Scientists at the GKSS research center in Gerstecht and the University of Bern have for the first time investigated the frequency of warmer-than-average years between 1880 and 2006. The result: the observed increase in the concentration of warmer than average years after 1990 is not a statistical accident, the greenhouse gases are to blame
Scientists at the GKSS research center in Gerstecht and the University of Bern have for the first time investigated the frequency of warmer-than-average years between 1880 and 2006. The result: The observed increase in the concentration of warmer than average years After 1990 is not a statistical accident. In doing so, they refuted one of the main arguments of global warming skeptics.
Between 1880 and 2006, the average global temperature was about 15 degrees Celsius. However, in the years after 1990, the frequency of years in which the average temperature exceeded this value increased. The researchers asked: Is it a coincidence that the 13 hottest years in recorded history were measured after 1990, or does this increase in the frequency of hot years indicate an external influence.
Probability calculation
The scientists used a simulation system known as "Monte Carlo simulation". Dr. Eduardo Zurita and Prof. Hans von Storch from the GKSS Research Institute, together with Prof. Thomas Stoker from the University of Bern, assessed following the use of the model that the likelihood that record-breaking years after 1990 originated by chance is low and concluded that it is more likely that there is an external motive causing this. That the 13 warmest years since 1880 will occur after 1990 is at most 1:10,000. This probability is equivalent to flipping a coin and getting heads 14 times in a row.
The climate is much more complicated than a game
In order to understand and statistically analyze the climate system and the interrelationship between it and the oceans, the earth, the atmosphere and human activity, the comparison with the game of chance is not accurate. The natural sequence of hot and cold years does not follow the simple principle of zero or one, Dr. Zortia explains the challenge of performing the calculations, because the climate system represents a built-in inertia.
For example: after a warm year, there are expected to be years in which the weather will be mild, because the oceans have stored some of the heat. This internal inertia must also be included in the calculations.
"Our research is pure statistics, and cannot attribute the increase in hot years to individual factors, but it is in agreement with the results of The IPCC according to which the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is the factor mainly responsible for most of the global warming" concludes Zortia.
76 תגובות
I don't understand all these arguments at all.
Everything is natural. Warming up is natural, like all other things.
Everything is governed by the laws of physics. So what's all the fuss about?
Anyone ready to explain?
Especially Fidel Castro
A man in his understanding will live :)
I have no strength anymore.
Who didn't understand didn't understand
I was just talking about response 62 at the moment
Michael R
No..
If the warming is a natural process and the greenhouse gases are not the main culprits, as I think, then it is not a destruction..and if the temperature remains stable then what is good.
But even if the heat does continue to rise and Tel Aviv will flood and in the end maybe even turn into a block of ice
So even though it is terribly unfortunate, it is a natural process of the earth and not a process of destruction of the earth.
It is true that if Tel Aviv is destroyed then it is a destruction - but a destruction that the person can bang his head against the wall and blame the greenhouse gases and cry that we did not build Tel Aviv 8 meters higher. But this will not change the fact that the earth was not "destroyed" but went through a natural process.
What is not a nuclear war..
A few more words to clarify why the consideration of the age of the earth is simply ridiculous:
Suppose we knew that until two years ago no greenhouse gases were emitted.
Suppose we were to see that during the last two years in which we emitted a lot of greenhouse gases, the earth warmed by ten degrees on average and that at this rate we will simply become extinct in another two years.
In that case, would anyone even dare to talk about the age of the earth?
But wait! Two years is much less than two hundred years, isn't it?
That is why I said in response 29 that the relevant time should be measured in relation to the expected duration of the annihilation and not in relation to the age of the earth.
By the way - I just listed the claims I've already made.
I do not at all accept the claim that my claims are weak compared to the claims of the skeptics. In fact I'm arguing the exact opposite - the skeptical claims made here are simply logically wrong - again - without anything to do with global warming or anything else.
The unsatisfied skeptic:
It seems to me that in view of your request I will be forced to leave you unsatisfied and this in light of what I said at the beginning of my speech in this discussion.
I didn't set out to defend all the conclusions of the article, so I started with the phrase "regardless of the article itself".
I said - and I said it again - that in order to discuss the subject seriously, you need to specialize in the subject and I don't feel that this is an area in which I am an expert, and speaking to Lior, I get the impression that he is even less of an expert in it than I am.
That is why I did not fiercely defend the article and the purpose of my response was only to point out the error in Lior's consideration when he brings the duration of time as an argument.
For this matter - the example of the atomic bomb is relevant and even completely considered.
We have a collection of undesirable phenomena that occur in a certain period (several days in the nuclear war, several years in the problem of global warming).
There are also actions that we do in those periods - actions that may have a connection with the aforementioned phenomena (dropping nuclear bombs in the example of the nuclear war, emitting more and more greenhouse gases in the problem of global warming).
We also know that the negative phenomena we are witnessing did not occur in periods when we did not do the same actions or did less of them (perhaps not in the entire history of the earth but at least in the periods we measured).
We even know that the negative phenomena we notice happened in the past for reasons we only have hypotheses about (destruction similar to that caused by a nuclear war took place on Earth at the time the dinosaurs were destroyed, global warming also happened in the past).
Therefore, the considerations of the idiot who says that the nuclear war is not harmful because it has only lasted one day so far and what is one day compared to the life of the earth and maybe we simply have a natural phenomenon like in the age of the dinosaurs are actually the same as the consideration proposed by Lior who says that ten years is a joke in relation to the age of the earth and already There has been warming in the past.
Let me illustrate this further.
Imagine - for the sake of discussion - that we knew for sure that accelerated emission of greenhouse gases is causing serious warming of the Earth (Oh! We actually know that! It's a known and measured physical phenomenon! As someone mentioned - it turned Venus into hell!) And we would also know That we are emitting greenhouse gases at an increasing rate (oh! we know that too!) and the only thing we didn't know was whether the greenhouse gas emissions we are witnessing today reach amounts that really have a serious impact on the climate.
Now imagine that we notice that as time passes and the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere multiply both as a result of the accumulation of past emissions and as a result of the increase in the emission rate, the temperature also rises.
Imagine that we know that at the current rate of temperature increase most of the Earth will become uninhabitable within 100 years.
Is the age of the earth even interesting in this situation?
I repeat: this is a situation where in 100 years the earth will not be habitable. At the end of these 100 years, only Lior, myself and my father Belizusevsky will remain, and Lior will tell us about the ruins of an internet cafe that he will relax because a hundred years are nothing compared to the age of the world.
Would that be smart?
Will the knowledge that the earth was already even hotter in the past and at that time indeed unfit for human habitation comfort us?
We could then take stock and say something like "Well, a hundred years ago we had statistics that showed that there was something that warmed the earth. We weren't sure what the main cause was, but we actually only knew about one such thing, and it was even something that we had control over - the rate of gas emissions The Greenhouse. The only reason we didn't take this thing seriously was because we weren't sure but—Dahil Rabak! We had no other explanation and we certainly couldn't point to another possible factor that we had control over. Now the Earth is being destroyed just because we wanted security of 100% in that the factor we guessed is indeed the factor!"
I want to repeat and clarify:
Excessive warming will destroy the earth (in terms of its support for human life. In other respects the question is less interesting). This is a known fact.
Greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming. This is also a known fact.
Is the rate of emission such that it endangers the planet? This can only be discovered by finding the correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the average temperature. The current study points to such a correlation and proves that the probability of obtaining such a correlation by chance is extremely low. In fact he proves that there must be a reason for the warming; A reason that is much more active these days than in the past and that this is not an accidental accumulation of hot years.
It could be that this reason is the greenhouse gases and it could be that it is another reason that we don't know what it is.
When we hear a shot and see the impact of a bullet a millimeter away from us and turn our head in the direction from which it was heard and see before our eyes only one person with a gun in his hand and the gun is pointed at us - are we allowed to conclude with certainty that it was a shot? of course not. Does it make sense to assume that it is poetry after all? Of course! Does it make sense that we act to prevent him from firing more shots at us? without any doubt!
Michael R. (formerly Michael),
🙂 I will try to be clear even though I think Lior explained his arguments to you very logically...
First of all, since my first visit to the site (below is the date of my first comment on this article). I always considered your claims to be logical and very convincing (although I didn't always agree with them because after all not everything is black and white), on the other hand your claim (with the example of the atomic bomb) lacks a lot of logic and sounds like some kind of excuse... I will explain:
You gave the wrong example, simply put, in fact I don't think it's clear what you're trying to argue when you brought up the example with the atomic bomb.
Here is a statistical article that claims to have been able to prove the connection between warming 200 and the emission of gases (20000 that any kind of proof was needed and this is not self-evident). Now Lior has arrived and claims that XNUMX years is not enough time because it is possible that statistically every XNUMX years there is such a warming, in fact it is known that there were periods when most of the XNUMXth century froze, and then there was warming again.
When an atomic bomb is detonated, on the other hand, there is no need to statistically prove that it was detonated, it is known to all.
I think I didn't understand your example (and all the other commenters too) because in my opinion it doesn't have much to do with Lior's arguments... but because I know your comments I understand that the problem is with me, I just couldn't understand.
Please better formulate the analogy between an atomic bomb and Lior's charge. Because right now the claim that 200 years is a funny age compared to XNUMX makes a lot of sense to me.
I really want to believe you that this article also refuted the claims of the skeptics, but this is simply not true.
Only if you could explain your claims in a logical way like you do very well in almost every other article I would really like to... you can still try 🙂 But you have to admit that your arguments at the moment are very weak compared to the claims of the skeptics
fresh:
It is not clear to me who your words are addressed to and what you are even trying to say.
In my opinion, there are two directions that a person can follow - one is to be more and more decent and the other is to be more and more decent.
Your response above is in the other direction.
Accept the distortion you are making as the marine axiom or assumption of origin and then there is no need to prove anything.
Tal:
I am not perverting anything.
Against what are you comparing my words when you say that I was distorted - against your distortion?
Michael, you distort history as you wish, as many others have done before you
And many more will do it after you, in order to beat you with their claims.
All history is distorted, like a zakit it changes colors
And as time goes by, there are more and more distortions.
As happens at a crime scene, as time passes, it becomes more distorted.
Lior:
Not true!
Warming is a kind of destruction. You claim that it has a different origin but you admit that it is bad (because you don't want - for example - Tel Aviv to be completely flooded).
Just as well, that person could argue that the destruction they see was not caused by the nuclear war but by some natural forces.
I have a problem with the data. They survey a total of 120 years. They cannot in any way rule out the possibility that this has happened 10 more times in the last five thousand years. I cannot prove/disprove the possibility that there are warming cycles of such and such years for every, say, 300 or 400 or 500 years, and then the world goes back to cold.
Today we know that in the past the water level in the world was much higher. This could well point to the possibility that the world was once warm, then froze a second time (or, actually, in a tenth... we don't know).
Oops Michael, I forgot to include you in the previous comment.
Indeed a drag on the debate :)
But no... the branesh could not claim like me that the destruction was not caused by the bomb.
I mean that in your example it is also agreed on the guy that there is destruction and that is what makes his claim ridiculous.
Whereas with us it is not agreed (and this is the point!) that there is "destruction" meaning that the warming is unnatural. And even if it is not normal then prove that it is because of the greenhouse gases.
That's what I'm trying to say the pattern just doesn't match.
To the unsatisfied skeptic, first of all, thank you :) But I didn't get 100. The truth is that I don't even remember how many.
Indeed, hey, where is this figure from?? Is this a scientific figure?
After all, science has clear definitions, everyone claims..
Noam. Good. In any case-
There was science.. there was not.. the main thing is that there is.
my father
Indeed. But
First - the topic of reduction, I have never denied this ability..
Second - indeed it is possible, I didn't claim that it wasn't either.
And we are in a warm period for tens of thousands of years and not just in the last two hundred years, nor did I say no. Indeed, this is the point... that the earth does not maintain a constant temperature, otherwise the poles would not freeze... and therefore you cannot run and say that warming is an abnormal thing. The greenhouse is to blame.
fresh.
Have you seen anyone here claiming such a thing?? Umm..
I do not.
The issue is whether it is possible from 200 years of statistics on warming to blame greenhouse gases as the cause. Hey, get off the rainbow there..
Dawn:
And how does this relate to our case?
By the way, is this really true? Are you also one of the holocaust deniers?
When will the dawn shine on your dark world?
Dawn,
What are you talking about? What's the "point"?
History is the version of the winners and the strong.
It's a question of power
As today "facts" are presented in the world media, but the same facts are in the version of the shareholders and capital that control the media.
In the past books were burned, today websites and television are censored... the world has changed - the method has not.
Tal:
dandruff.
Should we bring evidence that Galileo was silenced by the Inquisition?
Do we need to provide evidence that there is no scientific discovery made by a scientist in the Middle Ages?
And note: it is much more difficult to bring proof of absence than of existence. Go prove there is no flying spaghetti monster.
If there was such a monster, it would be possible to photograph it or bring it to an interview with Hugin, but since there is simply no way to prove its non-existence.
We know enough history to know that there was no science in the Middle Ages.
When I say "us" I mean, of course, those people who are interested in the difference between truth and falsehood and not those who argue just to make a sound
Michael, you also did not bring arguments that there was no organized, recognized and valued science
And even if you bring arguments it won't help you prove anything
For the simple reason
History is the distortion of reality
The Tanach is also history, only more distant and distorted
Lior,
The debate is apparently semantic - the definition of science, but in my opinion it is extremely important to stick to the definition of science as one that uses the scientific method, as defined by Popper and his successors, to deepen human knowledge.
An expansive definition as you suggest, such as including alchemy, or perhaps astrology, within science, opens the door to dozens more pseudo-scientific teachings, and this may lead to the degeneration and halting of the progress of science and human knowledge.
This danger is well illustrated even on this website - it is enough to read the responses of all kinds of eccentrics and "geniuses" in their own eyes, and New Agers of this and that, who declare absolute equality between the methods, to understand this.
And a side note: this has nothing to do with discovering discoveries by mistake - that is not what distinguishes the scientific method from the other methods.
Lior:
It's just unbelievable.
Don't you still understand that since the bransch doesn't understand what an atomic bomb does, he could claim like you that the destruction was not caused by it and that the fact that there happens to be an overlap between the timetable of the war and the destruction does not indicate that the bomb destroys and that the whole story is a joke compared to the age of the world?
I said there's no point in arguing!
And as for the scientists in the Middle Ages - no matter how much you repeat things without bringing any evidence or logical argument - they will remain untrue.
When you said that "they thought the earth was flat" you were not talking about the few who might have read the words of Pythagoras and Aristothenes and knew that it was actually round. Maybe these could be called "scientists" but that's not who you were talking about so don't try to twist things.
Organized, recognized and appreciated science certainly did not exist.
Thank you to the unsatisfied doubter. I accidentally clicked the wrong place with the mouse. It shouldn't have been there. Anyway, I didn't reveal my password so it was impossible to go any further from there.
In order to claim that the concentration of hot years is coincidental, one has to be seriously challenged, or alternatively "on the rainbow"...
The father of the link leads to your admin…
Lior:
You must have gotten some 100 in expression rate. You word your posts wonderfully!
But despite the fine wording, you still haven't been able to convince that there was science in the distant past. Not because you can't express yourself properly but probably because it's not true.
Nemo Shmicheal said a new concept was created during Galileo's time called science (if this root was used before it is really irrelevant) and it will remain forever, so even for another hundred years.
But, although I personally do think that global warming exists, this knowledge must not have contributed in my opinion. I do think, contrary to Michael, that this statistic, for such a short period of time, does not prove anything...
But in my opinion there is enough evidence for a nurse who specializes in warming up.
In any case, scientists still haven't succeeded in dispelling the skeptics' opinions, and I'm not so sure about most scientists either, where did this figure come from?
Lior, two things
First, the issue of reduction - that is, drawing conclusions from the particular to the general is the essence of science. If you deny this ability, it's practically impossible to explore anything.
Second - although not with the same degree of accuracy as a direct measurement of temperature, it is certainly possible to estimate what the average temperature was in each season based on all kinds of things in nature that grow from year to year - animal remains, tree trunks, chemical analysis of the ice cores from ice core drilling in the polar regions and more. We are in the warm period for tens of thousands of years and not just in the last two hundred years.
And Noam, yes, why not call alchemy a science?
And just because they did experiments and discovered other things by mistake doesn't make it science? Science lacks discoveries that were discovered by "mistake." A large part of science is based on experimentation, wonder and error. Just because you know things they didn't know prevents them from being scientists? And just because the definition of Science was not defined yet?
And if the child is not called by his name, he is not the same child.?
And Michael then what if the mind was ignorant and then what if they thought the world was flat? And then what if everyone who dared to investigate was denounced and punished.
Did it prevent people from mapping the stars they did see? And the parts of the country that were known?
you say
"There were some people who deserved - to some extent - the title of "scientists" even in the days of ancient Greece. They did not engage in experiments but at least they knew how to draw conclusions based on observations" They did not engage in experiments. A moment ago we concluded that science is a method of gathering knowledge about the world through experimental observation and inference -experiment-.
So it was true that you were in a very dark period for science.
But science has always existed even with only a small...
Anyway, we continue to talk on two levels..
I understood the principle you are trying to explain a long time ago
But I claim all the time that it is simply not related
I will try again since you are talking about a different line than mine
Someone would not have known in advance that a nuclear war could destroy the world. It would make sense that after one day of such a war he would be able to reach the correct conclusion - that an atomic war destroys the world - and this even if one day is a joke compared to the age of the world. Even if he has no idea how The atomic bomb works from a direction that is clear to him, because he saw for himself that it is the one that causes destruction.
In other words - if he had rejected the conclusion based on my argument, he would have made a fatal mistake and that means it is a wrong argument.
What I am trying to explain is that my claim in this case is not related at all.
What would he say??
Hey, it is not proven to me that a nuclear war can destroy the world because only one day has passed and it is not destroyed!
So you would answer him - you idiot, you saw what a nuclear bomb does. Ten more of these and there is no world!
Right? So far is it agreed?
Now to us - you're telling me, you idiot, don't you understand that the warming (like the atomic bomb) will still destroy the ball and it doesn't matter how old it is??
So I say, you wise man, indeed if there is warming that shouldn't be, I agree with you that it is destructive regardless of the age of the world!!! Just a small thing. Come on, prove to me that it exists at all (compared to the bomb, we both agree that it exists)
And based on 200 years, you cannot prove that it exists in a way that deviates from the system, that is, it is probable, and there is evidence that it is a natural increase in temperature..and your 200 year statistics prove nothing..and certainly it cannot prove that the greenhouse gases are to blame..
For example, a child sees an erupting volcano and runs to tell his friend
Hi, this is the end of the world. The mountain has been erupting for 5 years. I've been alive and it has never erupted.. The end of the world for sure.
His grandfather comes and says calm down.. For 90 years I have seen the mountain erupt every 6 years. It's natural, my son.
Kafish, what is my point? The principle you are trying to explain, and which I also agree with, has nothing to do with the topic. He was related to it being proven that the warming is caused by greenhouse gases in any form.
But the 200 years cannot be used as this proof.
Go away, Lior, in my opinion there is no point in continuing the debate.
Science is indeed defined as you said and whoever is known as the father of this definition is Popper.
Only in the days of Galileo did they start working according to this definition.
They did not do this throughout the Middle Ages, and therefore in the period you spoke of there were no scientists.
The worldviews that prevailed at that time were based on faith and the canonization of the words of some Greek philosophers. Anyone who dared to investigate was denounced and punished.
There were some people who deserved - to some extent - the title of "scientists" even in the days of ancient Greece. They did not engage in an experiment, but at least they knew how to draw conclusions based on observations (for example, Orthosthenes who calculated the radius of the earth even before BC and before the dark and completely science-free period of the Middle Ages when they did think that the earth was flat while ignoring the existence of the horizon line).
The word "science", as well as the word Science - probably did not exist in the Middle Ages (I was not able to trace the historical process of the formation of these words).
When you want to explain a principle, you must base yourself on something that is acceptable to the person you are explaining the same principle to.
The fact that nuclear bombs can destroy the world is known to you and accepted by you, but your argument about the age of the world does not become relevant because of that, because even if someone did not know in advance that a nuclear war could destroy the world, it would make sense that after one day of such a war, he would be able to reach the correct conclusion, and that too If one day is a joke compared to the age of the world.
In other words - if he had rejected the conclusion based on your argument, he would have made a fatal mistake and that means it is a wrong argument.
as mentioned. It is hard for me to believe that you will be convinced even though I do not have the slightest doubt that my arguments are strong.
Lior,
The scientific method, on which science is based, is indeed defined and clear, and not so ancient.
There were quite a few discoveries even thousands of years ago, but this was not science.
Example: the alchemists who tried to turn various substances into gold discovered quite a few phenomena in the process, but I guess you wouldn't claim that alchemy was a science...
You say things in general like "science has a definition and it is not possible for someone in the future to claim that nowadays there was no science" and you don't explain and claim that you explained. Then I have to come and explain..like for example what is the definition of science etc.
Like the examples you gave..hey this is not Fair. Claim something and explain why and how..
Science is a method of gathering knowledge about the world through observation, experiment and systematic inference
Well, believe me, even then they already knew something about the world, even though they still thought it was round.. and they had already invented the wheel..
You could argue that we knew less, but not that there was no science.. It's definitely a relative matter.
And I am absolutely convinced that I am convinced. Provided that convincing things are explained to me.
You did give examples but you did not explain how they can be compared to the subject in a scientific way.
Bringing examples of proven catastrophes and comparing them to an issue that is not clearly proven to be a catastrophe and to prove it as a catastrophe is definitely related to the age of the world
Compared to an asteroid which is an external factor that is not related to the Earth system, this is a foreign body that comes from outside.
And by the way - Lior - science has a definition and it cannot be possible that someone in the future will claim that nowadays there was no science.
They will be able to claim that we knew less, but not that there was no science. It's not a relative matter at all.
Lior:
I am convinced that you are invincible.
I explained (including examples) why the age of the world reasoning is not relevant.
You have no reason to support that it is indeed relevant, but - more importantly - you have no reason to claim that you understand the subject better than most experts in it. In my opinion, this is a foolish pretension that requires a considerable amount of audacity to maintain it. I wouldn't say this if you were an expert on the subject, but you are not.
Well, it may very well be that in 100 years they will say that today is a time when there was no science yet. Everything is relative..
And in my opinion, the reasoning of the age of the world is important...after all, maybe it was warmer 300 years ago? And because you can decide that the increase in heat in this way is not normal for the earth based on 200 years while it has existed much, much longer?
I'm a global warming denier, and I'm still not convinced
Lior:
As you talked about reasoning about the age of the world which is not relevant, so you talk about most scientists in a time when there was no science yet.
As I said - I am not an expert on the subject and I think that a person has only two logical options: one is to be an expert and the other is to accept the opinion of the majority of experts. Any other way does not make sense and it seems to me that you are taking one of the other ways.
Oops sorry.
I concluded that I don't argue...
That is, in the diagram above, we don't see how the graph goes down.
Oh and I wanted to add that you said that "this is the purpose of the current study and it provides some confirmation for the claim that the emission of greenhouse gases is indeed a method that works well." Well no... I did not find any confirmation in the article for the claim that the emission of greenhouse gases is indeed a method that works well.
But on second glance I found the opposite confirmation. You will notice that oops.. they forgot to include the last 8 years in the research..
With this attitude, then indeed you are right. And I will not argue with you on the subject.
But what, I have a different approach.
I will not accept the opinion of any "majority" not even of scientists.. as long as it is not based on well-founded claims and especially that the well-founded claims tend in the other direction. At one time most scientists also said that the world is flat..
Lior:
But that's just the point.
If we wait for the world to be destroyed to be convinced that the method works we will achieve nothing.
That's why you need to check before the world is destroyed.
This is the purpose of the present study and it provides some confirmation to the claim that the emission of greenhouse gases is indeed a method that works well.
As mentioned - the age of the world is not relevant, just as it will not be relevant in the midst of a nuclear war.
Already at the beginning of my words I said that I refer to your argument regardless of the article itself.
I am not an expert on the subject and in scientific subjects in which I do not specialize I have no reason not to accept the opinion of the majority of scientists. Maybe they are wrong and maybe not, but even if they are wrong, their mistake has nothing to do with the age of the world.
First of all thank you!
Hahaha what a healthy laugh that was..I enjoyed reading.
Well, for our purposes - where is the method? I mean, as far as I understand, for the time being, Abhad has not really been able to prove that this "method" is indeed a "method".
On the other hand, asteroid, arson, nuclear war and other methods that you brought as examples are effective "methods" that are clearly proven to cause destruction.
Lior:
If you don't see the similarity, you probably didn't understand.
Let's go even closer - maybe here it will be difficult for you to miss the similarity.
Suppose there is a nuclear world war that lasts 10 days and destroys the world.
Only you, me, and my father Blizovsky remain and since there is no internet we meet at the ruins of an internet cafe and you tell us that ten days is too short a period in relation to the age of the world and it is too early to determine when the war that destroyed it was.
You know what - it's even more similar: we start discussing the matter at an earlier stage - at the end of the first day of the war (we still have internet) and someone says that this war is destroying the world and needs to be stopped. You tell him to calm down because what is one day compared to the age of the world.
There are many ways to destroy the world.
Some of them are as effective as nuclear war and some are a little less.
Their effect on the world must be measured after a period that is proportional to the time estimated to take to destroy the world by this method and not in relation to the age of the world.
Simply, as we know, it is much easier to destroy than to build.
I really won't say..
I understood the complements
But the parable is not the same as the parable in the two examples.
I really didn't think you wouldn't understand.
I'll give you an example that requires less imagination.
Let's say we find out that sometime in the past an asteroid fell on the earth which, together with its effects on the climate, caused the destruction of a large part of the life on earth.
Suppose it turns out that this effect was achieved during ten years of "nuclear winter" that asteroid inflicted on Earth.
Even then, will you say that ten years is nothing?
Come on, explain your example to me..
Forest = Earth
Lighters = air pollution (?)
burns = heats up (?)
For a forest to grow, 40 years is enough, therefore tracking from 1880 is also enough...and you also have many forests to track. excellent.
How old is the earth? And after how many "igniting" earths have you already managed to follow?
And it's really true that warming was also detected on the neighboring planets, and there I didn't see humans causing the warming.
Therefore it is likely that the same "ignition" that causes the warming of Mars causes the "ignition" of the Earth.
As in the forests, the kindling that burns them comes from the same fire.
When a forest is burned, it has no problem growing again, and with the gooks that grew in the forest, they were burned for good, and usually it was not they who caused the fire, but an external source.
Lior:
Regardless of the article itself, imagine that it turns out in an experiment that if you set fire to a forest, it burns.
Imagine that lighting the forest takes 10 seconds.
Even then will your response be that "10 seconds is a joke in terms of the age of the world"?
And if 10 seconds is too extreme, imagine that from 1880 until today they would monitor and see that every time they set fire to a forest it burned - would you react exactly as you reacted here?
Since 1880…
A joke in terms of age of the world.
Like a doctor who will examine a patient for 5 minutes and base statistics on it..
With the melting of the glaciers at the poles, why is the water level not rising all over the world (it is known that there are "local rises" such as in New Orleans, Venice, etc., is the additional amount of water marginal?
Second question - if the glaciers melt, it is likely that microorganisms that were locked in the ice for a long time are released, is there any information about new strains?
To the editor of "Hidan" - commenter 2, Mr. Blizovsky, hello
Calling the school of global warming skeptics "deniers" is a clearly anti-scientific approach.
Such an approach - let's call it by its name, "gagging" - is accepted in a certain kind of public discourse, such as in politics and public speaking.
But not in science. Skepticism is to science as air is to breathing. It is the engine that promotes science, not the other way around.
If it weren't for the criticism of the warming-due-to-industrialization theory, would all the "cracks" in it be investigated? wonder And if in the meantime these cracks were "filled", was the theory strengthened or weakened because of that?
If a scientific school has no answers to the arguments of its skeptics, it is better that it improve the theories and base them on observations and measurements - and not "deal" with them with ad hominem attacks.
Not so, when it comes to a chaotic and data-deficient field (there are no direct measurements of any kind from before the 19th century) such as climate research.
About a scientist who has degenerated into defending theories through public relations, appealing to consensus, and the like is a beautiful article Shakespeare methinks she protesteth too much.
And about the danger that the consensus will be evidenced by the inaccuracy in the article, thus: "Our research ... constitutes an agreement with the results of the IPCC according to which the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is the factor mainly responsible for most of the global warming".
This type of statistical study cannot "constitute agreement" with greenhouse gas emissions as responsible for anything. At the most, he is "consistent" with her (is in full agreement - as the source says). That is, if it is proven that the warmest years since 1990 are a statistical anomaly (based on 130 years of measurement?) then it is *possible* that the greenhouse gases are causing it - among other things.
But those who know the answers in advance are exempt from being picky, aren't they?
in light of:
You will agree with me that statistics usually cannot "repel the argument of the skeptics" and in such a short term it cannot repel any argument related to geology.
If scientists want to refute arguments, there is only one way to do it with the help of science, with the help of proofs and not with the help of trying to interpret the behavior of nature by guesswork.
The title is incorrect and misleading!
For the unsatisfied supplier:
Although there were no humans 130 million years ago to measure temperatures, it is possible to know about ancient temperatures in indirect ways, for example by studying ice cores in glaciers up to the poles and by various geological methods.
On a geological scale, the Earth actually cools and does not heat up. So much so, that in the Mesozoic era (the era of the dinosaurs) there was no ice at the poles at all, not even in winter. Furthermore, billions of years ago the Earth was too hot to support life.
In any case, this trend is not what we are talking about here. This is a shorter-term trend, and this trend also shows a warming *after deducting the effect of sunspots* of KDA in the last two hundred years.
to pamper Not true.
Watch Al Gore's film and you will realize that someone here is misleading the media that spreads the rumor you quoted as if it were fact.
He checked the state of the scientific articles and the articles in the popular press. If I remember correctly, while in the articles he examined over 900, and all of them supported the issue of warming caused by human activity for a time ratio of over half of those who believe the opposite in the press Popular.
To the best of my knowledge, those "skeptics" number a very large and respected group of tens of thousands of scientists from around the world.
Was this detail 'left out' when the title of the article was written?
In total there are 2 schools of thought here. A group of scientists who support and a group of scientists who refute.
The mere presentation of the title in this way, in itself, presents the situation in an inaccurate light.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
"Scientists managed to repel the skeptics' argument": statistics never prove anything. If man had lived during the ice age, all nature lovers (including me) would have blamed man for the extreme weather changes.
Just because we are sure that the blood is not related to the ice ages, we find other theories for it.
Now, even though I'm pretty sure man is connected to warming, I still have a lot of doubt…
It could very well be that if they had taken into account the last 30 million years (and not the last 130 years) maybe the statistics would show something different...
Unfortunately, this was impossible precisely because there was no one to measure the temperature at the time...
Although I completely agree that greenhouse gases are a factor in warming
the global (see the planet Venus), it should be remembered that there are other factors,
They are strong too; Some surfers may remember how the volcano erupted
Pintobo in 1991 for two very rainy winters (Elon roads were flooded twice),
But how many remember that the temperature according to the earth 11000 years ago,
made it possible to cross the Bering Strait on the ice and revealed the land connection between
Tasmania to Australia? - I want to say that apparently there is natural warming
of the atmosphere over the years - therefore it is easy for "skeptics" to make their voices heard.
The natural warming is also the reason, in my opinion, for any attempt to stop the increase
At temperatures that will only be summed up in an attempt to stop the increase in the amount of gas emissions
The greenhouse - will not achieve its goal.
Well done !
Humans only understand fear and need someone to scare them a little! If through understanding and maturity we do not succeed in bringing about a change, maybe fear will make them recycle, protect the environment and green energy.
The next step is to launch a campaign that links gas stations and polluting factories with cancer,
Something that will make people want change and push leaders to drastic measures.
Maybe we'll even invent a new epidemic that affects those who throw away plastic.
To the complainer, you are mixing up two unrelated things. Carbon dioxide is not a poisonous gas. It is even produced in the body in huge quantities and exhaled. It indirectly causes morbidity due to phenomena that are the result of global warming. Of course, in addition to carbon dioxide, toxic gases are emitted, these should be stopped.
And isn't the enormous morbidity they suffer as a result of the infection a good enough reason to stop the infection?
Isn't this a reason in itself?
Do we also need proof of the destruction of DHA from a climatic point of view in order to stop the madness of air pollution?
Higgs:
I try to write the long comments in a word processor and only then copy them to the website.
This helps both to reduce the amount of spelling errors and to deal with situations like the one you describe.
The server is not under a missile attack, but under a spam attack, in which it is connected to software that detects spam and tries to fight it, but it rarely has ports. By the way, I didn't see your comment among the comments waiting for approval, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Another possibility - that you mistakenly clicked on delete instead of OK.
Avi Blizovsky
Say is the server under missile attack or something?
I wrote a comment and it just flew away and evaporated, a total waste of time.
to the little brother Evolution deniers is a fairly common concept. Secondly, evolution takes place, and for the sake of it, it doesn't matter how life began the first time (and apparently, after all, replicating RNA could have reached a similar result, because what comes from the comets are the amino acids, which are the components of RNA and DNA and not these complex molecules themselves.
As for the campaign around the hole in the ozone - it was not excessive. Indeed in the southern continents there is an increase in skin cancer cases.
The apparent internal motive is repeated feeding, as explained at the end of the article. However, they have no argument with me, I am not one of the global warming deniers. In my opinion, even those who claim that the source is natural, should agree that we need to do something about greenhouse gases, at least not to add to what nature allegedly caused.
This article has the famous graph of the temperature measurement. Look at him.
This is a measurement. Let's assume we're not arguing with her right now.
You can see with your eyes and no word or method is needed to confirm the fact that the slope in the last hundred years is positive. If that's what the scientists wanted to do with Monte Carlo, fine. Don't know why anyone would want to waste their time to ramble countless hours about what one look says without a word. There is warming. And what about that? who is in charge? "It is likely that there is an external motive that causes this." What is an external spread? And as opposed to an external one, what would be an internal motive for example?
For commenter #2,
The purpose of the discourse about global warming is to convince the general public. It seems that governments and economic entities are proving themselves to be conservative and interested in preserving the status quo, so the pressure to preserve the environment seems to have to come above their heads. It should be an intelligent persuasion backed by data and research and not a forceful judgment that only achieves the opposite result.
Nir alludes to Henrik Svensmark's research on the effect of cosmic rays on the Earth's climate - this is legitimate research by legitimate researchers.
It is possible that the campaign around the hole in the ozone was premature and excessive, so today the skeptics are allowed to be a little more careful. Environmentalists can also be more cautious.
Your claim regarding evolution deniers is also too extreme in my opinion (did you choose the word deniers on the weight of 'Holocaust deniers'?). It is certainly possible that an alien spaceship crashed on Earth and we are the descendants of the survivors. If there is a God, then it is certainly possible that humans are his creatures. Evolution says and proves that there is also another possibility: that there was one 'ancestor' and given enough time for natural changes, all the animals and plants could be created in God without the intervention of an external factor. There is a current theory that claims that the elements of life (and the gods of life themselves) came to Earth from outer space, samples from the STARDUST space mission strengthened the plausibility of this claim.
Want to say - knowledge / research and debate are not invalid and are not 'denying'. They are the search for truth itself.
If we take other statistics such as the erosion of the value of the currency, the obesity figures in the US,
World population density data,
http://www.env.go.jp/en/wpaper/1994/eae230005000001.gif
Global warming data from a website http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/
Even the figures for the rate of autism in the world
http://www.buildingbridgesconference.com/images/Autismnocgraph.png
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/images/figure-2.gif
There is a common denominator in all of them and it is a sharp upward trend at the end of the previous decade.
Is everything related to each other? Are we approaching TRESHHOLD?
I would not compare the theory of evolution with the "theory" of global warming. One is proven by thousands of observations compared to the other which is still in the stages of research (it is clear to me that all the believers of global warming will jump, but we see from the collected studies that there is much more to know) and it should not be stated in such an unequivocal way that the global warming and its causes have been discovered and are 100% clear.
A reservation is allowed when there is still so much to explore.
I don't think anyone thinks it's a coincidence
The question is who influences man or nature
Even if there is warming due to PADH or cosmic radiation there will be the same results.
The study shows that the situation is not due to a pertubation disorder, even with this nature it is not a disorder and it is not accidental.
It is still necessary to maintain caution, because an increase in temperature in any form causes diseases, loss of money, etc.
So green energy is still more important than ever!!!!!
Let's say that the word skeptics itself is a compromise, these are the global warming deniers, who just like the evolution deniers are not skeptics but deniers.
The model came to try to examine whether it is a random sequence or whether the earth is really in a warming trend and they proved it. Logic says that the warming is due to what everyone understands today - the emission of greenhouse gases as a result of human activity.
"Scientists managed to repel the argument of the skeptics:" is the headline
Then the rebuttal of the skeptics' arguments receives the overwhelming answer:
"They came to the conclusion that it is more likely that there is an external motive that causes this"
I have yet to be repulsed by the calculated likelihood of a sophisticated model.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar