In recent decades, the North Pole has been warming at twice the rate and speed of the average global warming, the last five years have been the warmest since the measurements began, and yet, the deniers of the warming are doing their best
A conference was held in Copenhagen (Denmark) that dealt with the dramatic melting of the ice in the North Pole and the countries of the world's reluctance to act to prevent the melting.
The authoritative report written by 400 scientists and published following the conference shows that the melting of the glaciers in the North Pole will add up to 150 cm to the sea level rise by the end of this century, much higher than previous predictions.
According to the report, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) is a scientific body established by eight countries that touch the North Pole.
In recent decades, the North Pole has been warming at a rate and speed twice the average global warming, the last five years have been the warmest since measurements began (in the 19th century). The report emphasizes the urgent need for action to prevent global warming while the nations are immersed/stuck in talks on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, talks that have been going on for two decades.
The World Bank delegate to the conference said: "The report is a cause for concern", since it is clear that the world is not doing enough to prevent climate change, the rise in sea levels will affect millions, in rich and poor countries alike, but will mainly harm the world's poor, many of whom live in low-lying areas and do not have the resources to adapt According to the messenger, the bank's tests showed that the destruction of infrastructure and damage to the economy following floods will cost billions of dollars.
An expert on ocean currents from the Faeroe Islands said that one of the problems is the unwillingness of scientists to draw conclusions with 100% certainty, which undermines public safety and gives policymakers a window of opportunity for inaction.
A scientist from Colorado goes on to say that this lack gives, in the hands of parties who oppose curbing the wild use of fossil fuel, the basis to make the public doubt the need to stop the offensive waste.
At a follow-up meeting in Finland, the report (A.M.A.P.) will be submitted to the US Secretary of State and the foreign ministers of: Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Russia.
In order for the report to be accepted and understood by the general public and especially by policy makers, the scientists who describe their conclusions were asked to speak clearly, that is, to use simple words without too many details, since focusing on many details obscures and obscures the basic scientific picture, simply: when emitting more Greenhouse gas for the ball heats up.
In order to reach all levels of society, the researchers must explain the melting of the polar ice caps in simple terms. The researchers must stop and speak in code, for example: instead of saying "anthropogenic" one should say "caused by man",
It is hoped that the recipients of the report will understand that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment!
84 תגובות
I would be satisfied with the official position of all the national academies (United States, Great Britain...), the American Physical Society APS, the largest scientific organization in the world, AAAS and its journal SCIENCE, the weekly NATURE, and of course the list could be continued... for example the article by Naomi Orseks who reviewed the scientific press and Find a single article that denies anthropogenic climate change
The denial of reality is similar to other denials (vaccines, or a connection between the HIV virus and AIDS) so the subject of AIDS is still in scientific debate (as I imagine there is even a Nobel laureate in medicine among the deniers) but we will see which of the deniers will give up anti-AIDS drugs if God forbid they are found to be infected with the virus.
The link leads to Michael Shermer's article on denial and deniers
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER - The Scientific Consensus Climate Change
SCIENCE 2004 -Naomi Oreskes
post Scriptum. The amount of land ice in Antarctica is decreasing, a process that is expected to accelerate due to the weakening of the ozone hole
My sincere apologies to Dr. Rosenthal for thinking for a moment that these were his responses. By the style I understand that response 65 is not his either.
Is there a way to stop writing comments under names
Fakes, "pseudonyms", or impersonations?
Dan Shamir:
Your answer is correct.
longitudinal:
Your words are wrong, but since the explanation for your error was already given before you wrote your comments, I see no point in repeating things.
Archie (76),
Save us. Do the experiment or at least watch the video and then talk.
post Scriptum. There is a difference between volume and volume (?!?!).
Asaf, you are not serious. You are a doctor, why exactly? Or is it not the same Asaf (the author of the news)?
Those who want to rely on Archimedes must do the experiment correctly,
so as to suit the conditions of the field,
In the area of Nishait, a glacier "peeks" above the water, therefore the correct experiment is:
Put eight ice cubes in a glass, fill the glass with water, add one ice cube…..
See it's a miracle the water is flowing!
A distinction must be made between weight and volume
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/חוק_ארכימדס
See, someone even did it for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbQRyt0zfyw
Archie (73),
"Ninth to add to the volume of water". You are wrong. Unequivocal, unequivocally and there is no debate about it. You can prove this yourself in 5 minutes, without any understanding of physics, as someone already suggested (response 14):
"Take a glass, drop an ice cube into it (to simulate the glaciers), fill it to the brim with water (to simulate the sea), and wait for the temperature to rise (global warming or not?)
If the water spills over the edge of the glass, hurry and report to all of us."
A nice experiment for the whole family that you can do with your children. Just before you do it with your children, you should still go through Archimedes' law, because what to do, they are curious and will surely ask you "why?", and then you will be disappointed.
To Michael
I loved the puzzle
On the boat, the rocks repel an amount of water equal to their weight, and after we throw them into the water, they will repel an amount of water equal to their volume = less than their weight and the water level will drop.
To all the "physicists",
The specific gravity of ice is lower than that of water, therefore icebergs float with one-ninth of their volume outside the water,
A ninth to add to the volume of water,
Add to that all the glaciers that specialize in islands and cover them
And even Archimedes won't help.
Dos Reformi (69),
Thanks for the interview. The last paragraph reflects one by one what I think - are we causing it? I don't know, and I don't think it can be determined with reasonable certainty at this point, but I'm glad we're counting.
One last thing to collect
The essence of the motto "Controlling the human population for the sake of the environment!" is not clear to me.
I would appreciate it if you could clarify your meaning in this sentence
Some notes:
First of all, about the "opponents of global warming" (Haimka Ron & Co.) it is important to understand that the vast majority of scientists (as of today) believe that global warming is a fact and is caused by humans.
Second, the "supporters of global warming" (my father, the humblest of all and writing these lines) must understand that the issue is still under scientific debate. Even if the majority (as of today) supports their position, this does not suggest that this position is correct. The science of climate research is a relatively young and very complicated science. As someone who deals with another young and complicated science (finance) I can testify how far we are from a complete understanding of the processes in this science. From my (more superficial) knowledge of climate science I conclude that they are in a fairly similar situation. I am afraid that sayings such as "there is no debate as in evolution there is no debate" do not reflect reality.
Thirdly and most importantly, I suggest that Haimka and Co. concentrate on the words of Dr. Simpson on the steps to be taken. It should be noted that despite her skepticism about the issue, she is willing to adopt the steps recommended by Al Gore. This is because if it turns out that the "supporters of global warming" are right, the catastrophe could be terrible. I have a hard time with how a rational person (who is not funded by the oil companies) can object to this statement. Even if the probability that the scientists' predictions will come true is relatively low (say 10%), we must act to prevent this risk.
Last thing, I apologize for the errors I have from time to time in Hebrew. Staying outside the borders of our country improves my ability to communicate in English, unfortunately this improvement has a price in the form of a slow but constant deterioration of my Hebrew.
The first name in Chaimka's response (51) Joanne Simpson Dr. is very interesting because it is a famous climate scientist who recently passed away. I found an interview with her on the Internet from 2008 which (in my opinion) can be learned a lot from:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/
Due to the importance of the article, I decided to translate most of it - below are the things:
"Since I am not affiliated with any organization or receiving funding from any source, I can speak about the issue (global warming) freely. In the last decade "global warming" and its effects became the main arena of interface between earth scientists and the general public. A large group of scientists claimed that there is a consensus among almost all climate scientists that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the planet. These scientists predict that the ice at the poles will melt and lead to widespread flooding and devastating results along the Earth's coasts.
There is no doubt that greenhouse gas emissions are on an unprecedented scale. There is also no doubt that there is some warming. At the same time, the scientists' forecast depends on the correctness of the weather forecasting models. These models are fragile as can be learned from weather forecasts.
A small and vocal group of scientists refuse to accept the models and data and claim that "global warming" is a conspiracy. They held press interviews in which they accused other scientists of fraud. Both sides are now engaged in personal slander and mutual mudslinging. The situation is so dire that one scientist accused another scientist of being a "petrified brain" while the slandered scientist called the scientists on the other side of the fence the Gang of Five (translator's note: I assume this refers to an extreme right-wing forum by that name). Both sides have lost skepticism and self-criticism, even though their claims are based on faulty models, imperfect data, or both.
In this situation, what are countries supposed to do? We must operate under imperfect information. In this case we must adopt the steps proposed by Al Gore and the climate scientists. The reason for this is that if we don't act and these people are right the Earth may not be able to support a large scale human population in a hundred years. But as a scientist I remain skeptical..."
The level of conversation here by Ganon, instead of me understanding what the arguments are about the topic of the article, I understand the ego of people who want to be right. And for this I recommend to all of you that whoever argues with a fool ends up descending to the level of his conversation
Assaf (65),
I don't believe there is anyone here who thinks your articles are sponsored. You have your reasons for writing what you write. You are probably doing this for ideological reasons and you believe in your practice. However, Al Gore, in contrast to you, makes very good money from the trend towards which he is pushing (but it is possible that he, like you, believes in his practice wholeheartedly). I am personally very happy about this, for the reason that Al Gore and the foundation he heads (along with Bill Gates and many other good guys) recently invested a very, very respectable amount in an Israeli company on this very subject and I have a very great interest in this company succeeding and receiving additional investments from him in the future.
To summarize: you (Assaf) don't see a penny from it. Al Gore is sure to make a lot of money out of it.
One and only, there is no real debate, just like there is no debate about evolution, the debates are in the general media and not in the scientific media - which is the deciding factor and that is what is needed.
Gentlemen
To avoid misunderstandings,
To make it clear to all responders what they are causing
In order to thank (and confess), I wanted to make it clear that: I searched and found the "donor" who "pays" me,
For every time my list contains the words climate change or global warming,
In the same way, I "get paid" even when the words appear in the comments,
In other words, the "contributor" "pays" me for this response as well
Therefore, anyone whose financial situation is in the forefront of their mind is encouraged to respond,
preferably in meaningless text,
That way there might be an appropriate answer/reaction for at least some of the respondents,
And so there will be an incentive to continue working on the subject.
That way I will earn and you will have an incentive to spread.... Vanities!
Blizovsky - I respect the site and its intentions and therefore say one last thing. In my opinion, if the welfare of the students is in front of your eyes in the context of the purity of science, you should let them know that there is a sharp debate about the facts on the subject.
For my part, the debate only added to my knowledge. And I'm sure he will do the same for the students.
Nicknames like "liar" have no place in the debate, just like the phrase "scientific drudgery"...
Assaf (61),
I wonder why you thought this would interest me. For the avoidance of doubt - it is not.
My father (59),
Your comments do not add respect to you.
Your eye-opening comment about Greenland is an unsuccessful attempt to whitewash your responses 6 and 15.
As for the second half of your response, I understand from the rhetoric that you demand to present the warming as man-made as a solid and indisputable fact. From this I conclude that your opinion on the subject is completely consolidated. I will bless you.
That is, you are sure of the origin of the phenomenon - global warming originates from man. I personally think that the subject is very, very complex, and the many researchers who deal with it do not see the whole picture and do not take into account all its components. They may not even be aware of them all. On this topic - it's interesting that you specifically chose gravity as an example. Do you know that until 1916 everyone was sure there was gravity? In 1916 Einstein presented the principle of equivalence of general relativity which stated that there is no such force. The presence of matter distorts the space-time and as a result the bodies move in the trajectories in which they move.
I mean, even a seemingly trivial subject like gravity has turned out to be more complicated than thousands of counters assumed before 1916. But on a much more complex subject, you are for some reason, absolutely sure of your opinion, which is evident that you have formulated it with great effort, so much so that you allow yourself to speak to people with such disdain .
To be honest? I was disappointed.
To Adi, Chaimka and others
For your interest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110523/wl_asia_afp/australiaweatherclimateenvironment;_ylt=AmrF7Gdlk2TzOnBq8fcBi8QPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTM4MW5zbm9lBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDExMDUyMy9hdXN0cmFsaWF3ZWF0aGVyY2xpbWF0ZWVudmlyb25tZW50BHBvcwM2BHNlYwN5bl9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDc2VhbGV2ZWxzc2V0
Chaimka:
Since all your words are a smokescreen of lies, nonsense and demagoguery - I will only grasp the last sentence you wrote in response 51: "It is possible to argue." But you have to be decent."
You do not meet this condition in the slightest, so I will not devote any more time to you.
The main problem is in Greenland, and besides you have the right not to have an opinion about warming. It is allowed for people to have no opinion about the force of gravity either, but it does not change the fact in both cases.
My father (response 6):
Regarding your words: "The melting water becomes part of the water of the sea. What floats is the rest of the ice." I see that the basic physics of Archimedes' law has already been explained to you. Can you now answer Michal's riddle (answer 16)?
The reason I am so venomous is of course the following sentence directed at me:
"Is the head of the deniers so closed off that they disrupt even Archimedes' law?"
No, my father, the situation is exactly the opposite, and what happened here is that you misrepresented yourself.
I do not deny warming. I actually have no opinion on the matter, and have stated so many times (on this site, so I can even provide links to it).
Every now and then I try to read and open Dr. Rosenthal's column article. As usual in the holy place, I find 0 information and the same babbling slogans along the lines of "The time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment!".
I presented a real problem that exists with the only piece of information that was in the article. But your head is so opaque that you see anyone who doesn't shout "warming up!" Denies, and disrupts even Archimedes' law to suit your needs.
One and the same, indeed you behave like ultra-Orthodox, the truth is of no interest to you and it is enough for the Rabbis to say that other rabbis say so for it to convince you. This does not convince me because the scientific evidence from satellites and ground measurements speaks for itself. And it's not me who needs to be convinced, but the scientific journals, and as far as I've read Science and Nature, they don't say anything else. The deniers should publish their arguments there according to the scientific method and not in the Senate committee. I have yet to see a senator with a degree in climatology.
Chaimka, the instruction of another truth to bully here came to me this far. Either stop on your own, or get blocked. Students who enter here do not need to see that there are those who think that the world can be destroyed without calculation and that this is supposedly a debate.
If you're not the troublemaker Ron yourself, then he sent you to us. And that's the end of your part on this site.
R.H. Rafai.M
You emphatically state:
"It is enough that you have lived in Israel for the past year to know that this year there was almost no rain"
This is clearly not true, this year's winter was longer:
Half a million cubic meters of water were deliberately released into the sea from the reservoirs because they overflowed from the April rains this year
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4056286,00.html
The "consensus" is that there has been a global warming of 0.1 degrees per decade in the last hundred years.
Do you want to tell me that you felt them? What is this nonsense?
If you were pumped into your head every day that there is cooling, you would tell me emphatically
That "dogs are cold in Jerusalem.. and don't talk to me about data".
The big fight is over whether the warming is caused by man - most of the scientists
Those who open their mouths say directly that this is bullshit - pseudoscience in the name of a political agenda.
There is a small minority in positions of power who push the idea and the rest of the scientists simply prefer to remain silent -
They are nice in the workplace and just don't want trouble.
And if you think the proof that there is no warming is: because climatologists say so
So I'm sorry to disappoint you but this is only proof that you don't understand.
(So please don't attach links if you intend to answer me).
She smiled
I still don't understand why "there is no warming".
I can understand why "there is warming", I also see evidence for this.
But why "no warming"? Do you have evidence for this, or is your only evidence links that quote other people who say "there is no warming"?
Anyway, maybe you (a well-known local climatologist) could explain to me why in the last decade (albeit not continuously) there is less rain every year? (It is enough that you have lived in Israel for the past year to know that this year there was almost no rain).
By the way, how did you decide that 31000 is the majority? How many scientists are there in the US, do you know?
I don't understand this religious and ultra-Orthodox piety that you had regarding warming up.
Blizovsky - you are simply contradicting yourself if you block opinions that are contrary to yours and call them lies and more on a site that claims to be "scientific" and to tell the "truth"...
The debate with you is similar to the debate with ultra-Orthodox... very disappointing and sad...
Let's get down to the details:
They are the majority of the 31 thousand and you have personal signatures here and not something vague.
And the lists you brought from Wikipedia also hardly talk about climatologists and the IPCC is also not mostly climatologists.
You'll see that the American Climatological Society doesn't say yes or no.
It is especially interesting how the academies of the various sciences issued a statement without letting their members vote at all.
It's all political. (And therefore, of course, there is the document of 31 thousand signatures)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3
If you claim that there are no experts related to the climate issue in the list of 700, you are a liar.
Here are some examples:
Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA
Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha
Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the EPA's Science Advisory Board, served on a committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports
You can argue. But you have to be decent
By the way, the celebrated report is mentioned here:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/scepticAboutClimateChangeSceptics.php
a quote:
A US Senate Minority Report updated in March 2009 [5], claims more than 700 international scientists (note: not climate scientists) dissenting over global warming.
Chaimka:
I don't want to engage in consensus - the truth is more important to me.
You proved yourself a liar when you called the minority by the name of the majority.
Therefore - due to my desire to deal with the truth - I don't feel like messing with your statements.
I am not a climate scientist.
I'm sure you don't either.
As someone who is not a climate scientist, I adopt the opinion of the majority of climate scientists because unlike you - I am not gifted with the audacity that allows you, without being a climate scientist, to have an opinion that supports the opinion of the negligible minority among climate scientists and rejects the opinion of the majority
You want to mess with consensus - go be a politician.
In science what matters is the data.
And if it doesn't bother you that so many scientists warn here about Mirma.
The truth is not important to you.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In scientific consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, AB Anthropology, MD Harvard
And just to be clear, I am in favor of leaving mineral fuel.
Just don't lie about global warming.
If the site of the scientist really cares about the environment, maybe it's time for him to publish the cold melting device that he received a patent for this year, which begins serial production starting in October
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
By the way, Chaimka:
How is it that a body that calls its report Minority Report constitutes a majority in your opinion?
Do you think they are liars or is it just you?
Half of the US Senate are Republicans who deny global warming, they believe that the war on global warming is interfering with the American standard of living and they really don't care that the world is falling apart.
And please, if some false site doesn't want a lawsuit for the call to disrupt the discussions on the science site, stop the attack in every article that talks about the warming otherwise, I will simply block these articles for comments. The science site is not the place to spread lies,
You will probably have to block yourself.
You have quotes and names
And the complete PDF report has all the names and what they say.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
In addition to this, you also have links and testimonies about how scientists are "threatened" if they don't line up in institutions
And where is the big money?
Over 700, all of whom are not in the field.
The Hammists have no interests, because as you know, the money at $100 per barrel is with the tycoons and the sheikhs. Such lies are outrageous on some lie website and not on the science website. Next time - comments that appear in which intentional lies will be blocked.
A. Ben Ner:
In my opinion - except perhaps for the change from the "North Pole" to the "Arctic Circle" - the article said exactly what it meant.
According to what is written here: http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/faqs/ , the Himalayan glaciers have almost no quantitative significance (see Section 14).
To Michael
In my opinion, the article is flawed in the formulation of the true intention and the factual situation. The intention is to bribe
With the warming of the glaciers in the North Pole, more glaciers in the north are also melting
And especially the reference to the great glaciers in the Himalayas. Himalayan glaciers occupy by
Estimates that I have read, about 40% of the volume of fresh water on KDA. It is clear that you are on the rise
The surface of the seas is due to the melting of the continental glaciers. Another effect is the level increase
In the area of the equator and its descent precisely in the area of the poles.
Chaimka:
Are you trying to tell me that there are no more than 62 scientists in the entire US (and that includes bachelor's and master's degrees - there are only about 9000 doctors and that means there are no more than 18000 doctors in the entire US!)?
You made me laugh!
How many climate scientists do you know?
I really apologize for trusting Wikipedia that cites all the climate research institutions in the world more than some cuckoo petition.
The story with the financial interest is really a joke.
"Do you know how many budgets..."?
And where do the budgets come from?
After all, whoever budgets should earn more than what he budgets for, right?
So who pays in the end? Who is the party that will benefit from not selling fuel and how exactly does he benefit from this?
A hallucination is a hallucination is a hallucination.
Who benefits from selling fuel is really clear and has also been proven to support all the delusions you present.
When over 31 thousand scientists sign a petition that there is no science behind anthropogenic global warming
This is the majority.
When over 700 scientists from around the world put themselves on the list of the US Senate conference to declare that the above agenda is pseudoscientific
I'm listening.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html
The economic interest is in the Khammist camp - billions of dollars of funding.
And the pressure on scientists in institutions around the world to align with the system is great.
What has been proven is the deception of the Hammists.
A quote from one of Climategate's emails:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
– Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author (2001, 2007)
Chaimka:
Why should we believe a small group of people (who have already been proven - if not obvious - to have financial interests) more than the vast majority of the world's climate scientists?
Michael - thanks for the last link. Very useful.
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
Information about the glaciers about 1/3 down
Eran:
Your comment is misleading - it makes you think that there are no people who deny global warming.
If you read response 1 and response 29 you will see that this thought that your response causes is a wrong thought.
The things that are said in the article itself are also aimed - at least in part - at dealing with people who deny the very fact of warming and not just its cause.
And as for your claim regarding the causes of the warming, most climate scientists disagree with you, as you can read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Since the main theory offering a solar-dependent alternative to warming is that of Nir Shabiv, you might want to know the following:
On March 16, 2011, Professor Giora Shabib was hosted on the Galileo website.
He did this following the article he published in Galileo in which he described the theory of his son - Nir Shabiv, and explained why it is so successful.
Professor Giora Shabib is a world-renowned physicist, but that's it - he's a physicist and not a climate scientist.
I contacted Professor Pinchas Alpert from Tel Aviv University and asked him to join the discussion on the Galileo website.
He said it would be difficult to do so for technical reasons but gave me and the Galileo system a list of questions to present to Professor Giora Shabib.
The editor of the site did raise the questions and Gyura Shabiv tried to answer some of them.
The truth is that it was quite embarrassing because one of the questions describes findings that completely (but completely!) disprove the theory and Professor Shabib did not answer it until this writing.
Here is a link to that section of the discussion:
http://forums.ifeel.co.il/forum_posts.asp?TID=197629
And in relation to the question "Who will tolerate sea level rise more?" - This is a question of a number of people and not of a number of countries.
The 40 million evacuees expected in India dwarf what is expected in the United States.
See a link with serious information on the subject:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22099668/
This completely disproves your claim about the primary damages.
Iran - by the way, the first of the countries to suffer will be Bangladesh. There are (quiet) UN plans in collaboration with India to resettle the population that will be affected in the territories leased to India. This is about 3-15 million refugees. On the other hand, I wouldn't run out to buy floats right now...
Your title is misleading—it makes you think that people deny that global warming exists
Please change the title.
They are simply saying what true and accurate and empirically tested and proven science says.
Humans are not responsible or can be responsible for the temperatures ....we pollute ..destroy ..destroy and all these must change ...but we do not cause any warming.
And the greenhouse gases we allegedly added to the atmosphere amount to 0.00X the total atmosphere so please check the facts before making accusations.
The earth will heat up or cool down due to factors much more serious than us... first and foremost the sun.
After that, specific areas due to the change in the Earth's orbit and its angle of inclination and rotation, which is something that happens slowly over tens of thousands of years in fluctuations.
And it is researched and it is empirical and it is measured 100%.
Unlike this nonsense.
And if and when the water level rises, it will be western countries that will suffer more because there are many western cities on the waterfront.
New York for example.
and sea level information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Avi:
I don't know who your words were directed at in response 18, but if they were directed at me, then they are not accurate.
Note: Talk about the contribution of the arctic glaciers.
The reader understands that to this is added the contribution of the South Pole glaciers (Antarctica) which is not included in the calculation.
The sea glaciers in the North Pole simply will not raise the sea level.
That's why I raised the hypothesis that there was talk of more than that and Assaf did confirm it and said that he was talking about the Arctic Circle and not the North Pole itself.
The Arctic Circle already includes a lot of land as you can see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Circle
It would still be nice if a link to the article was provided.
R.H.:
An increase of one meter in the average sea level will force tens of millions of people to leave their homes.
In India alone, I once read, there are 40 million people.
And only with one meter.
It is assumed that the number will increase a lot if we are talking about a meter and a half.
Information about the retreat of the glaciers:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm
R.H. - Type "carbon dollars" in Google and you will also understand why the over rating...
Here is a classic example of the king being naked
Antarctica The ice is increasing (and the amount of snow has also doubled) - but the warming rabbis are quibbling
and squirm, all in order not to look reality in the eyes.
Long live the model!!
http://news.discovery.com/earth/antarctic-sea-ice-growth.html
Somehow there is a feeling that the warming and the melting of the glaciers are getting a huge over rating. Is this really humanity's most serious problem? Let's assume that the article's prediction is correct and by the end of the century the sea will rise by one and a half meters. Wow, even the height of the fence on the promenade in Tel Aviv is a little higher than that. So in a "perfect" storm as they say the waters have passed, Big Deal. Moreover, suppose we accept the argument and fight with all our might the aforementioned meltdown, invest billions, destroy all factories, stop driving cars on gasoline and start flying in hot air balloons, then what? The sea will rise by 75 cm instead of XNUMX meters. Is it worth it?
I'm not saying that warming isn't a problem, of course it is. I just think there are things a little more critical and a little more solvable such as the atomic armament of some disturbed countries, diseases, wars, famines and earthquakes that claim thousands of lives a year. Somehow in recent years we have been made to think that warming is the biggest disaster that can happen and it is not.
I'm sorry if I sounded offensive. To be honest, from reading Blizovsky's comments, I thought this was the accepted style of speech on the site.
With the victims the forgiveness.
Tiktalik - those "sages" you quote interest me on a level between last year's snow and garlic peel.
One and only - do you think you're that smart? Have you heard of Derech Eretz???
And the sages have already said: "A wise student who does not have a way of the earth, is a good scoundrel in our right hand"
About the huge current (135 million cubic meters per second!) that surrounds Antarctica (and of course between the oceans) here is an amazing link:
http://www.antarcticacup.com/x_archive.CFM
V. Doc - the main cause of sea level differences between the oceans is eddy current rotation and inertia... the whole debate revolves around the fact that the melting of the sea glaciers does not add water to the system and therefore will not affect the sea level. See, Archimedes.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
: )
For those interested, information about the height differences between the oceans, and the reasons for them http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/faqs/
In addition, it is important to understand that sea level is ***not*** a static figure, and also that there is a strong flow between the oceans, especially around Cape Horn and Cape of Good Hope.
The meaning, one and only, is that if we add water to this dynamic system, it is quite possible that the difference between the oceans will be preserved (and maybe increase or decrease, the dynamics are very complex), but it is certainly possible to expect that the average level will rise.
By the way, when we talk about sea level rise we are definitely talking about the average level, which is also affected by the regime of winds, currents, waves and so on.
In addition. Global warming causes not only an increase in the average, but, more seriously, an increase in volatility. That is, there may be days of deep low tide, and days with higher than average waves. For example, the destruction in Tel Aviv port this year. The docks were designed, of course, not according to sea level, but according to an expectation of a certain wave height. One "perfect storm" was enough to jump over the breaker and wreak havoc.
A small request from all correspondents: invent Google, Wikipedia, and even in Hebrew. Links and links to all of these are just a click away. Instead of hitting the keyboard in anger, provide links that support your position, and the discussion will focus on assumptions, facts, and not personality traits.
The request is addressed to the respondents as well as the authors.
Thanks.
A. Blizovsky - do you have a link? I've never heard of the site you claim all your opponents come from.
The reference to the Panama Canal is the huge difference between sea level on the Atlantic side and the height on the Pacific side... I thought a great scientist like you knew about that. By the way, if you don't understand why, this also explains why you don't understand that sea glaciers - that is, the North Pole - cannot raise the sea level if they melt...
Also, this is my first time commenting here. Please, find relevant arguments in response to your opponents.
Regarding the South Pole there are other studies that I have already written about, I just casually mentioned that the problem concerns both poles.
The Panama Canal is a fresh water canal, so its height is irrelevant.
And by the way, don't be calm, the warming is a phenomenon that is already felt, you don't have to wait for the future to feel it. Even we feel it here in the late winter and its shortening.
And you with the alternating nicknames, do yourself a favor, go back to a different truth site (ie some lie) and leave the site that gives real news in peace.
After reading your comments I am calmer. It is clear that you have not yet reached "final conclusions" on the matter.
A. Blizovsky - Where did you find one word about the South Pole?
The expression "cherry picking" suits both sides of the debate. In short, every time you discuss the subject, you sound more jealous and delusional.
A. Blizovsky - According to you, the sea level is the same all over the world?????? - Hahahaha - Have you heard of the Panama Canal, clown?
Gentlemen
It is true that there is a mistake in the nomenclature,
instead of "the melting of the glaciers in the North Pole".
There should be a melting of glaciers in the North Pole.
It doesn't matter, the oceans all over the planet are connected.
http://amap.no/Conferences/Conf2011/abstracts.pdf
Avi:
Antarctica is at the South Pole.
The current article is about the North Pole.
What is important is not what is usually talked about, but what those 400 researchers talked about, and this can only be learned from their report.
Is there a link maybe?
Someone is completely wrong:
Archimedes' law is the law that says that a body floating on the surface of water repels water equal to its weight.
In other words - the volume it occupies from the body of water is exactly equal to the volume that water of the same weight would occupy.
In even more other words - since ice is water, and since it floats on water (because its specific weight is lighter than theirs), then the amount of water it repels (ie - the volume it occupies below the surface of the water) is equal in volume to the amount of water that will be obtained from it when it melts.
It reminds me of a puzzle that many people fail to solve.
Let's say we have a swimming pool in which a boat is floating with many rocks in it.
The rocks are dropped from the boat into the pool.
Will the water level in the blessing rise or fall?
Especially talking about Greenland and of course Antarctica
Someone, I offer you the following experiment, in the comfort of your own home:
Take a glass, drop an ice cube into it (to simulate the glaciers), fill it to the brim with water (to simulate the sea), and wait for the temperature to rise (global warming or not?)
If the water spills over the edge of the glass, hurry and report to all of us.
to me
The ice in the arctic glaciers accumulates to a height exceeding height
If the surface of the sea melts, the surface of all seas will rise - because this is the law of the combined vessels.
The conclusion: you don't have to believe in warming, but if these are your insights
And that's how your logic works, you should learn to swim!
Assaf, Avi and V. Doc:
There is indeed a problem with the presentation of things here.
I also pointed out in the past that only the melting of continental glaciers can raise the sea level.
That's right, my father, and your comment about it is wrong.
Looking at the Earth map, no continents are visible at the North Pole itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_pole
It may be that they calculated the amount of ice that would also melt in continental glaciers like Greenland, but the issue is worth checking.
If they were talking about the polar glaciers themselves, then turning them from ice to water will not lead to a rise in the sea level at all.
Fortunately, the house where I live is more than 150 cm above sea level.
I think instead of Dr. Rosenthal's favorite sentence:
"That instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment!"
It should be said let the environment control the human population, meaning let the events that happen determine who will survive and who will not.
The extreme change that is prophesied will identify those suitable for survival, after the flood there will be fewer people and those who remain will be wise after the fact.
I've already given up, especially after I found out that there is an instruction on another truth site to come here and harass every time there is an article on the topic of warming. The reason is not clear, does it bother them that there is one site where science does not compromise?
Father, this time you were wrong? Assuming the ice in question is floating, the water level will indeed remain the same. That's why my whiskey on the rocks doesn't wet the table ;-).
On the other hand, this is a false assumption. A significant part of the glaciers is on land, so when the water stored in them melts, it will reach the sea and the atmosphere, causing the level to rise.
I return to my (excited!) call to the culture of discussion: the banter itself causes deafness even when it defends just claims.
and. Doc - Patience and persuasiveness are no match for conspiracy theorists. Their head, as you can see from many comments on the site, is completely sealed.
Witness, the melting water becomes part of the water of the sea. What floats is the rest of the ice. Is the head of the deniers so closed off that they disrupt even Archimedes' law?
LOL.
"The authoritative report written by 400 scientists and published following the conference shows that the melting of the glaciers in the north pole Add to the sea level rise up to 150 cm by the end of this century"
I would be happy to see how the authoritative report disproves Archimedes' law, a direct consequence of which is that melting ice that floats on the surface of the water does not raise its level. exciting.
Everyone wants simple songs
Songs in two chords
They all require simple words
They don't tell me anything
(Shlomo Groenich)
-
Indeed, it seems that Rosenthal and others are trying to hold both ends of the stick: both to preach with religious fervor about the urgent need to change human behavior (who said there is no global warming?) and, alas, to rely on science and its slow methods to upset.
Why isn't the leap of faith finally coming that will shut down one of the factories and power stations, suffocate smoky chimneys, and ground fishing fleets? Why should it be explained to the interests that they must give up their livelihood for the sake of the survival of future generations? Why is it necessary to isolate the variables that cause warming, in a Sisyphean scientific work, which includes the debate and testing?
Why isn't everyone - the oil tycoons, fishermen and rice harvesters alike, convinced to stop - today! – What are they doing?
—–
In short, environmentalists must muster patience, persuasiveness and intellectual honesty in order to succeed in changing human material culture, in order to moderate harmful trends and in order to increase the chances of improvement.
For Haimka, for every glacier that grows, there are a hundred smaller ones. I haven't checked your claims (regarding Antarctica I know it's simply not true, there is a small area that cools while the rest heats up and even causes glaciers to melt and break away from the big ice block), but even if we go big and assume it's true, then it's a typical cherry picking of Global warming deniers.
Trending chatter. The day they investigate the funding sources of Greenpeace and the like, an industry that profits billions from "warming" will be discovered.
You "forgot" to tell us what is happening at the South Pole:
More ice, much more snow and colder
Why is the Prito Moreno glacier in Argentina also growing?
Why are the glaciers in New Zealand also growing?
Why are glaciers in the US also growing?
It's so ridiculous - we influence the weather..
Science as a political tool becomes the clothes of the naked king
what's next Are we affecting the moon's orbit?