Global warming: the horror scenario will arrive earlier than expected * A study published in Nature shows the urgency that should be given to solving the warming problem. The tropical regions are already suffering, and according to the authors of the report, in Israel we will feel the climate changes in 2038
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/PublicationsCopyRighted/Photos.html
The natural fluctuations in global temperatures often endanger the debate about the seriousness with which we must take it in dealing with the problem of climate change, but within 35 years, the monthly minimum temperatures will also be warmer than those we have experienced in the last 150 years. This is according to a new study that also included a massive analysis of all climate models.
The tropical regions will be the first to break historical records and will experience unrelenting heat waves that will threaten biodiversity and densely populated countries with the fewest resources to adapt to the changes.
Ecological and social disruptions occurring because of climate change are determined by the time frame it takes for the climate to change. Alkimo Mora and his colleagues in the School of Social Sciences in the Department of Geography at the University of Hawaii at Manoa developed this time frame.
The study, titled "The predicted timing of climate departure from current variability" was published yesterday, October 10, in the journal Nature. The paper provides a measure of the years in which the climate at any given point on Earth will move outside of the historical temperature records experienced in the last 150 years.
The new index reveals surprising results. Tropical areas are expected to predict the change first - already in the next decade. Under a 'business as usual' scenario, the index shows that an average point on the planet will experience extreme climate changes until 2047. Under a scenario of stabilization in greenhouse gas emissions, the disturbances will be felt in some areas only in 2069.
"The result shocked us. Regardless of the script, the changes will come quickly," says the lead researcher, Camilo Mora. "Even in my generation, any climate we're used to will be a thing of the past."
The scientists calculated the index for additional variables including evaporation, precipitation as well as sea surface temperature and ocean acidity. When we look at the level of surface acidity in the sea, the index reveals that we have passed the limit of the historical record recorded in 2008. This is consistent with other recent studies, and is explained by the fact that seawater acidity has a very narrow range of historical values and that the oceans have absorbed A significant part of the carbon dioxide emissions emitted by mankind.
The study also revealed that there is a significant impact of climate change on biodiversity and will occur not only as a result of global changes such as those occurring at the poles, but may be more urgent than small or rapid changes in the tropics.
Tropical species are not used to climate changes and are therefore more vulnerable to relatively small changes. The tropical region is where biodiversity is greatest both in the sea and on land. The tropical regions will experience climate change at least a decade before the rest of the world.
Previous studies have shown that corals and other tropical species now live in areas where they are forced to operate beyond their physiological limits. The researchers suggest carrying out conservation programs even in areas that are not declared as reserves and that are located in places where climate change will have an early effect precisely because most of the centers where the greatest diversity are located in developing countries.
Rapid changes will affect the functionality of the biological system and oblige species to either move to other places to follow a more suitable climate, stay and try to adapt to the new climate or become extinct. "This study illustrates that we are pushing the world's ecosystems out of the environment in which they evolved and into new conditions that they may not be able to cope with. Extinction would be a likely outcome," says Ken Caldeira from the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science, who is not involved in the research. "Some ecosystems may adapt, but others, for example coral reefs will disappear completely, and it is not about the extinction of one species but the entire fabric."
These changes will also affect social systems. The impact on the tropical areas will have global consequences because most of the world's population lives in them and it contributes significantly to the food supply and is home to most species on the planet."
In the developing countries, in 2050, over a billion people will live under an optimistic scenario, and five billion under a business-as-usual scenario in areas experiencing extreme climates. This raises concerns about changes in the supply of food and water, human health, a wider spread of infectious diseases, heat stress, conflicts, and challenges to farms. "The results show that countries that will be first affected by unprecedented climate change are the ones with the least ability to respond." says co-author Ryan Longman. "Ironically, these are the countries that are less responsible for climate change in the first place."
"The article is of great importance. It relies on previous research but also brings the biological and human implications into sharp focus." says Jane Lubchenko, former head of NOAA and now at the University of Oregon. "He connects the dots between the climate models and the impact on biodiversity in a fresh way, and illustrates the impact on species and humans."
While the study deals with global averages, the researchers illustrated their data using interactive maps that illustrate when climate change is expected to affect each point on Earth. "We hope that with this map, everyone will be able to know what is happening in their country (for the full table) The index uses the maximum and minimum temperature data for the years 1860-2005 to define the historical variability.
The scientists made a forecast for the next hundred years to identify when the temperature in any given place would exceed the limits of historical precedents, and defined this year as a year of climatic turning point. The data were taken from 39 climate models developed separately in 21 climate centers in 12 different countries. The model was able to predict the current climate conditions and for the future its margin of error is five years.
The researchers recommend that any development in slowing warming will require a greater commitment from developed countries to reduce emissions, but also more extensive funding for social programs and conservation programs in developing countries to minimize the effects of climate change. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to repair the damage. "The research results should not put us in a state of helplessness, but we must do everything to reduce emissions and reduce the rate of climate change. This will buy time for the species, the ecosystems and us to adapt to the expected changes." says a teacher.
to the notice of the researchers
75 תגובות
Very very very scary! More than all the terrorists and attacks in the world! The earth will become a wasteland in decades to come or at the very least a place where life will be unbearably difficult. As soon as tropical places like India for example are automatically damaged they cannot contain life and therefore there will be 100 million refugees who will change the geopolitical map forever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApeIUzKLkuo
The livestock industry (cows only) produce more greenhouse gases than all the means of transportation in the world - cars, trains, ships, planes - all together. And soon the earth will die. Recycling at home but continuing to eat meat and milk is like recycling but driving a Jeep Hummer. Total opacity.
another one
So what you are doing is a tautology. You defined a bad person and explained why he is bad.
And I certainly agree that these tycoons are bad people, and there are no shortage of them.
There are all kinds of definitions for tycoons.
The problematic tycoon is the one who does not establish any company that does anything and only buys, borrows, leverages - and usually lends from one company that he controls to another company and many times loses money that is not his.
We have to see what can be done with this type.
If we are talking about large companies that do something, Microsoft, Intel, and - global companies - or large companies from Israel - then that is another story, and in any case it is not wise to tax such companies. Because they will simply leave, or not expand. And it's bad for everyone.
Miracles
What is a tycoon to you?
Miracles:
Imagine if there were ten times as many.
Today the situation is that as soon as there is one tycoon, he takes over the market and does not allow others to develop.
And that's the worst thing.
But not only that.
There are also other things.
In the Middle Ages, one count provided livelihood to tens of thousands of people.
Should we go back to the Middle Ages?
Abner is the wisest of all
I never claimed that climate models are simple. I claim that there is energy being added to the atmosphere due to man-made CO2 emissions.
There is no debate about this in science, because it is simple - just like I said. Obviously, those who deny reality need to tell stories: man does not emit CO2, CO2 does not absorb energy, the world is cooling down at all, the world is warming up because of the sun, it is actually good that the world is warming up, God will not let something bad happen, and so on.
Come on - what's your next story?
ב
How many people does Microsoft employ? how dark how much ford How much Boeing? How much is Larry Ellison? How much is Richard Benson? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
The logic of miracles strikes again. What simplicity. What determination!
We already said you should be able to run a climate model on a Commodore 64.
An amazing man.
There is no need to offer an alternative to question the theory,
It is enough to show that it does not work.
"I don't know" is a completely legitimate answer.
If the global warming models failed to predict the climate in the time period - then they were disproved.
There is no need to give them an alternative to replace them.
Yehuda Elide,
Thank you for the relevant reference to the topic I raised. I would be happy to answer you, without going into the environmental issue that interests the respected forum.
There is a very significant difference between Wagner and Aristotle, Lamarck and others. Aristotle tried to explain a phenomenon that we all know from a very young age. Lamarck was trying to explain another phenomenon we are all familiar with, and both were clearly wrong in the theory they developed. Wagner, on the other hand, discovered a phenomenon that was unknown to anyone. He examined evidence (fossils, mountain ranges, geological formations, etc.) and came to conclusions some of which were correct, such as that once upon a time all the continents were connected (and even invented the name "Pangaea"), and some of which were not. He did this at a time when it was clear to all scientists, and to every person from the settlement, that the continents were fixed and fixed. He proposed the possibility that the continents move (and this is also true) and the mechanism he proposed was fundamentally wrong. His very hypothesis that the continents move is an exciting innovation, which is supported by many evidences that cannot be ignored. Therefore, he is considered the father of the idea. When evidence for plate tectonics began to accumulate, the connection was immediate to continental drift thanks to all the evidence Wagner collected. If his entire theory were examined with a scientific eye, the mechanism he proposed should have been disqualified quite quickly, and that is what happened, but the facts he gathered would require consideration and perhaps the proposal of another theory for its existence.
Regarding warming as a result of human activity, I do not assume that their scientific basis is questionable at all and I certainly do not assume in advance that those dealing with the issue are partners in some kind of world-wide conspiracy. Really, really, no. There are many scientists, with a very respectable reputation and past, who are engaged in serious research and trying to find more and more about this tangible threat of global warming. To their credit, they are respected enough to present data and results, some of which, with a critical eye, raise questions. For example, there is a graph from quite a few years ago that shows the degree of accuracy of the information on each parameter and the degree of its influence on global warming. While the CO2 measurement was relatively very accurate, its effect on warming is relatively small compared to other parameters. On the other hand, measuring the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is problematic, so the range of error is huge, and their effect is much greater. So it turns out that within the margin of error it is possible to contain the entire effect of CO2. I assume that the IPCC assumes that this quantity does not change much over time, and this is a dangerous assumption for research.
What's more, the CO2 measurement cannot quantify the human contribution, as you think. There are huge receivers (and emitters) of CO2, such as the oceans and vegetation. The quantities they are able to absorb or release exceed the quantities that humans produce, and the measurement contains all factors together, including the human factor. The fact is that in drilling in the ice they have already found layers where the CO2 was at the high levels it is at today, before the beginning of human history.
I fear they may be making the same mistake as Wagner. The discovery of global warming is a very important step, and was also a scientific innovation. The basis of the scientific explanation is indeed the connection of the two simultaneous trends, from which they set out to collect evidence. It may be that the discovery is true, and its explanation is wrong.
The alternative theory is just as good, if you delve into it. There is excellent evidence for ice ages and intervening periods in which the amount of cosmic radiation rose and fell. Contrary to what the man on the street thinks, this is not only about our sun itself, although it also has an effect of course, but also about the results of supernovae. The passage of the solar system in the spiral arms of the galaxy and its movement up and down on the plane of the galaxy can be well calculated, as can the passage of huge amounts of supernovae in those places. They found an excellent match between times when we passed through those places and global warming (and CO2 increase) in ice cores drilled at the poles.
Those cosmic rays do not penetrate the atmosphere of our sphere, but when they arrive with high enough energy, high-energy muons reach the ground, and along the way ionize the air and create a more fertile ground for condensation nuclei. These in turn create a cloud where without the ionization, it would not develop. These low clouds are very effective in heating the air.
All this on one leg. I was very happy to hear about the experiment at CERN because it will greatly contribute to finding supporting or refuting evidence for this theory. Just as science is supposed to work.
Of course, there are also charlatans who do not meet the conditions you ask for (and rightfully so) to offer an alternative, but those who do meet the requested standards, deserve serious consideration.
Miracles:
You are making gross math errors.
1) The tycoons do not provide jobs. They are just taking over existing jobs.
2) If you accept good or bad without trying to improve the good and eliminate the bad, then why are you even reacting?
You could just as well say: scientists do research, right or wrong, that's what happens.
3) It can be proved mathematically that the smallest risk is the risk that falls on the tycoon.
I'll just give a small example:
Suppose:
a) An investment of one million shekels is required for a certain business.
b) A person who has a million shekels invests in the business.
c) A person who has one hundred million shekels invests in a business.
If the business fails then:
The person who invested a million shekels, which is all his money, lost all his money and will not be able to recover from the blow.
The person who invested a million shekels, which is one percent of his money, will also lose a million shekels, but will not feel the force of the blow at all. He will be able to recover immediately and invest in other businesses that will generate profits that will cover this loss.
Michael
Pay attention to safkan's "logic". He says that weather is chaotic and therefore long-term forecasting is impossible. Therefore - forecasters, who are unable to predict what will happen in a week - are the ones who claim that they know for sure that there is no warming.... Watts, for example, is like that.
safkan - the basis of the warming "conspiracy" is simple. Man emits CO2 ==> CO2 absorbs energy ==> the climate warms. that's it. Oh...and we've been seeing it for decades.
ב
You are so consumed with hate that your image is messed up. You are just talking nonsense.
The tycoons provide most of the jobs in the world. Increasingly, companies are consolidating into behemoths that employ hundreds of thousands. Good or bad, that's what happens.
The tycoons risk their money a lot. I don't know a single tycoon who hasn't taken risks all his life.
Some tycoons are bad people. Right. But most criminals in the world are not tycoons.
What is not clear?
The funds that the government invests come from the public. They need to go back to the public.
It is forbidden for the public to invest and the businessmen to reap the fruits of the investment.
In particular, tycoons must not be allowed to take over the market and paralyze the competitive ability of the free market.
Spring.
Dismiss your argument against the division of roles in development (the government does basic development, businessmen do the development of profitable applications for the basic development). What are you complaining about? this is how it should be.
Only a government can invest massive funds for development without the intention of immediate profit; On the other hand, only business people can develop profitable applied products for the basic developments (because they are the experts in identifying profitable economic models).
for miracles:
1) The tycoon does not create jobs. On the contrary, he tries to pay less and hire fewer people.
2) The tycoon is the person who risks his money the least.
The tycoon not only does not risk his money like any average investor but also changes the rules of the game according to his needs so that in any case he only makes money. It's like a casino. In a casino, some people win and some lose, but the casino owner only makes money.
And here we received another response from the anti-Michael fanatic.
The funny thing is that he thinks the others are so stupid that they need to be told what to treat and what not to because they are unable to understand for themselves.
Zvika
Don't heed the warning from M.Y.C.A. that all those who doubt anthropogenic warming do not understand what they are talking about. His logic is goal oriented, if you carefully examine his logic you will discover the twists in his logic.
For example, check M-Y-K-A-L's criticism of Avner. Abner talked about how in chaotic processes (such as a complicated hydrodynamic flow, my example) that are defined by initial conditions and by current development formulas that are not accurate (for example, due to oversimplifications or due to lack of knowledge of all valid processes, my examples) — it is very easy to build a directed model to the result sought by the researcher. This is a well-known truth to anyone who has come across (for example) complicated physical models; Assuming that you have studied weather forecasting models, it can be assumed that you encountered this phenomenon of model fogging (which is why you said that it is almost impossible to reliably predict weather for more than 5 days in advance).
Therefore, M-Y-K-A-L's criticism of Avner shows how valuable his "logic" is. I don't know if Abner's word astrologers is successful, but it is good as a metaphor that describes goal-oriented research on processes that have a lot of room for maneuvering on models.
The thing with rich people - those who earn for example 10 million a year, is that they don't put the money under the covers - their money - or is used to buy things - and then it goes to other people - some less rich - or is invested in their business of some kind - which provides a livelihood.
In addition to this - a person who receives a salary or profits of 10 million - this means that there are people who feel that he is worth this money - this means that he is probably doing something that pays off - at least when it comes to employees and business owners.
No sane country in the world will give a 90 percent tax on the rich - the immediate result of such a tax will be that the rich will go to another country.
The reality is that starting from a certain percentage - the tax increase lowers the revenues and does not increase them. Because it hurts the economy.
If we make a massive cut in emissions, including taxes on what is produced abroad, there will be a significant decrease in the quality of life of the people of the first world, and an economic collapse in the rest of the world.
Which leads to political instability - which leads to chaos, wars, etc.
Not exactly, a book recently came out that talked about how all the inventions were developed with government money and the tycoons only gave the final touch. The prime example is the iPhone. Steve Jobs used and perfected technologies developed by the military (the Internet, GPS, etc.)
ב
Your section d) is problematic. Today, the tycoons (as you called them) create a great many jobs. Without the risk they take on, and without their business abilities - the public will have a problem.
A) There is no problem with the rich. There is a problem only with those who amassed their wealth while exploiting and trampling on others.
b) The rich usually don't pay. Those who pay are usually the middle class.
c) If some person has an income of 10 million dollars a year then even if he pays 9 million dollars he will still have a million dollars left every year. That means he will still be a multi-millionaire and live a prosperous life.
However :
If a person has an income of 100 thousand dollars and he pays 90 thousand dollars then he will be poor.
d) The public can exist and maintain a healthy and good economy even without tycoons. The tycoons cannot be tycoons without the public.
In an age where everything is becoming increasingly digital, things will be cheap and there will be enough for everyone. For example, can you return a digital song to the store?
Yes, then everything will be more expensive, and there will be less work. How clever!
And who will pay for everything? The "rich" of course, those who already pay most of the income from income taxes,
What is a few more, thousands of shekels, they wouldn't be called "rich" if they didn't have money.
Of course there is only one small problem, they really really don't have enough for everyone.
Because the economy doesn't work that way.
It is time to stop using Wagner's "continental drift" theory as proof that established science is incapable of accepting "breakthroughs" in the scientific paradigm. Wagner's theory has not been proven - what has been found is that the earth's crust is splitting and its different parts (the plates) move in relation to each other while the solid edges of the part and the contact lines between them sink and new land forms in places where liquid material emerges from the depths and pushes the plates to the sides. Wagner's soils are merely localized accumulations of solid matter, like foam on top of lumps of porridge simmering over low heat. Continents do not "sail across the oceans" as Wagner described it, and the universal opposition to his theory (despite the apparent evidence that no one else has purported to explain) is because it goes against everything we know for sure about physical motion. This is not unlike Aristotle's theory of the urge of heavy objects to return to their earthly origin. An incorrect theory to explain a phenomenon that no one argues with. or Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired traits. A theory that explains a known phenomenon in a wrong way. Inheritance is of traits that have survived natural selection. A small difference that makes all the difference.
In the case of the theory of warming as a result of human activity, there is more than just a connection between two simultaneous trends. We can calculate how much CO2 humanity produces, estimate the greenhouse effect that this amount will cause and come to the conclusion that it will be non-negligible, even in relation to all the uncertainty factors that enter the models. It is true that these are models that are difficult to analyze without being involved in all the technical details, and it is permissible to argue about the accuracy of the measured parameters that are supposed to anchor them to reality, but there is no reason to assume that their scientific basis is questionable. At least as long as you don't assume in advance that those dealing with the subject are partners in some kind of world-wide conspiracy.
To doubt is the sacred duty of every rational being, but to overthrow an imperfect theory you must propose a better theory. It does not seem to me that this condition is met in the second part of the argument.
Just as a duty is imposed on imported goods, it is also possible to impose a higher duty on goods that are produced in a polluting process.
another one:
So you should reduce (not stop all at once) buying products created in a polluting process. it's bad?
And this prophecy about the fact that instead of polluting factories that will be closed, more polluting and less supervised factories will be established is already really a joke. I don't intend to refer to her beyond a short military laugh: "Ha ha!"
another one:
If we were not restricted by the tycoons we would have behaved as you describe a long time ago.
In the past, humanity had a problem with kings, counts, and all kinds of "blue-blooded" nobles.
Nowadays the main problem lies with the tycoons.
In the past, the kings would plant people who would enthuse the crowd by shouting "Long live the king".
It didn't help the kings.
There are almost no kings these days.
And those who remained are not as dominant as they were.
Humanity is progressing, and there is no going back.
Michael Rothschild
I am also vegetarian.
Second thing,
I wonder what your definition of the rich is - because you will understand something - so that we can save a significant amount in the Fed. One should not only live on personal savings - one should also stop buying products created in a polluting process.
Our entire economy is full of industry that emits PAD. And all of this needs to be cut significantly.
Mainly you have to convince the Chinese to stay at a low standard of living and not to develop because they, India and Russia are the countries that increase significantly in GHG emissions. - and if you limit it only to the "rich" you won't get far,
Any polluting factory that closes here will be replaced by a more polluting factory that will be built in a place with less regulations.
Avner:
When you say "the comparison between climate science and elementary particle physics" do you mean the one that didn't exist? I mean - are you talking about Michael who was not (the one made of straw?)
You say "trust me, these models are not far from astrological predictions and all"
And why should we believe you?
Do you have any understanding on the subject? One that exceeds the understanding of climate scientists?
Zvika: I hope you're paying attention to what's going on here. You have to be careful with these companies because they have the right to choose.
another one:
I really have a solar system on the roof. I actually ride a bike a lot and the car I drive is a Toyota Prius.
I also use LED lights where possible and I am a vegetarian.
I really wish everyone behaved like this. Is that bad, do you think?
There is a difference between the absence of a carbon dioxide seal and its smallness. After all, I emit carbon dioxide in my breath and I don't expect anyone to behave differently.
The increase in electricity and gas prices will mainly affect those who use a lot of electricity and gas - that is, the rich. It is possible to define - as with water - a quantity up to which consumption is discounted and consumption above that is expensive, then only the rich will suffer.
If polluting factories are closed, non-polluting factories will be opened under them.
I wonder how you can ignore all this.
Avi Blizovsky
Very funny.
Michael Rothschild, b.
You live under the very mistaken illusion that government restrictions on PADF emissions will not have consequences for the general population, but only for oil tycoons.
You probably ride a bike to work. Generate solar electricity on the roof, and grow all your own food.
And expect all the rest of humanity to act the same way - because otherwise it's a bit unclear to me how you think you don't have them
"Carbon Dioxide Stamp" yourself.
Who do you think will suffer more from the increase in electricity prices - the poor or the rich? Who do you think will suffer more from the increase in fuel prices, the poor or the rich, in food prices?
And if polluting factories are closed - who will be fired, tycoons - or workers?
It's amazing how you can ignore all this.
another one:
I recognize 3 claims in your words:
1) Not everyone who calls himself a scientist is really a scientist.
2) The problem of the oil giants / capital.
3) The problem of benefit versus harm.
What all three things have in common is:
The benefit of society as a whole versus the personal benefit of those in power.
Indeed, as humanity develops, this question comes up again and again.
The more the culture improves, the more the public's ability to influence and care for the general benefit of society increases.
Another one, your words are words of taste. Michael Rothschild's logic stuck with me somewhere.
The comparison between climate science and the physics of elementary particles indicates the lack of internalization of the problems with climate research.
Climate scientists try to predict the future climate by all kinds of computational models.
Believe me, these models are not far from astrological prediction. why? Because the development over time of the model is completely dependent on minor changes in the value of the initial parameters
and \ or the lack of parameters that are not yet known.
So it turns out that it is possible to "order" the result of the model by concocting initial parameters whose value is definitely within the reasonable range, the forecast regarding their change is also within the reasonable range.
But within reasonable limits the model can be taken from end to end.
These climate models are not models of a protein molecule that operates based on the Schrödinger equation. These models are
black magick
And you are of course the one who determines who the scientists are who "have long since lost the understanding of how science should be studied".
There is no scientist in the world who says there is no room for doubt and further research.
The whole claim is about trying to sell the public an opinion that was not accepted by the scientific community.
Can you name one (one!) scientist who said there is no room for further research?
The bet I'm talking about is similar to Pascal's bet except for two important points:
One is that, after all, this is the majority opinion in the scientific community.
The second is that the sacrifice is really minimal (except for that of the oil gods who were indeed already caught in their missions to bias the research).
Another one, you are wrong there is an excellent climatic laboratory. It is called the planet Venus. If we don't do something, eventually we will reach temperatures of 500 degrees (even if it takes about a billion years - even a distant journey begins with one step).
I don't understand anything about mysticism and the mystics don't understand anything about it either.
The fact is that they do not have a single achievement to their credit and that is enough to convince them that they are charlatans.
----
That's exactly what I wrote.
-----
I don't look down on scientists because of my opinion, I do look down on politicians, and on scientists who long ago lost the understanding of how science should be studied. A scientist who says there is no room for doubt, that the issue has already been decided and any further research only confuses the public - has lost the honor of being called a scientist, as far as I'm concerned.
---
Regarding your pascal bet. (Which says that if the supporters are right, then something must be done, and if not, then no harm will be done.)
The problem is that many of the solutions that are proposed are solutions that themselves cause a lot of damage, economic damage that does not only harm the oil giants - but also everyone - whether it is an increase in energy prices, whether it is a move of factories to countries with less regulation, or whether it is an increase in food prices due to the use In biodiesel, not to mention the tax money that goes to all kinds of programs. - When a large part of these programs probably does not really save the Federal Tax Service in any way. - This takes a lot of attention from other polluters, who we know more about their damage.
So yes - there is real damage from treating the problem. And we haven't even really started, real actions to limit the Fed will be much more painful for many, many people - all over the world - and certainly not just the rich from the oil industry.
On the other hand - we have no reasonable estimate of the damage that will be caused as a result of the warming, which is somewhere between nothing and everything.
Therefore, in my opinion it is advisable to wait another 10-20 years and see what happens. Maybe even better solutions will be found by then.
Wai
I don't understand anything about mysticism and the mystics don't understand anything about it either.
The fact is that they do not have a single achievement to their credit and that is enough to convince them that they are charlatans.
The situation with climate science and those involved in it is different and you are welcome to read Tzvika's words and see that he is all in all against the disdain for scientists who deny the theory and not for disdain for those who oblige it (which are the majority).
Things get mixed up with you and that's what bothers me.
Still as a layman you have to decide how to act and therefore the layman must also decide what is the position based on which he will act.
In deciding which position to act on, one must take into account - on the one hand - the degree of support for it in the professional community and, on the other hand, the assessment of the damage that will be caused by supporting the second position.
Here - beyond the clear statistical tendency in favor of those who mandate warming, one must take into account the consideration that if they are right and we do not adopt their recommendations, the earth will be destroyed, while if the deniers are right and we do not adopt their decisions, nothing dramatic will happen
I'm not comparing scientists to mystics - I'm referring to the reaction of lay people:
You don't understand anything about mysticism or horoscopes (I'm guessing) and if you do you know enough to know it's bullshit.
Why?
Because you can understand that there is no correlation between what is written in the horoscope in the newspaper (or any other horoscope) and reality. – that is, the predictions are disproved in a very large percentage of cases. If all the evidence says that astrology doesn't work, you don't really need to understand why it doesn't work.
Just like you don't have to understand why homeopathy doesn't work to understand that it doesn't work.
And now in the case of real science:
A drug that has been studied by a real pharmaceutical company, that has a real active ingredient - if it doesn't work and statistically has the same effect as a placebo - then you can also assume that it probably doesn't work.
-----
You don't need 100% knowledge to not accept a certain theory.
It is enough to understand how science goes. And the reality is that the models that were given mostly did not come close to the reality that occurred after they were given, that the official forecasts of the IPCC Nobel Prize winning organization range from a rise of 1.5 degrees - up to 4 degrees per FDH doubling - and they have been in this place for a long time. (Nir Shabiv's diagnosis - search his blog).
because you can see
Michael Rothschild,
I also agree with everything you wrote, and I also go with the consensus in other areas where my knowledge is negligible, such as the big bang theory, or the Higgs boson and the standard model. I have no other tools than to read what the majority of scientists decide is true.
Also, it is absolutely clear that most theories that go against the accepted, and especially by those who are not knowledgeable in the field, fall at the end of the day and are proven wrong.
My personal interest in the whole issue is the anti-scientific attitude of the scientific community on this sensitive issue when scientists come who are not at all questionable, with proven abilities and claim otherwise. I really have no idea who is right and it seems that only time and further experiments will lead to a more conclusive proof. In my opinion, the ideal science is conducted with the tools that science has defined, and here there is a gross deviation, at least in my opinion.
I have no interest in convincing any of the commenters who are not from the field of the correctness of these or other claims. I just recommend keeping an open and critical mind.
To summarize, it seems to me that on the whole we pretty much agree with each other.
Zvika:
I guess you already understand who you are friends with (you astrologer 🙂 )
If you are comparing climate scientists to astrologers I see no reason to continue the discussion with you
a question:
Will you accept the consensus of the astrological community?
Much of the world is religious, will you accept his expertise?
You should make up your own mind based on the information you are exposed to.
If they want to convince you to support one action or another - and in this case they want to convince the government more than you - then they need to be convinced with tools that even those outside the field will understand.
Those who understand a little about science - know how an experiment takes place, and know that in such a field as climate there is a problem - because there is no laboratory, and there are no large enough controls, and there is not enough time - to test such a theory. - but it is still possible to give a forecast - and the reality is that the range that the IPCC gives is very large.
And it is important to emphasize one more thing:
It is precisely those who go against the consensus and manage to prove their claims that gain fame.
Scientists therefore have a strong interest in going against the consensus and not becoming part of it.
another one:
And who is to judge if the information is good?
After all, this is information that the scientists themselves have collected, and not the layman will judge whether it is good.
Therefore, in the end, the correct behavior from the point of view of the layman is to accept the consensus of the expert community and I emphasize again: he has no other logical way to act as long as he does not become part of the expert community.
The claim that there is a mobilization here for economic reasons is baseless because the economic reasons (and the economic resources that accompany them) are in a huge disproportion in favor of those who are interested in the continued use of fossil fuels and anyone who tries to paint the opposite picture is wrong (at best) and misleading (in any case).
Michael Rothschild
Basically, it goes like this. There are different degrees of the laity. There is a difference between someone who has no idea what critical thinking is. For those who have
So I'll put it this way, in science, opinion isn't worth much if it's not based on good observations.
This is because scientists don't come to their conclusions on their own, they base them on previous research.
They are in a certain atmosphere. And they have a reason to want to support a theory that fits what they were taught, and what those who are responsible for giving them stability believe in.
They have a reason to support what they are given budgets from the UN. And they have good reason not to rule out research that they have already invested decades and reputations in. As soon as I have good reason to believe that the situation is like this, that politics has taken over the discussion - majority and minority completely cease to be a factor.
Because a healthy doubt is always in place in science, and whoever rejects doubt is not a scientist. I am already inclined to the "other side" of the debate.
Regardless, the other side's claims (not all the claims, the serious claims) seem more consistent to me overall.
------
Regardless, the relevant question in the end is what we should do. Or more precisely, is there room for a government policy to limit emissions, and what kind of policy.
The reality is that a large part of the methods that have been tried did not really lower PAD emissions in any way, but did enrich all kinds of new pockets, one of the biggest nonsense is probably the corn fuel subsidy, which was really good for the corn growers and the politicians who receive support from them - but did not really help the environment, And also made sure to raise food prices all over the world.
Another example is the promotion of hybrid and electric cars whose total pollution - especially in battery production - probably reduces and perhaps even eliminates any environmental damage they may be saving - mainly because it is difficult to quantify the damage of PADH.
---------
In short, this is mobilized science, and I tend to be very suspicious in such a situation.
Zvika:
I agree with everything you wrote, but I would like to draw your attention to several facts that you did not address:
1. Most of the commenters here on the site are not professionals in the field they are commenting on in general and on the topic of warming in particular. You are really exceptional at this. Therefore, most of those who deny (here on the site) the theory of anthropogenic warming (as well as those who support it) do not really know what they are talking about. And yet - in such a situation, only the behavior of those who support it is logical because, in the absence of the necessary knowledge, all the layman can do is believe that the probability that the majority of the experts is right is higher than the probability that the minority is right. This brings me to the second point:
2. Although there are indeed examples of cases in which the widespread acceptance of correct assumptions was delayed due to the unwillingness of scientists to listen to someone who is not considered an expert or to someone who makes claims that overturn the consensus, still - there are many more cases where an opinion that was put forward and did not correspond to the scientific consensus and was rejected because of this - was proven in the end of something as wrong.
This criticism, which rejects things that do not agree with the existing knowledge, is altogether a positive and even essential thing for the scientific enterprise. I assume you are not opposed to the idea of peer review and you cannot change the fact that peers are also ultimately only human.
Miracles.
There is a small problem here.
You are asking me for a reference to a serious article that deals with the subject.
And anyone who contradicts what you think is the truth - you are delusional as a charlatan.
How can I then give you such a referral?
There are warming graphs that if you only look at the last 17 years, and completely ignore the years that came before, you will not see any significant warming.
In the last 13 years it will be more significant.
.
I liked Tzvika's response.
The problem is that religious people (the religion of global warming by man) such as Nisim and Avi Blizovsky are not open to different opinions.
I just wanted to add (because my previous response was not long enough...) that unfortunately, history is full of examples of scientists who swam against the current of consensus and were finally proven right. Like Schechtman with his quasi-periodic crystals.
He received a lot of criticism and a contemptuous attitude from the senior scientists in the field, who did not agree to test his results in purely scientific experiments. Fortunately, he persisted in his views and finally also managed to convince the scientific community (after a number of its senior leaders retired or died) of his diagnoses, which were confirmed by other scientists, and led to the Nobel Prize.
Or the discovery of continental drift by Alfred Wagner, who was an astronomer and meteorologist in general. He noticed identical fossils in identical geological layers between different continents. Since he was out of the field, all the geologists dismissed his findings with the same disdainful wave of the hand, but after he found more and more proofs, it was impossible to ignore this theory, which over the years became plate tectonics.
Who knows how many more important discoveries were shelved because the consensus thought differently and made sure to shake off and reject those who think differently. It's a shame for me to think about scientific progress that was stopped because of power struggles, ego and politics rather than purely scientific motives.
Dear Nissim,
It is evident from your answer that you are not knowledgeable about climate, greenhouse gases and cosmic radiation. If I were you, I would be careful and think twice before I would call charlatans geophysicists and research physicists with decades of research and studies, and call people you don't know and who know one or two things more than you on the subject, fools.
Let's start with the fact that CO2 does not "absorb energy from the sun", as you say. The energy from the sun comes in short waves that do not count the CO2. The radiation emitted by the Earth is long-wave radiation, and some of it is returned by the CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the Earth instead of being emitted into space, just as the transparent nylon in greenhouses, and your car's windshield do (hence the "greenhouse effect").
The thing is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with the lowest efficiency compared to other greenhouse gases such as water vapor (especially in low clouds), or methane. A tiny addition of water vapor to the atmosphere is equivalent to a huge addition of CO2 in terms of changing global warming, and scientists from the IPCC will confirm this to you.
We will continue with the fact that the entire theory of warming as a human product (and there is warming, measured, proven and also stopped in the last 15 years) is based on one graph of the increase in CO2 versus the increase in temperature. And there is no doubt that they are relatively expensive together. What Svensmark and others are saying is that cause and effect are not clear from this graph. Unfathomable amounts of CO2 are stored in the oceans, and when they warm up - they release some of it into the atmosphere. There are places in the famous graph where the measured warming stops for several years, while the CO2 continues to rise. It is easy to explain this by the shockingly slow response of the oceans to temperature changes in the Earth (like any large body of water, like for example the Mediterranean Sea is cold at the beginning of summer and warm in autumn). On the other hand, the graph of the measured cosmic radiation intensity against the measured temperature is much more accurate, with much fewer misses.
There will always be misses, for whatever factor you choose, because temperature changes are caused by a large number of factors and processes and positive and negative feedbacks. Therefore, all IPCC models deserve skepticism. As a climatologist, any model beyond 5 forecast days is problematic in my view and has low chances of prediction success, especially models for 100 years. The historical fact is that all models have missed stopping warming in the last 15 years.
Is CO2 the cause leading the warming or a result of it? This is a question that requires scientific consideration and not dismissing it with a dismissive wave of the hand.
You wrote "There is no group of scientists here who challenge the scientific consensus based on experiments and thinking. There is a collection of charlatans here..." I invite you to go to Wikipedia and search for the entry "Henrik Svensmark", to read about his research, and especially about the CLOUD experiment that is currently taking place at CERN, after passing countless committees for its approval (and at the same time to see the graph of cosmic radiation versus temperature in hundreds of millions recent years). The experiment is based on another experiment that showed good results in Denmark (SKY). I know you won't read "The Cooling Stars", but the claims made there are completely scientific, backed up by experiments and can be refuted by other experiments and other pointed questions. And he also raises the same difficult questions himself and tries to answer them in the best tradition of scientific debate.
And no, I don't think all scientists "lie". There is a legitimate debate between different scientific concepts that should be held in the scientific playground - that is, proofs and refutations based on experiments and observations. What happens in practice is what infuriates me, when those who "dare" to think differently are academically ostracized and called charlatans without examining their claims in depth (and here the comparison with Christianity in dark times).
I want to emphasize, because they are trying to present it differently, that there is a huge difference between the debate about the global warming factor and non-scientific debates like the "creationists" versus the "Darwinists". In the case of evolution, it started out as a theory and today it is the theory of evolution because it stood the test of time of millions of supporting observations, from diverse and different fields, and not a single scientific evidence that contradicts it. The creationists raise stupid questions, which have simple answers in the theory of evolution, and the alternative they give is that "there is a God". This claim cannot be confirmed or refuted, so it is not a scientific claim. Contrary to this, in the debate about the warming factor "there is meat" purely scientific.
And regarding your last paragraph, at the time I studied at the School of Environmental Studies at Tel Aviv University, and believe me it is sad to see what the human race is doing to its environment, not out of evil but out of the huge amounts of resources we are using due to the insane population growth. All the above debate does not contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions, clean and renewable energy, rehabilitation of streams and rivers (China is on the verge of collapse regarding drinking water), etc. We will all suffer from it in the future if we don't change our ways.
another one
The green blog is a hodgepodge of nonsense, lies, quotes taken out and their context and lack of understanding of studies.
Their homepage says there has been no warming in the last 17 years. It's just a lie.
What do you mean by this stupid site??
There is a whole series of articles on the green blog about the hockey stick, some of them also have links to the relevant studies or books.
You have to stop this nonsense if the climate, it has become embarrassing... some sense please after all this is supposed to be a serious site. Most of your surfers are sensible people who are not looking for this kind of nonsense
another one
Please direct me to an article that disproves the stick.
I'm pretty sure the hockey stick has already been largely debunked.
---
Wait, when did I call them liars?
You are allowed to disagree with Nir Shabib without calling him a liar - but I am not allowed?
Since when is science a democracy?
jubilee
In my opinion, an excellent idea - except that Israel is very small, and the effect of the trees will be very small, compared to what happens with our nice neighbors.
Will planting trees everywhere possible in Israel (including house roofs) lower the temperatures here?
The trees absorb the sun's radiation and store it in organic compounds.
The trees also break down carbon dioxide.
what do you think?
another another
I think Nir Shabib is wrong. Of course I have no idea about his research. You must understand him deeply. But, the hockey stick, which is an indisputable fact, does not match any increase in cosmic radiation in the last few decades.
Beyond that, Nir Shabiv is a scientist and his opinion is legitimate. What is not legitimate is trying to show that there are 2 equal opinions in the world. That is not the case. There are very few scientists who claim that the emission of C02 by man does not contribute anything to warming.
What you are doing is calling 97% (probably more) of climate scientists liars. Does this really make sense to you??
The solution is to deprive all the capitalists of the capital and distribute it to the public equally and fairly.
Miracles,
You happen to Nir Shabib, charlatan?
Second thing, the rate of warming, decreased a lot in the last decade, decade and a half, even the IPCC addressed it, as far as I understood.
You are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to facts. I don't know of a single data set that talks about an acceleration in the rate of warming. Not on this site either.
Judith Carey published yesterday and today (October 9th and 10th) two responses concerning the disputed article by mora and co. (the article about warming in tropical areas in the next fifty years). Below is a link to her response from yesterday and from there there is also a link to her response today.
judithcurry.com/2013/10/09/time-of-emergence-of-a-warming-signal/
For those who don't know - Judith Carey is a very respected climate researcher in Georgia, United States, she is the head of an academic research institute of climate science or something like that. Judith Carey opposes the accepted theories about anthropogenic global warming and she also opposes the destructive political role of the IPCC.
The name of her blog is CLIMATE ETC, her name in English is JUDITH CURRY. You can use these words to reach her blog through Google.
Another one and Zvika
There are three very simple facts.
The first is that CO2 absorbs energy from the sun.
The second is that humans emit incredible amounts of CO2. For example - a 747 emits something like 500 tons of CO2 on a flight to the USA. It's one plane…. And consider that airplanes emit 2% of all the CO2 that humans emit.
The third is that we measure both an increase in the CO2 concentration as well as a change in the weather gauge (warming).
The rate of warming is increasing - therefore anyone who talks about cosmic radiation is just talking...
In terms of the sun - we are supposed to be in a cooling period.
Now - add to that an amazing collection of blatant lies from deniers... Don't know, you have to be a moron to think that (almost) all scientists are lying….
What does it have to do with Christianity? This is not a group of scientists challenging the scientific consensus based on experiments and thinking. There is a collection of charlatans here, at least some of whom are heavily funded by dubious parties.
The average weather today is different than it was when I was a child. I know this from a large number of countries in the world. During a person's lifetime the world's population triples. Like I said, you'd have to be an idiot to think that there's no environmental cost.
Miracles,
What is done to skeptics about the human factor in global warming can be compared to what Christianity did to a considerable number of scientists.
Let's start with the fact that the IPCC is a panel of respected scientists that there is no chance that anyone who thinks differently from them will set foot on it. Therefore, the range of opinions in it is remarkably homogeneous. Being a climate researcher myself, I have already seen how people with other opinions are slandered and called derogatory names during their lectures at scientific conferences (yes, they are also scientists themselves) without referring to their words.
Add to this the laundry of words of the "warming deniers" against the "serious scientists" and a somewhat religious phenomenon is created here of worshiping an idea and rejecting other possibilities without factual and scientific reference. This boils me, because as a complete atheist I thought all the time that this is what science is allowed from religion. It is permissible to doubt the popular opinion and bring supporting evidence.
I myself am not a great expert on the matter and still do not know who is right. I know and have also studied the claims of the people of the human factor. But I also read articles by Shabib and I read the book "The cooling stars" by Henrik Svensmark, and in them there are scientific claims by real scientific researchers (Svensmark has decades of research behind him) regarding the role of cosmic radiation in the rapid warming of the earth (and yes, they do not "deny ” that there is warming, just think that there are other and more influential factors than CO2 for that rapid warming).
Apparently his claims have finally fallen on more open minds and he has an experiment in the CERN accelerator to prove his claims and show that high energy particles ionize the air and lead to the creation of low cloudiness (and heating as a result). Not every Arachi Farhi gets an experiment in the world's largest accelerator.
Therefore, one should not worship one theory. You have to read claims and supporting evidence of each side and decide who is right and who is wrong. Personally, I am in a situation where I have no idea who is right. But I certainly wouldn't call serious scientists "warming deniers".
Miracles.
The field is called physics.
Anyone who is a physicist is in the field.
And anyone who has a real education can see problems in some of the claims and understand between a good claim and a bad one. - at least up to a certain level.
One of the things that must be understood in science is that no matter how good a theory is, it is worth nothing without the ability to make verified predictions.
Build a model, then put it to the test if the test is good enough - then there is confirmation for the theory.
That is, the entire model depends on having a good forecast for the climate situation, which will turn out to be correct within a time frame.
At the moment, as far as I understand, this has not happened.
The IPCC gives a fairly wide range of warming. Between something that can be tolerated and something quite catastrophic.
This means that in the end, our knowledge is very limited. Indeed, there is persecution and hostility in many academic institutions and the scientific press, for opinions that deviate from the mainstream - even if they predict warming within the framework that the IPCC itself includes.
Serious skeptics like Nir Shabib, definitely say that there is probably a low sensitivity that would give a warming in the neighborhood of one degree or a degree and a half in the last century or that it seems possible.
The problem is that a lot of politics has entered the system and instead of researching science, scientists are busy trying to save the world - and any research that contradicts them endangers humanity, so skeptics have become "deniers".
By and large I lean towards the skeptical side because their arguments often seem more consistent.
another one
How do you know researchers have a penchant for the dramatic? You always assume something, and fit the evidence to your assumptions. I can't figure out why. When I researched the claims of the global warming deniers myself, I came across all kinds of people that this is not their field. When I researched the claims of the supporters of global warming, I came to many research institutes and people that this is exactly their field of research and knowledge.
I don't understand why it's different for you. what did i miss
Because I don't think it's possible to appreciate something like that.
And I know that there are many researchers with a tendency to drama in the field.
her daughter
Where did this figure come from?
It is possible that the coral reefs will begin to develop in the more northern areas, or in areas with cold currents. Regarding heat waves in the cities of Israel, perhaps the problem can be mitigated. In the establishment of urban parks, because vegetation and water bodies are known to merge.
The direct reason for the warming of the weather is the extensive use of air conditioners. After all, no scientist who predicts the warming will stop using the air conditioner, but on the contrary, will equip himself with another one, so as not to suffer from the heat. As the poet said: "They shoot and cry".
safkan
And that's all you have to say? mummy?
another one
Why do you dismiss any research that contradicts your personal opinion, which is not based on any other research?
The research itself will only be available for another six months.
And I can't get data out of the site.
There are many models that lose their relevance over time and there is really no meaning to the average of different models - at least it is not clear to me why there should be meaning.
I don't think there is enough knowledge on the subject to be able to give such an assessment.
You have a link to the pictures and the tables of the cities, you can click on any change you want in these links and you will get a lot of additional information. Nature is not the newspaper that published about the creatures from space, you can trust them.
"The data was taken from 39 climate models developed separately in 21 climate centers in 12 different countries. The model was able to predict the current climate conditions and for the future its range of error is five years."
-
39 different models that predicted the current climate conditions? I don't know it.
I saw a set of models. And only one somehow gets closer - and didn't really predict anything either.
The truth?
All this research sounds like bullshit.
It would be nice if there was also an explanation here as to how they reach this conclusion, after all a scientific site.
What a fear, Imla.
The scientists are afraid that their research budgets for scare articles will be cut.
Since the destruction of the Temple, prophecy has only been given to fools.
Ask the former chief scientist at the Ministry of Education Gabi Avital and he will reassure you, there is nothing to be said here