In the foreseeable future, carbon dioxide emissions will not be curbed unless the world economy collapses or humanity produces energy equal to the addition of one nuclear power plant each day, state researchers at the University of Utah
In a new and interesting study, scientists from the University of Utah claim that an increase in carbon dioxide emissions - the main cause of global warming - will not be able to stabilize unless the world economy collapses or humanity produces energy equal to the addition of one nuclear power plant every day.
"It does not seem likely that there will be a deviation in the rate of acceleration of carbon dioxide emissions in the near future," claims an article written by Tim Garrett, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Utah. The research was severely criticized by several economists and rejected by several journals before being accepted for publication in the scientific journal Climatic Change.
In the study - based on the idea that the laws of physics can be used to characterize the development of a culture - it is claimed that conservation or improvement in energy efficiency does not really save energy, but on the contrary, actually stimulates economic growth and accelerates the consumption of energy.
Throughout history, a simple physical constant - an unchanging mathematical value - links global energy use with cumulative global economic productivity and corresponds to the rate of inflation. So there is no need to take into account the population growth rate and the standard of living as factors in the predictions for future energy consumption (and hence the result of the carbon dioxide emission rate) of the company in question.
"Stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions at the existing rates will require an amount of approximately three hundred gigawatts of energy production that does not involve the emission of carbon dioxide on an annual level - equivalent to the addition of one new nuclear power plant every day," explains the chief researcher. "Practically, there are no other options that do not involve eliminating the energy."
The researcher claims that most of his colleagues in the field support his theory, while some economists are critical of it. One economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: "I'm afraid the author will need to study better before he can contribute."
"I am not an economist, and I treat the economy as a physical issue," says the researcher. "I arrived at a model of global economic growth that is different than the one they have." The researcher refers to human culture as a kind of "heating engine" that needs energy and produces work in the form of economic output, which then spurs the same engine to consume more energy," he explains.
"If society does not consume any energy, then its culture will be worthless," he adds. "Only through the consumption of energy will this culture be able to maintain activities that will give it economic value. That is, if we run out of energy, then the value of our culture will decrease and even collapse if we don't find new sources of energy."
The researcher notes that his key finding is "that throughout history cumulative economic production is linked to the rate of global energy consumption through a constant ratio." This constant is 9.7 (plus/minus 0.3) millioats per dollar, adjusted for the inflation of 1990. Thus, if you examine the economic and energy production at any point in time in history, "each dollar received is based on the consumption of energy in the amount of 9.7 millioats," explains the researcher .
The scientist tested his theory and found this constant relationship between energy consumption and economic production at any point in time in history through the use of United Nations statistics on Gross Domestic Product (GDP), US Department of Energy data on global energy consumption during the period 2005-1970 , and in previous studies that estimated the output of the global economy from two thousand years ago to the present day. Next, he looked at the consequences of carbon dioxide emissions.
"Economists believe that you need to know the size of the population and its standard of living in order to estimate labor productivity," he says. "In my model, on the other hand, all you need is the rate of increase in energy consumption, and this is because there is a constant relationship between the economy and the rate of energy consumption."
The researcher adds: "By finding this constant, the issue of predicting the growth rate of the world economy becomes simpler." There is no need to take into account the rate of population growth and changes in the standard of living because these are determined according to the degree of availability of the existing energy sources."
That is, the acceleration in the rate of carbon dioxide emissions is unlikely to change anytime soon because our energy consumption today is tied to the historical labor productivity of our society. "If you look at the issue from this point of view, culture develops in a natural cycle of feed-back (feedback) determined only by energy consumption," explains the researcher. This is similar to a child who grows due to the consumption of food, and during this growth he is able to consume more and more food, which allows him to grow more and more."
Perhaps the most problematic implication of this theory is that energy conservation does not reduce the use of energy, but rather spurs economic growth and increased use of it. "Making the culture more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and actually consume larger amounts of energy," explains the researcher.
The researcher claims that the idea that optimizing the use of resources accelerates their consumption - known as the Jevons Paradox - emerged as early as 1865 in a book entitled "The Coal Question" written by William Stanley Jevons, which claimed that coal prices are falling and its use is increasing after advances in the efficiency of the steam engine.
Does the researcher claim that optimizing the use of energy does not matter at all?
"I am only arguing that it is not really possible to conserve energy significantly since the current rate of energy consumption is determined according to the irreversible future of labor productivity... It is nice and good to conserve energy, but we must not pretend that it will bring about a change."
Despite this, the researcher claims that his findings contradict his personal beliefs in the past regarding energy conservation, and he continues to travel to work by bicycle or bus, dry his family's laundry in the wind and use a lawnmower.
The researcher says that discussed methods for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and global warming include mention of increased energy efficiency, reduced population growth and a shift to electrical energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide, such as nuclear, wind and solar energy and underground burial of greenhouse gas emissions. . Another possibility is hardly mentioned: a lower standard of living, which will occur if energy sources dwindle and the economy collapses, he adds.
"Basically, I believe that the system is predetermined," the researcher points out. "Changes in the size of the population and the standard of living are only the results of the current energy efficiency. This leaves us only with the transition to energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gases as our only option."
"The problem is that if we wish to stabilize the level of emissions, let alone reduce it, we must switch to non-carbon energy sources at a rate of about two percent per year. It's almost like adding one nuclear power plant every day."
"If a company invests enough resources in new and alternative energy sources that are not based on carbon energy, then it may be able to continue to grow without increasing global warming," explains the researcher.
Does the researcher believe that global warming disbelievers will use his research to justify inaction? "No", he says. "In the end, it is not clear to what extent political decisions will succeed in changing the natural future direction of society."
54 תגובות
If anyone here still attributed any credibility to "Hadus" then here you have it (in response 53) impersonating "confidential".
It turns out that his religion serves as a substitute for morality and he thinks that those who believe in the flying spaghetti monster can lie all the way to heaven.
Kinda reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68&feature=fvw
What do you care if the world is destroyed in another two hundred years?
Are you so righteous that you care about other people's problems?
Does the fact that there are billions of poor people in the world bother you too?
Michael, your response is amusing and basically says it all.
When you want to open the poor you are welcome.
tall:
If you are an expert - convince the other experts.
I will continue - in areas where I am not an expert - to make decisions according to the opinion of the experts and when there is a disagreement between the experts - according to the opinion of the majority.
As mentioned, the Precambrian rabbit consideration is also known by the other experts, so if it is so simple, we will probably hear in a week or two that you have convinced everyone.
My father, my father answered you in a similar way to what I would have answered in response 45.
Michael, I don't have a degree in the subject. I do consider myself very knowledgeable after many, many years of digging.
There is no doubt here at all. And I refer you again to the example of Dawkins' Precambrian rabbit.
If there is a claim X that is built on thousands of evidences that support it, but there is one and only evidence that proves the opposite, and it is not possible to explain it within the framework of that claim X. X falls.
In the case of the theory that you believe in so much, there are quite a few of them. What's funny is that even the evidence that supports this theory is weak and fragile.
my father
As mentioned, the warming is real.
At the last lecture I attended by Nir Shabib about a year ago, and at Nir's father's about a month ago, and even at another one by another professor from the Physics Faculty at the Technion, none of them denied the warming, and all treated it as an existing fact.
Only they explained why the mechanism of the greenhouse effect by PADH is incorrect, or rather inactive (saturation)
And it doesn't really make sense (the balance issue that I tried to explain earlier)
Of course, the enactment of various laws as well as consensus, gossipy money payments, etc. are not proofs.
The main argument that comes up in the lectures is that there is no proof that we are causing this, and the proof cannot be as a result of the aforementioned phenomena. And they also put forward a possible idea, which is also not very certain, and unfortunately quite difficult to test, but they also do not treat it as a Sinaitic Torah.
tall:
Maybe you haven't noticed but I don't consider myself an expert in the field.
That's why I didn't enter the professional debate at all.
Are you an expert in the field?
Do you have any relevant degree?
If not - I find no point in referring to your opinion (and certainly not to your learned considerations in the field in which, as mentioned, I am not an expert) and in this case I think you are just arrogant.
If so - I can increase by one the number of experts who are in your opinion - which really doesn't matter because the vast majority still have the opposite opinion.
If everyone agrees that air pollution, the culture of excessive consumption, the exploitation of resources and the use of degradable energies is wrong, then what does it matter if the earth warms because of us or because of itself and we are only helping, the truth is that no one really knows for sure, it is too complex a system with too many parameters, so there are potentially influencing parameters that are under our control and they are also bad in themselves, regardless of warming, so why not change them, beyond that it is better to be on the safe side, if there is a certain chance (not negligible) that we are causing it, then it is better to change our ways anyway
I am not lying. The fact that anti-pollution laws are enacted is a byproduct of the fight against global warming, but global warming is real and not an excuse.
Unfortunately, the fight against global warming is more difficult to explain to the general public, because unlike scientists, the general public is influenced by politicians and capitalists who direct it to oppose demands that will cost them a lot of money.
And as for the proofs, for some reason now a lot of failures have accumulated in the ecosystem that are being manifested at the same time - an increase in the rate of PAD in the atmosphere, loss of the diversity of species, destruction of habitats, together with other factors such as epidemics, famine, migration of peoples, desertification, loss of fish At sea, a succession of hot years, and even an El Nino that fails to cool them down, turning Israel from a subtropical environment with a regular rainy season into a desert where the rains fall in bursts and floods.
There has never been anything like it, because the earth has so far taken care of itself. Now another factor is added to the equation - man. The circumstances are that the greenhouse gases have accumulated over 200 years, however I will ask my friends in academia to try and find one article that will show that this is more than my circumstances.
my father
A. I'm sorry I didn't continue the discussion since then. When I came back I decided it was unnecessary to argue.
B. Your first paragraph on 44 says it all.
It is no longer relevant whether the pollution causes warming or not. What interests you is that this argument, whether it is true or not, makes things move against pollution.
I think most of the opponents of this "warming theory" (or at least the best of them, I don't put Exxon owners in the same boat as the scientists, contrary to your demagoguery) are only against this.
Come and explain why the pollution hurts, and work to prevent it. Don't lie on the way.
And much worse, don't lie in the name of science. Lying in the name of science can lead us back to the Middle Ages that persecuted and denounced the scientists.
But my father, since even this won't convince you to sit down seriously and look into the matter again (I'm mainly referring to you because I don't know how close the others here are to science, I'm convinced that yours is)
So you decided to check your claims again: I wanted to know if you could direct me to the "many proofs that accumulate every day" that FDF causes warming.
I have no need for proof of warming itself, I agree with the argument.
I have no need for proof that warming is changing world orders, or that the equilibrium has been violated and is looking for a new home, that is theoretically clear.
I have no need for proof of the damage the pollution does to the environment.
I want (really really want) to see evidence that the PAD we are releasing is the cause of warming.
Since I have access to most science magazines (Nature, Science, etc.) it can certainly be links to the relevant articles.
Just one last thing. Please, please without the famous "correlation graph". I have seen enough of him, we both know that he proves the opposite more than what is claimed about him.
If you agree, I will send you an email and would be happy if you could send him the information.
Tamir, that's the problem, those who think that the problem of global warming should not be solved is missing an opportunity to solve the problems of pollution and the problem of the energy crisis - someday the oil will run out. If more people like you claim that there is no crisis, then the country will continue to run as if there is no tomorrow.
Some local examples due to pressure from a sector of the population in Israel there is no deposit on one and a half liter and two liter bottles which are the bulk of the bottles, and because of that sector they do not impose a fee on plastic bags. Show me where it is written in the Torah of that sector that it is forbidden to preserve the earth? On the contrary, there is the beautiful Talmudic story about a man who threw stones from his field into the street and some sage came to him and said to him why are you throwing stones from a yard that is not yours into your yard. He was surprised and said that the situation is the opposite. One day he got off his property, passed by his lot and was hit by one of the stones he threw into the street and then he understood what was meant by those who warned him that he was throwing stones from a land that was not his to his land.
But of course they censor the good lessons and seemingly prefer to save a few pennies for the big families. Where does it say in your book that you should not use reusable bags?
Not to mention the government's shameful surrender, regardless of religion, to an electricity company and stakeholders who make a living by importing coal to build a coal-fired power plant in Ashkelon.
If there is no external pressure on the state, there will be no one to save us from stupidity.
Assaf and my father,
I did not search and did not find where you decided that I am in favor of wasteful consumption.
I understand your mistake.
This is a mistake made by most people who think that the "infidels" (pigs of course) want to spend.
After all, this mistake is deep-rooted and the ability of a completely wrong theory to capture so many thinking people is built on it (because who doesn't want to be on the "good" side).
For your information, I try very hard not to waste anything, recycle, save water, electricity and try not to buy anything except what I need, and this even though it has nothing to do with warming. Of course, consumption has something to do with open spaces, undisturbed nature, environmental pollution and more. This is the reason not to waste.
Forced reduction of consumption (essentially consumption of anything is equivalent to energy consumption) is an economic and social disaster, it will of course cause everything we don't want, chief among them is the deepening of the gaps between rich and poor. You can see how this is happening before our eyes when the theory, which still has an impact at a fraction of its capacity, is the main engine for these trends that are gaining momentum. The upcoming conference will be a disaster.
And most importantly, the theory is wrong and false.
To all respondents
It is not always right to criticize mainly not from a position of lack of knowledge,
for the era
There are a number of lakes in Africa at the bottom of which are accumulations of methane... methane is not dead!
Since the beginning of the industrial age, the levels of DTH in the atmosphere have risen from 250
to more than 350... according to my calculations, this is an increase of more than 35%.
to dew
At the bottom of the Sea of Galilee there are... salty springs and a lot of garbage.
to the pump
Indeed yes, we have probably already passed the threshold and therefore even stopping emissions will not stop the warming, therefore preparations must be made for a warmer world and higher oceans.
To Nav, Ron, me and others
Even if Prof. Shabib is right (after all, he also claims that there is warming), one of his claims is that because of heavenly and natural factors, the world will continue to warm...
It will continue to heat up!
to convert
Regardless of the warming, the wasteful consumption of mineral fuel continues
And natural resources does not show excessive wisdom, continued exploitation of environmental resources
Without future proof it will lead to destruction, who has the right to destroy what he did not create?
Tamir, the need is indeed real.
Believe me I want to live in a high standard of living, but I also think about what it means for my children to live in a world without resources and full of deserts in areas that were once flourishing.
Michael, the theory of warming and its connection to CO2 is simply not true.
He who did not see this is blind or who chooses to be blind for his own reasons.
A theory cannot be true even if there is one irrefutable fact that contradicts it.
Regarding the current theory, there are several such.
I certainly agree that current knowledge is insufficient to predict climate years in advance (not to mention that factors that are truly known to influence climate are unpredictable). But it is enough to refute the above.
Walking the current path will turn out to be a mistake. It is of course only a matter of time. But at this time, we will do extremely significant damage to ourselves and to KA due to wrong actions. This will cause the deterioration of life in a very serious way, without any real need.
sympathetic:
I did not say that science requires us to take a stand.
Life consists of several other things besides science and one of them is the need to make decisions in order to continue living (and engage in science).
As I said - in this case - the postponement of the decision is (in the operative context) a decision.
Michael
Science does not oblige us to take a stand. The assessments of the urgency for action are well-founded
On the extrapolation of the heating of the Earth as measured in the last hundred years into the future.
The extrapolation assumption is based on a model that is not clearly valid.
I agree that there is a horrendous waste of resources and humanity has not given enough thought
to the subject. On the other hand, there is also gagging for alternative models and sowing panic
among the public. By the way, you probably remember that it happened about twenty or thirty years ago
An acute energy crisis and the argument was that humanity will consume the energy resources
Those standing at the head of it within 40 years and amazingly these predictions were deceived...
sympathetic:
I totally agree with you.
I meant those who want to take a stand.
In any case - there are situations where not taking a position is taking a position and this is the situation we are in on the climate issue.
The question is whether to act to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or not.
Although all the conspirators are sure not (and therefore clearly do not act according to the option you suggested) and in my opinion they are taking a stupid approach, but also to decide that it is too early to make a decision is to decide not to.
Michael
There is also a preferred third option.
If there is no agreement on a scientific issue, it is possible to understand that the problem is complicated and a satisfactory explanation has not yet been found for it, and to avoid expressing an opinion.
The climate is a complex phenomenon and the attempt to impose one scientific view on it is wrong. The climate scientists
They use methods that are often used in politics: painting the issue in black and white, not presenting alternatives,
Scaring the public of an imminent disaster. One of the advantages of science is that it is open to all competing theories
They are not yet disqualified on an empirical or logical basis.
tall:
You can lower the eyebrow back.
To the best of my judgment there are two logical ways to form an opinion on a certain subject.
One is to become a subject matter expert.
The second is to believe what the experts think (and if there is no agreement then according to the majority).
Any other way seems to me simply ridiculous and it doesn't matter how many proverbs and slogans they try to back it up.
Michael, your argument raises eyebrows, there are quite a few scientists on the right side as well...
In light of the pressures to convert to the new religion, one has to wonder how such people exist at all.
It is quite clear why supporters prefer to bury their heads in the sand.
In any case, the truth is not aligned with the "majority".
It cannot be that observations that so fundamentally contradict the New Torah remain unanswered.
And one such is enough, not so much as several.
tall:
Climate scientists know at least as much about the subject as you do and that includes all the slogans.
It didn't make them change their minds.
Father, the theory of warming is up against at least three Precambrian rabbits, remind you, one rabbit is enough to knock it down.
All the conspirators will forgive me for referring to the article itself and not to their words.
There is an issue that he does not take into account and which the economists actually understood.
He forgets that today's energy prices are unrealistic because they are wasting the planet.
In fact, the use of energy today is a robbery that we are robbing from future generations and the right way to deal with the problem is by raising the price of energy in a way that will reflect the extent to which its creation consumes the earth's resources.
The proposed economic solution is taxation on greenhouse gas emissions.
This idea must be expanded and applied to all characteristics of energy creation and its use that harm sustainability (sustainability is the term indicating the possibility of doing something forever without the resources necessary to do it running out).
This raises the price of energy and the only way to deal with it is - efficiency on the one hand and switching to green sources on the other.
In other words - with correct energy pricing, efficiency will be required to stay at the same level of energy consumption and it will not be used to increase energy consumption.
I haven't heard so much nonsense in a long time... you talk so much about CO2 emissions and 'global warming' and like everyone else... you forget a very important detail: out of the total greenhouse gas emissions, how many are human actions? If you check this figure you will be in for a surprise. less than a percent.
Did you mean global warming by a person or a global government?
I highly recommend watching the movie global warming or global government to discover .. really scary truths that unsurprisingly relate to our politicians (Al Gore and Co.) and the information they present and not to mention everyone else.
Maybe before talking about the paradigm to check at all if the information it is based on is relevant and correct?
Okay, if the warming is inevitable, please stop going crazy and fooling our minds every Monday and Thursday with the end of this world.
If there is nothing that Mirum Golan personally can do, I prefer to live the little time I have left on this planet in peace.
Does anyone understand????????? Thanks.
The guide of the universe, I disagree, in my opinion the waste of energy is mostly not necessary for the survival or development of society, science, culture, etc., the great waste comes from completely unnecessary consumption that does not advance anyone anywhere and was created mainly by huge corporations that want to make more and more money and drown most The western world is in total stupidity and degeneration, I'm not talking about reversing direction but certainly about slowing down this crazy race that is going nowhere except exhausting every natural resource and turning every good stone there is.
And one more thing, a little anecdote about science, ethics of science and the sanctity of science:
Those who discovered the connection between lung cancer and cigarette smoking were none other than the Nazis.
(Almost 25 years before the US Surgeon General's announcement in 1964).
surprising? I was also surprised, this was revealed to me when I took a course in the ethics of science.
It turns out that Nazi science was good, but it had very bad ethics...
Hitler hated cigarettes and alcohol and set his scientists the following paradigm:
The body should be pure from toxins and external influences, just like society (which should be free of Jews, etc.). Something that was not acceptable then because the Germans liked to drink and smoke cigars, it turns out - something related to culture. Therefore, the scientists statistically examined the various cancer cases and crossed them with the smokers. The relationship they found was statistically significant between smoking and lung cancer (as opposed to other types of cancer - which is more convincing).
The thinking of the managers of the oil and coal companies is simple (the reason is that they, like the rest of President Bush's advisers, are not capable of complex thoughts) - let's leave the status quo we are profiting from and to hell with the planet.
I do not disbelieve in Prof. Shabib's skills in regards to the study of the ancient climate and I even interviewed him on the subject, but this very thing is the one that disturbs because it is impossible to compare changes over millions of years to changes occurring right below us in our lifetime.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/new-milky-way-and-climate-changes-0807097/
Also the fact that the sun is less active should have caused warming, but in practice the only thing that was caused was that the current high level was maintained, meaning only the second derivative is negative (speaking of someone who wants to understand what is done with derivatives and integrals in life).
I'm sorry, my father, but he is...
He does insert something of his own and claims that the sun has a stronger effect on the climate than they thought until now anyway. More than that, he gives a possible mechanism for changing them through the modulation of cosmic rays - this is actually the theory of Henrik Swansmark and his partner Nigel Marsh.
A new book called "The Refrigerating Stars" has been published by Am Oved, where you can read about the brave theory that really changes the paradigm of the FDF. There, among other things, you can read about Nir Shabiv and his contribution to paleo-cosmoclimatology. Yes yes, this is the study of the ancient climate (time scale moving back millions of years) with an emphasis on the relationship between cosmic radiation and climate. So maybe Nir Shabib is not a climatologist, but he sure is a cosmoclimatologist.
post Scriptum
I really don't see how Nir Shabib shares the thinking that oil and coal managers have... (In general, what kind of thinking do oil and coal managers have? How relevant is this question to a scientific discussion?)
post Scriptum. We were already in the film of a decision on changing the co-consensus of the scientific community (which was done by the way) and I had no choice but to join it when I realized that it was final.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/against-iau-desicion-on-pluto-26080/
I got. Thanks for the clarification, Father.
The bicycle example is actually a good example, but from a different aspect.
Increasing energy consumption brings an increasingly complex human society. An increasingly complex human society is growing faster, becoming even more complex and a greater consumer of energy.
Beyond the bicycle in the example given here, it is an example of a reversal of direction in which human society begins to become less complex.
In my opinion, such a reversal of direction will indeed save a lot of energy, but it will collapse the human existence we know today.
In a human society that will become less complex again, it is not possible to grow food for 8 billion mouths, light their homes, and give them such an education that will sustain the culture.
That is, anyone who claims that the way in which the human race is marching is a coup, is talking nonsense.
The one and only solution is to continue with full vigor the existing trend and cultivate every sliver of development aimed at consuming energy from new sources (solar, wind, geothermal, and what not)
The future belongs to cold fusion energy.
There is enough evidence of warming - and they are accumulating day by day - only lately have you read about the opening of the Northern Passage around Asia, the reduction of the ice in Greenland, and just today we saw on the program See the World an article from northern Russia about how the snow is melting too much and causing a shortage of grass in the tundra on which the elk feed.
What warm-up?
There has been no warming for 15 years - and in the last 8 years there has been a cooling
You are talking about the consensus in the capitalist controlled media not in science
Where is the consensus among the global warming liars or among the honest scientists?
Over 30 thousand scientists signed a petition that the theory that humans release greenhouse gases - and the Earth is warming - is a bluff among the signatories, 3,803 with professional training in the field of atmosphere, environment and global science 9,029 with a doctorate degree, and all of them have knowledge and training in fields such as chemistry, physics and mathematics to evaluate and draw conclusions from the scientific information.
petitionproject.org
This document is under attack and an attempt to discredit it.
Here you will find all the answers to the defamation issues (fake names, financing by oil companies, etc.)
petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
Please do not try to minimize the seriousness of the matter
You wrote news about the hacker incident and the e-mails that are now called Climategate
Examples shown in the article
The emails:
An attempt to hide the fact that the earth is cooling
A (successful) attempt, silencing and blocking of publication in scientific journals of scientists who show that global warming is pseudoscience
and show that there is a consensus among the scientists
An attempt to delegitimize the honest scientists - to take away the scientist's doctorate
youtube.com/watch?v=W05apEQ2PrY
But I understand the dilemma of many decent people - especially for you:
Great video and not offensive
Calling the environmentalists to disassociate themselves from the global warming "movement".
The environmental protection movement has been hijacked by the globalists and the bankers for their purpose.
Now with the email scandal that was discovered and revealed everything we suspected
We must gather courage and face the reality
youtube.com/watch?v=-Umfb_Ll4IY
For further reading in Hebrew: not global warming but global cooling - a quality article
http://tinyurl.com/ya3lxk5
Where can you see the graph data of the level of carbon dioxide and the temperature for say the last 2 million years
Thanks in advance
My father, I thought about it even afterwards and I accept what you say, if so, it means that it is actually possible to preserve and optimize the use of energy and thereby change the situation, so we both disagree as to whether the researcher's opinion that the process is irreversible in the way of preserving and optimizing the existing energy, but only By way of exchange for new and different sources.
The question is really whether human society is like a child who grows up or like a child who gets fat (and therefore can also lose weight) It seems to me that I simply do not understand economics enough to make a decision on the matter, in any case I continue to ride my bike to work 🙂
If anything there is also a scientific problem. Just like the creationists who try to find loopholes in evolution but do not explain what is true for them, here too he attacks the sensitivity in the models of the supporters of man-made warming, and does not offer his own alternative except to actually change the sensitivity of those models. And by the way, he did because he is not a climatologist. The climatologists' consensus on global warming is more or less similar in scope to the biologists' consensus on evolution.
And by the way, the fact that the cigarette manufacturers prevented a scientific consensus on the harms is also unscientific, but it played an important role in delaying science.
my father
Of course, when the opponents of evolution prepare a truly scientific article, based on scientific logic, and not on mysticism or logical leaps, they will definitely have a place here as well.
In your opinion, this strange idea that the speed of light is constant, even though it comes with a scientific article that concludes it, is not entitled to a place.
You keep repeating that the opposite opinion is the same opinion of the oil industries. It's a. Not really related.
B. Lacks any scientific value (and again we are dealing with science)
I have to go: I will continue later.
to Amitos
You murdered and also inherited? They also stole correspondence, also took them out of context to supposedly prove that they were contradictory and also want to use it exactly one week before the Copenhagen conference? It doesn't seem to you that the oil companies that funded this political terrorism should dictate my position to me.
Regarding Nir Shabiv's article, it is taken from issue no. 5 of Odyssey. If you take the Odyssey issue with you, you will see that he is the only one who holds this opinion against all the other articles that support the consensus. It is true that good science develops from a violation of consensus, otherwise we would still be in the Ptolemaic universe with the Earth at its center, but the violation of consensus should not be sanctified at any cost, especially when behind that position stand bodies with a lot of power and money (I am not talking about Shabib himself, but he shares the opinion held by the managers of oil and coal companies ). Not that the claim may not be true, but in light of these circumstances, it should be suspected. Don't forget that we were already in this story - it took two generations too long to understand that smoking is harmful. They could also predict the effect of greenhouse gas emissions thirty years ago and it took time precisely because of this type of interest.
And as for the demand to publish unusual opinions - today it's the deniers of global warming, tomorrow the deniers of evolution (whose representatives also tried), the day after tomorrow those who claim that the moon is made of cheese and their opinion should also be heard on the Israeli science website. Where will we go?
to NED
A car consumes energy both in production and during the regular consumption of bicycles. The problem is only relevant to production and the initial transportation to the customer's home. Even if we start from the exaggerated assumption that cars and bicycles will be produced for the same number of passengers. The TCO is significantly lower on a bike.
The presence of the human race and the sum total of its pollution on Earth has increased the level of carbon dioxide by 0.00X points.. of the total composition of the entire atmosphere
If I'm not mistaken the number is 3 or 5 I don't remember... in any case the number is zero
In any case, as I have already said here many times, I used to be an enthusiastic supporter of global warming until I got to see simple scientific information on the subject that showed that according to the scientific study of the layers of the earth (you have all seen in science films how they drill into the ground and take out a cylinder and analyze the layers) they saw that the carbon levels The carbon dioxide moved as a result of the climate changes and were not the cause of the changes..in fact they found a correlation of about 500 or 800 years between a temperature change and the corresponding increase or decrease in carbon dioxide levels.
So really...all their research is based on a wrong foundation...or as they say in mathematics, infinity plus 1 still equals infinity...I will answer that we have no such effect on the climate. We do not compare at all and cannot compare to the nice activity of the sun above us.. This is of course more oppressive than assuming that man is responsible and everything is changeable because that means we are at the mercy of the sun's whims.. but that is life. So until someone presents information here that contradicts the scientific basis that CO2 follows the temperature rise and not the other way around and that man is responsible for more than 0.00X of the change... then there is really no point in basing theories on nothing, right?
Avi,
In his article Prof. Shabib actually mentions the outbreak in Pinatubo, and explains with it the opposite of you.
It demonstrates how the climate was not "sensitive" enough, and was almost unaffected by the significant event.
From there, by the way, he further links to the fact that the climate is also not as sensitive to human actions as people think.
So wait, father, I don't understand.
What conclusive evidence are you talking about?
By the way, another article was published yesterday in YNET:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3811566,00.html
She talks about exposing the correspondence of prominent climate scientists, who talk about hoarding data that contradicts the main theory regarding climate change. According to the article, the affair has already made waves in the world.
Abi, maybe you will add to the website such articles that carry opinions that are contrary to the consensus?
After all, if you have already published even the above-mentioned article about the scientist from Utah, in which it is mentioned how many take his research into doubt, then surely there is a place on the 'Israeli Science Site' for articles like Prof. Shabib's.
Don't you think so?
Or maybe, actually, if we assume that everyone starts riding bicycles, then the car company will go bankrupt and the bicycle company will have to produce many more bicycles and waste much more energy in the production process
I didn't quite understand why he claims that the process is irreversible? After all, it's not like a child who grows up, it's more like a person who gets fat, let's say the person who is very fat starts to eat less and slowly his stomach shrinks and he is automatically able to eat less, that is, if a person rides a bicycle to work instead of a car, he has actually set his standard of living back a few years. Is it not possible for the process to go backwards and the mathematical constant still remain valid?
point
An interesting point. What is it related to?
my father
The fact that you call it proof, or in their lectures they say proof, does not make it proof.
About a month ago, I heard a lecture by Prof. Makuda from the Faculty of Environmental Engineering at the Technion, at the point when she got to the famous correlation graph, she announced that she did not want to get into the issue of who came before the FDH or the temp. 4 transparencies later she was already at a loss as to why the FDF should be stopped because it causes temp.
It's pretty sad.
Besides, this whole theory stands on one foundational pillar. At least stop and check if it is stable.
Shabab I don't know about you, but I hate when it's hot regardless of what happens globally
Eran, did you mean idiots or laypeople?
I'm not saying that there aren't people who have an opposing opinion, but when I examine their number and their influence on the consensus, I conclude that the scientific community mostly thinks differently, and despite Prof. Shabib's claims, the evidence is conclusive.
It is enough to remember the cold winter of 1991-2 after the eruption, not to mention the collapse of the Pinatubo volcano, to show that the system is much more sensitive than he describes - in both directions.
I direct the members of the esteemed forum to review the article I read just yesterday (27.11.09/XNUMX/XNUMX):
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3809515,00.html
In short, it presents the opposite position to the popular claim that the FDF is the cause of global warming, that humans
They are the ones who are directly responsible for the warming, and that global warming is not part of a natural process. to all of the above
The article presents the opposite opinion in a clear and reasoned way.
my father
According to your argument, the Earth was at an unstable equilibrium point with regards to the emission-warming ratio.
ZA that as soon as we added carbon it warms up, the ocean heats up and emits much more than we emitted, therefore the globe will heat up much more and the ocean will emit much more and the globe……..
According to your argument we also removed him from this point. The article is unnecessary, it is very difficult to impossible to return to an unstable equilibrium point.
In fact we probably need to collect all the carbon we have emitted and the ocean has emitted and continues to emit until a new unstable balance point.
It is also interesting what is the mechanism in your method that will stop this warming in the end, because the ball itself was known to be in worse conditions and stopped. I assume that you do not expect us to have complete evaporation of all the PDM from the past, very high temperatures, etc.
The point is that DHA did not leave a point of equilibrium. All your proposals to stop emissions also indicate that you probably don't think like that, but your theory clearly does. And this is a contradiction.
Bottom line, what the researcher says is that the efficiency of carbon energy sources does not help reduce global warming. For example, if you make a car that can travel 20 km per liter like the Skoda Octavia or a hybrid car that consumes 30 km per liter like the Chevy Volt, in the end it doesn't matter. On the other hand, if you make an electric car that is charged from electricity produced in a geothermal or solar power plant, then it helps to reduce global warming. The condition for us to meet the goal of reducing the level of emissions is to switch to clean energy sources at a rate of 2 percent per year.
And regarding the lake in Africa, is it possible that in the event that the Sea of Galilee dries up, it will release carbon dioxide at a level that would endanger the residents around it, or is it about other orders of magnitude?
The release of these reservoirs, as a result of the drying up of lakes, is also a result of man-made warming. It can be said that man not only directly harmed the earth but also caused natural side effects that intensified the warming.
I haven't heard so much stupidity in a long time..
Let's leave for a moment this bullshit that humans in general have an influence on the level of carbon dioxide emissions... apart from the pollution of the earth for which we are unfortunately very responsible.
The laymen ..and in "the" of course..are probably not aware of an interesting fact in their research..
The sea that makes up 70 percent of the surface of our planet covers huge layers of trapped CO2 under it.
And in fact this is exactly the problem with warming...that it warms the water and as a result there are more and more releases of such reservoirs...a classic example is this lake in Africa...(sorry at a time like this I won't bother and circle its name) which in one night released all its reservoirs and killed all the poor people who chose to live near it .
Why am I rowing...if such accumulations are released they will dwarf any amount of human production...and as to whether...it will be a question of time only because it has happened in the past as it will happen in the future...once again Google.