late to rise after the rise in temperature
    So I and every scientist who has solid scientific facts in his mind are even more right.
    And that's without all the other many reasons that were brought up that you didn't even take a second to answer.
    In the Middle Ages, you would probably be burned if you said that the world is round... just sad.

34. Avi Blizovsky
    What treatment?
    Because the use of corn-based biodiesel has starved many people in the world.
    And it didn't really save PADF emissions as far as I know.
    Maybe beyond "clean" energy like solar and wind? - only they don't really save anything, they have serious environmental problems of their own and they don't really supply electricity.

    And I understand that as far as you know, the number 95 percent they made up from the musings of their hearts
    Or do you have an explanation for this number?
    The reality is that it is possible to estimate the damage of the warming, and the damage of the solutions we have and the damage of the warming that the solutions could prevent - if the solutions cause more damage than the warming they can theoretically prevent - then they are not worth the effort.

    If a certain solution can only save a relatively small amount of emissions - then the damage they cause (and they do have damage, mostly financial) is probably greater than their benefit. So you don't need to do them.

    I will now ask a somewhat personal question to everyone here who believes that AGW is reality.
    Avi, Assaf, Nissim and Assaf A.
    are you vegetarian

35. Eran
    There is no scientific discussion here. You can argue about theories and it's legitimate, but you can't argue about facts.
    And the facts are that the film's claims are false.

    First of all - the information in the ice goes back at least a million years, and not tens of millions of years as stated in the article.

    Second thing - air bubbles upwards in the ice layers. This means that the air at a given depth is older than the ice
    at the same depth.

    Eran - keep denying....

36. Another one... there is a joke that says that 67.8% of the statistics in the world are made up on the spot.

    And now to his matter...as always, "the deniers will come now" .. I wonder when it will become heresy to have a scientific discussion of pros and cons.
    But if anything, then already... my dear "scientists" devote an hour and a bit of your time to watching the following film:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

    If you are particularly lazy and you just want to see how the CO2 theory is blown to pieces, please skip to the 19th minute and watch for about 6 minutes.

    Successfully

37. The key sentence is that it is quite possible that they will be right in the end - and how many people will have to die because you insist on delaying treatment?

38. The theory predicted warming when there was already warming, they predicted that warming would continue even now - and the truth is that it pretty much stopped 10-15 years ago. If they had only measured the last 15 years, they would not have seen any warming.
    The reality is that while there was a cooling in the middle of the century - there were really those who talked about cooling. - they were wrong.
    Correlation is not an indication of relativity, there is warming (or at least there was warming), there is GHG emissions - how much does one contribute to the other? It's harder to tell. The reality is that the models mostly failed, it only makes sense, there were many and each of them was different, only that the majority of the models that were presented expected more and much more than what was actually measured in the end. They also did not predict the slowing of warming in the last decade. (Note, not cooling, slowing warming). Now they are trying to find explanations - and it is certainly possible that they will be right in the end - but this means that we are still far from understanding the system sufficiently.
    And I ask again - as someone who studied a little probability, where did they get this number 95. What does 95 percent certainty mean? How do they put statistics in here? Is it that out of 20 Earths in this situation, in 19 of them the warming is from a PDF. Is there a cosmic cube somewhere that decides the rules? What do you mean 95 percent chance?!

39. safkan
    The theory predicted warming. There is warming. I just don't understand what you are talking about??

    You know very well that the increase in Antarctic sea ice is a result of warming. Therefore the rest of your argument is irrelevant.

40. Asaf A.

    No one invents alternative theories. You invent an argument from your imagination about the existence of alternative theories and try to build something on the basis of that invention.

    The problem with the theories of those who claim "accelerated warming because of humans" is that these theories fail in their predictions. A theory that fails in prediction should be tested again because the failure indicates that it is probably not true.

    The shrinking sea ice in the Arctic is apparently proof of warming. But at the same time there is an increase in the sea ice in Antarctica, so if we follow this method of evidence we can actually conclude that there is global cooling. The point is neither this nor that: the changes in the poles are complicated phenomena that are not necessarily related to global warming or global cooling (perhaps related to changing the paths of oceanic currents).

41. another one
    The number 95 is, in my opinion, really low. But you attack that too? 🙂 🙂 🙂
    Did you read the report? Do you understand the "alternative" models? Or are you rambling like the rest of the deniers?

42. another one,
    The mere existence of alternative theories does not disprove the findings of the report, and certainly they do not line up with climate science. The formation of man also has "alternative theories". If you want to refute the report you will find flaws in the report or alternatively in the science behind it.

43. You still haven't answered my question, where did this number 95 percent come from.

    If the physics were completely clear as you claim - there wouldn't be so many alternative models and different possibilities for warming, this means that either we don't know the contribution of the FDF or we don't know the impact of other equally significant factors.

44. So what. The damage of the asteroid that hit during the dinosaur era accompanies us to this day.

    Our very existence is part of that damage.

45. Another one, you're deaf and it's annoying. How many times are you told that the physics of CO2 is the context, and not some imaginary estimate as you try to claim?

46. Where does that number come from, 95 percent?

    For a start, you see that there has been no significant warming in the last 10-15 years even without the warm year of 1998 which straightens the line so to speak. It is not clear to me how this argument holds water.

    Second thing.
    Assaf, conclusions are not facts. It is important to remember this when dealing with science.
    There is indeed warming in recent decades (although much less in the last decade)
    There is indeed an increase in gases known as greenhouse gases.
    But about the nature of the connection - we don't fully know - the fact that we still don't know how many degrees we will rise if we continue at the current rate of increase in emissions and we don't know how much of the rise is linked to the FDF and how much is linked to other unrelated phenomena.

    Third thing
    The countries that increase their GHG emissions the most are Russia, China and India (if I remember correctly) - when most of the western world reduced mainly thanks to the increase in fuel prices and the transition to gas.
    This means there is a problem because China - and Russia are not going to stop their industrialization for this - why would cold Russia slow down its growth to prevent global warming?

47. Now the "deniers" and "skeptics" of all kinds will rise and come
    And everyone will do their best to conjure up the conclusions of the best scientists,
    They will come and go after the luxury of oil and industry tycoons
    And they will publish "investigations" and "studies" on behalf that contradict the conclusions,
    These too will launch an attack against the conclusions
    And they will try to prove that "facts are assumptions and nothing else",
    The damages are already here but will increase and intensify towards the end of the century,
    Since the survey editors as well as the skeptics and deniers
    won't be here in the next century,
    Since the industrial and oil tycoons will not be harmed by the damage
    Caused by them...
    It must be assumed that "the world as usual will continue and behave"...
    God bless you!

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.